| Page Range | 42373-42705 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 42397 - Performance Specification 18-Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources | |
| 80 FR 42397 - Thiabendazole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions | |
| 80 FR 42462 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 80 FR 42486 - Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan From Burlington, North Dakota Through Minot, North Dakota | |
| 80 FR 42491 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 42490 - Application for Presidential Permit; ITC Lake Erie Connector Project | |
| 80 FR 42489 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License | |
| 80 FR 42488 - Annual Notice of Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program on or After July 1, 2013 | |
| 80 FR 42558 - UniStar Nuclear Energy Combined License Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 | |
| 80 FR 42509 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42554 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 | |
| 80 FR 42434 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meetings and Webinars | |
| 80 FR 42612 - Renewal of the Charter of the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance | |
| 80 FR 42611 - Proposed Collection of Information: States Where Licensed for Surety | |
| 80 FR 42497 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 42497 - Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42529 - Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (WPA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 246 (WPA Sale 246); MMAA104000 | |
| 80 FR 42550 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 42400 - Distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), Heavy, C18 | |
| 80 FR 42610 - Proposed Renewal; Comment Request; Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Precious Metals, Precious Stones, or Jewels | |
| 80 FR 42492 - Request for Nominations for the 2016 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program | |
| 80 FR 42607 - Proposed Renewal Without Change; Comment Request; Customer Identification Programs for Various Financial Institutions | |
| 80 FR 42609 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments | |
| 80 FR 42477 - Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
| 80 FR 42478 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 | |
| 80 FR 42385 - Safety Zone; Big Foot TLP, Walker Ridge 29, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico | |
| 80 FR 42509 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 42611 - Proposed Collection of Information: Collateral Security Resolution and Collateral Pledge and Security Agreement | |
| 80 FR 42423 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 8 | |
| 80 FR 42510 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 42388 - Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Area; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Area, Puget Sound, WA, Extension | |
| 80 FR 42388 - Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Chicago Air and Water Show | |
| 80 FR 42521 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 42524 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 42601 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; William Robertson | |
| 80 FR 42521 - Texas; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 42517 - Texas; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 42467 - Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial; Availability of a Supplemental Environmental Assessment | |
| 80 FR 42522 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 42535 - Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf, Western Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 246 | |
| 80 FR 42517 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 42483 - Procurement List; Additions And Deletions | |
| 80 FR 42481 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
| 80 FR 42491 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 42521 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 42470 - National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates | |
| 80 FR 42473 - Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods From July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016 | |
| 80 FR 42476 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Export License Services-Transfer of License Ownership, Request for a Duplicate License | |
| 80 FR 42474 - Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes for the Period, July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016 | |
| 80 FR 42508 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42508 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42552 - Atomic Safety And Licensing Board; Before Administrative Judges: Michael M. Gibson, Chair, Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Brian K. Hajek, Alan S. Rosenthal (Special Assistant to the Board); In the Matter of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (License Renewal for the In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska) | |
| 80 FR 42476 - Forest Resource Coordinating Committee; Meetings | |
| 80 FR 42480 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 80 FR 42479 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42496 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 42496 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10472 Gold Canyon Bank, Gold Canyon, Arizona | |
| 80 FR 42470 - Information Collection; Measurement Service (MS) Records | |
| 80 FR 42469 - Notice of Intent To Request Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 42560 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of Upcoming Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42484 - U.S. Air Force Partially Patent License | |
| 80 FR 42465 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for Petitions | |
| 80 FR 42493 - Waiver of Sunshine Period Prohibition for Agenda Item on Thursday, July 16, 2015 Open Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42571 - Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, et al; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 42606 - Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC and Permian Basin Railways-Continuance in Control Exemption-Piedmont Railway LLC | |
| 80 FR 42605 - Piedmont Railway LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-North Carolina Department of Transportation | |
| 80 FR 42606 - Notice of Geographic Targeting Order | |
| 80 FR 42464 - International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Effort Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2015 | |
| 80 FR 42480 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Fee Deficiency Submissions” | |
| 80 FR 42602 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the Route 624 Bridge Replacement Project in Virginia | |
| 80 FR 42486 - Notice of Intent To Conduct Restoration Planning and To Prepare a Draft Damage Assessment Restoration Plan Environmental Assessment for the Omega 707 Air Tanker Crash of May 18, 2011 at Mugu Lagoon, Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, CA | |
| 80 FR 42467 - Notice of Public Information Collection, Request for Comment on the Continued Use of the Partner Information Form (0412-0577) in Compliance With the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 | |
| 80 FR 42546 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection COPS Extension Request Form | |
| 80 FR 42546 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification | |
| 80 FR 42381 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Acetyl Fentanyl Into Schedule I | |
| 80 FR 42540 - Proposed Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016 | |
| 80 FR 42505 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42502 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Questions and Answers Regarding the Labeling of Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act | |
| 80 FR 42501 - Testicular Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 42503 - Public Meeting on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Huntington's and Parkinson's Diseases | |
| 80 FR 42551 - Meetings of Humanities Panel | |
| 80 FR 42500 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 42499 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 42506 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 42600 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 42507 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Sematech, Inc. d/b/a International Sematech | |
| 80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Open Platform for NFV Project, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42539 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc., in Its Capacity as a Standards Development Organization | |
| 80 FR 42537 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993; Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42547 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Records of Preshift and Onshift Inspections of Slope and Shaft Areas of Slope and Shaft Sinking Operations at Coal Mines | |
| 80 FR 42549 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Petitions for Modification of Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 80 FR 42548 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 80 FR 42537 - Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets III; Commission Determination To Affirm an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on a Settlement Agreement | |
| 80 FR 42485 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 42524 - Notice of Continued Suspension of Imports of Zimbabwe Elephant Trophies Taken On or After April 4, 2014 | |
| 80 FR 42575 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend NYSE Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers | |
| 80 FR 42593 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend NYSEMKT Rule 13-Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers | |
| 80 FR 42567 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
| 80 FR 42392 - Revisions to the Requirements for Authority To Manufacture and Distribute Postage Evidencing Systems | |
| 80 FR 42560 - Addition of Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements With Foreign Postal Operators to Competitive Product List | |
| 80 FR 42560 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 80 FR 42439 - Property Transferred in Connection With the Performance of Services | |
| 80 FR 42561 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 80 FR 42404 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 80 FR 42545 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Navinta LLC | |
| 80 FR 42515 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) Memorandum of Agreement Applications | |
| 80 FR 42545 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Mallinckrodt, LLC | |
| 80 FR 42515 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 42496 - Notice of Request for Additional Information | |
| 80 FR 42539 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Siegfried USA, LLC | |
| 80 FR 42512 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 42545 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Siegfried USA, LLC | |
| 80 FR 42520 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 42517 - Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 42544 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42520 - Texas; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 42520 - Wyoming; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 42559 - Anticipated Transients That Could Develop Into More Serious Events | |
| 80 FR 42479 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 42603 - Decision That Nonconforming 2006-2010 BMW M3 Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation | |
| 80 FR 42604 - Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 80 FR 42508 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 42436 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Missouri towns: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MO | |
| 80 FR 42597 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-Specialists by Deleting Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NY | |
| 80 FR 42493 - FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting Thursday, July 16, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 42495 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 42492 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 42590 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Section II of the Pricing Schedule | |
| 80 FR 42579 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Allowing the Listing of Options Overlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares 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 | |
| 80 FR 42587 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Allowing the Listing of Options Overlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares 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 | |
| 80 FR 42561 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42569 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42566 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various References to Rule 1080.08 | |
| 80 FR 42563 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42584 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding a Pricing Tier Applicable to Orders of ETP Holders for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities That Are Eligible To Be Routed Away From the Exchange | |
| 80 FR 42582 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 42434 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OH | |
| 80 FR 42440 - Regulated Navigation Area; Middle Waterway Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay; Tacoma, WA | |
| 80 FR 42446 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements | |
| 80 FR 42393 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Lead Rule Revisions | |
| 80 FR 42443 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Lead Rule Revisions | |
| 80 FR 42459 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coatings | |
| 80 FR 42443 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the Minor New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Portable Facilities | |
| 80 FR 42527 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plans for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas; a Draft Amendment to the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan; and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Utah | |
| 80 FR 42479 - Proposed Amendment to the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program | |
| 80 FR 42438 - Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood | |
| 80 FR 42376 - Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood | |
| 80 FR 42535 - Stream Protection Rule; Draft Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 80 FR 42670 - Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund | |
| 80 FR 42524 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
| 80 FR 42408 - Health Resources Priority and Allocations System (HRPAS) | |
| 80 FR 42614 - Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment | |
| 80 FR 42373 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Research Service
Farm Service Agency
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential ignition sources within the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion.
This AD becomes effective August 21, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 21, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email:
Morton Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion & Services Branch, ANE-173; FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7355; fax: 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-32R2, dated June 27, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aeroplanes fuel system against fuel tank safety standards * * *. The identified non-compliances were then assessed * * *, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks are required to prevent potential ignition sources within the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitations List” of the DHC-8 Maintenance Program Manuals to introduce the required maintenance tasks.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to clarify the phase-in schedule for tasks FSL-02 and FSL-17.
Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to correct the effective date of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-07 [
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
Since the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014) was published, the information in Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual PSM 1-8-7, has been merged in Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012. We have removed paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD that referred to Bombardier TR AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual PSM 1-8-7, and we have redesignated paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD as paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. We have also added new paragraph (g)(5) of this AD to refer to Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.
We have included a new paragraph (j) in this AD to provide credit for accomplishing the revision to the maintenance or inspection program, as
Since the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014) was published, we also received Bombardier TR AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7, which supersedes Bombardier TR AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7. We have added paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to refer to Bombardier TR AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7, as an appropriate source of service information to accomplish the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Furthermore, we also received Bombardier TR AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7, which supersedes Bombardier TR AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7. We have added paragraph (g)(4) of this AD to refer to Bombardier TR AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7, as an appropriate source of service information to accomplish the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data 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:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 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 48703, August 18, 2014).
Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following service information:
• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.
• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.
• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.
• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.
• Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.
The service information describes revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. 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 122 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $10,370, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective August 21, 2015.
This AD affects AD 2008-13-09, Amendment 39-15572 (73 FR 47029, August 13, 2008).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/N) 003 through 624 inclusive, and 626.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential ignition sources within the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include fuel system limitation (FSL) Task Numbers FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; as specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. The initial compliance times for accomplishing the tasks are specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD. Doing this revision terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008-13-09, Amendment 39-15572 (73 FR 47029, August 13, 2008), for Task Numbers FSL-02 and FSL-17 only.
(1) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.
(2) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.
(3) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.
(4) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.
(5) Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.
For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive, and S/N 626, the initial compliance times are specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive on which the applicable modification summaries (ModSums) specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD have been incorporated before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for the initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Airplane configurations can be a combination of the configurations specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q101512, Revision G, dated June 10, 2009; and Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q101865, Revision B, dated May 26, 2008.
(ii) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive with auxiliary power unit (APU) option: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902144, Revision E, dated June 17, 2009.
(iii) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive with a long-range fuel system installed: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091, Revision C, dated December 22, 2006.
(2) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive on which the applicable ModSum packages specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD have not been incorporated before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for the initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is before further flight after incorporation of all applicable ModSum packages specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD. Airplane configurations can be a combination of the configurations specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(3) For the airplane having serial number 626: The initial compliance time is at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) If Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091, Revision C, dated December 22, 2006, has been accomplished before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for doing the initial inspection specified in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check specified in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is within 6,000 flight hours or within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii) If Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091 Revision C, dated December 22, 2006, has not been accomplished before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for doing the initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is before further flight after accomplishment of Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q901091.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier TR AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual PSM 1-8-7, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-32R2, dated June 27, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.
(ii) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.
(iii) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.
(iv) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.
(v) Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission,” or “CPSC”) is issuing a direct final rule determining that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not contain heavy elements that would exceed the limits specified in the Commission's toy standard, ASTM F963-11. Based on this determination, unfinished and untreated wood in toys does not require third party testing for the heavy element limits in ASTM F963.
The rule is effective on September 15, 2015, unless we receive a significant adverse comment by August 17, 2015. If we receive a timely significant adverse comment, we will publish notification in the
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081, by any of the following methods:
Randy Butturini, Project Manager, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Hwy, Room 814, Bethesda, MD 20814; 301-504-7562: email;
Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, (“CPSA”), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), requires that manufacturers of products subject to a consumer product safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard or regulation enforced by the CPSC must certify that the product complies with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). For children's products, certification must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body.
In addition to soliciting and reviewing comments as required by Pub. L. 112-28, the Commission published in the
As discussed further in this preamble, if the Commission determines that, due to the nature of a particular material, children's products made of that material will comply with CPSC's requirements with a high degree of assurance, manufacturers do not need to have those materials tested by a third party conformity assessment body.
Section 106 of the CPSIA states that the provisions of ASTM International (“ASTM”),
The toy standard has numerous requirements. Among them, section 4.3.5 requires that surface coating materials and accessible substrates of toys
For some materials, the concentrations of all the listed heavy elements might always be below their respective solubility limits due to biological, manufacturing, or other constraints. For example, one of the specified elements may be sequestered in a portion of a plant, such as the roots, that is not used in textile manufacturing. Additionally, a manufacturing process step may remove a specified element, if the element is present, from the material being processed. For these materials, compliance with the limits stated in section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963-11 is assured without requiring third party testing because the material is intrinsically compliant.
The third party testing burden could only be reduced if all heavy elements listed in section 4.3.5 have concentrations below their solubility limits. Because third party conformity assessment bodies typically run one test for all of the ASTM heavy elements, no testing burden reduction would be achieved if any one of the heavy elements requires testing.
CPSC hired a contractor to conduct a literature search to assess whether the Commission potentially could determine that wood and other natural materials do not contain any of the seven specified heavy elements in concentrations above the ASTM F963-11 maximum solubility limits (excluding the eighth element, lead which is already subject to a determination). The contractor researched the following materials:
• Unfinished and untreated wood (ash, beech, birch, cherry, maple, oak, pine, poplar, and walnut);
• Bamboo;
• Beeswax;
• Undyed and untreated fibers and textiles (cotton, wool, linen, and silk); and
• Uncoated or coated paper (wood or other cellulosic fiber).
Staff chose these materials for research because they met two criteria:
• Materials the Commission previously determined not to contain lead in concentrations above 100 ppm; and
• Materials more likely to be used in toys subject to the ASTM F963-11 solubility limits.
The contractor's report is available on the Commission's Web site at:
In conducting this research, the contractor considered the following factors:
• The concentrations of the seven heavy elements in the material under study;
• The presence and concentrations of the elements in the environmental
• Whether processing has the potential to introduce any of the seven heavy elements into the material under study; and
• The potential for contamination after production, such as through packaging.
The contractor examined secondary sources and reviewed articles to identify the available data regarding the elements' concentrations in the materials listed above. The contractor summarized the relevant data on bioavailability and presence/concentrations in environmental media (
As discussed in the staff's briefing package, the contractor's report does not support a Commission determination for any material other than unfinished and untreated wood. The literature reviewed by the contractor did not provide sufficient information to determine that any of the reviewed materials, other than unfinished and untreated wood, do not contain the heavy elements in concentrations above the limits stated in the toy standard.
Of the materials reviewed, the contractor identified the most studies for wood. Although the contractor could not examine every study concerning wood, the contractor reported that the studies examined constitute a representative sample of studies. The contractor studied measurements taken from trees in natural settings, samples from trees grown on contaminated soils, hydroponically grown
The contractor examined measurements on roots, shoots, bark, trunks, branches, and leaves (or needles, for evergreens). Not every study conducted measurements on each part of the tree. Many studies showed concentrations of the ASTM heavy elements at levels below their solubility limits.
One study measured levels of arsenic in sawdust sampled from 15 sawmill locations in the Sapele metropolis (a port city in Nigeria). The highest arsenic concentration measured was 93.0 ppm. The study's authors did not specify what types of trees or wood were processed at the sawmills. However, the authors noted that a major industry in the study area is Africa Timber Plywood Industry and mentioned that arsenic and chromium are used as wood preservatives. Plywood is a manufactured wood and could contain materials not found in natural wood. The authors did not report what woods these sawmills were processing. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions from this study.
The contractor's report indicates that heavy elements could be present in wood from other portions of the tree: The roots, bark, leaves, or fruit. The studies examined by the contractor showed high levels of one or more of the ASTM heavy elements in portions of trees other than trunks. However, commercial timber harvesting involves the process of “delimbing” The tree to create logs that can be transported and cut at a sawmill or lumberyard.
As noted above, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires third party testing for children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Toys must comply with the toy standard, including the specified limits on heavy elements. 15 U.S.C. 2056b. In response to statutory direction, the Commission has investigated approaches that would reduce the burden of third party testing while also assuring compliance with CPSC requirements. As part of that endeavor, the Commission has considered whether certain materials used in toys would not require third party testing.
To issue a determination that a material does not require third party testing, the Commission must have sufficient evidence to conclude that the material would consistently comply with the CPSC requirement that the material is subject to so that third party testing is unnecessary to provide a high degree of assurance of compliance. 16 CFR part 1107. Section 1107.2, defines “a high degree of assurance” as “an evidence-based demonstration of consistent performance of a product regarding compliance based on knowledge of a product and its manufacture.”
For a material determination, a high degree of assurance of compliance means that the material will comply with the specified chemical limits due to the nature of the material, or due to a processing technique (
Based on the information discussed in section B of this preamble, the Commission determines that unfinished and untreated trunk wood complies with the solubility requirements for the heavy elements in section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963-11 with a high degree of assurance. This determination means that third party testing for compliance to the solubility requirements is not required for certification purposes for unfinished and untreated trunk wood. The Commission makes this determination to reduce the third party testing burden on children's product certifiers while continuing to ensure compliance.
CPSC staff assessed the burden reduction that could result from a determination that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not require third party testing for compliance with the limits on heavy elements in the toy standards. Testing the soluble concentration of the ASTM heavy elements requires placing the toy (or component part of the toy) in a solution of hydrochloric acid for 2 hours. After 2 hours, the solids are separated from the solution, and the solution is analyzed for the presence of any of the ASTM F963-11 heavy elements using atomic spectroscopy. The cost of this testing can vary by factors such as geography and the volume of testing that a manufacturer obtains from a testing laboratory. Based on published invoices and price lists, the cost of a third party test for the ASTM heavy elements ranges from around $60 in China, up to around $190 in the United States.
Staff cannot estimate with any certainty what the total potential burden reduction would be from a determination that unfinished and untreated wood will not contain concentrations of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, mercury, and selenium in excess of the limits in ASTM F963-11. Most of the approximately 80,000 kinds of toys on the market
Section 3 of the CPSIA grants the Commission general rulemaking authority to issue regulations, as necessary, to implement the CPSIA. Public Law 110-314, § 3, Aug. 14, 2008. As noted previously, section 14 of the CPSA, which was amended by the CPSIA, requires third party testing for children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(d)(3)(B) of the CPSA, as amended by Public Law 112-28, gives the Commission the authority to “prescribe new or revised third party testing regulations if it determines that such regulations will reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with the applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, and regulations.”
This determination relieves unfinished and untreated trunk wood from the third party testing requirement of section 14 of the CPSA for purposes of supporting the required certification. However, if the unfinished and untreated wood is altered so that the material exceeds the heavy elements limits of ASTM F963, the determination is not applicable to that material. The changed or altered material or product must then be tested and meet the heavy element requirements of ASTM F963.
The determination only lifts the obligation to have unfinished and untreated trunk wood tested by a third party conformity assessment body. The underlying requirement that products subject to the toy standard must comply with the toy standard's limits on heavy elements remains in place.
This rule creates a new Part 1251 for “Toys; Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood.” Section 1251.1 of the rule explains the statutorily-created requirements for toys under ASTM F963 and the third party testing requirements for children's products.
Section 1251.2(a) of the rule establishes the Commission's determination that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not exceed the limits for the heavy elements established in section 4.3.5 of the toy standard with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107. The determination only applies if the material has not been treated or adulterated with the addition of any materials that could result in the addition of any of the heavy elements listed in the toy standard at levels above their respective solubility limits. In section 1251.2(b) of the rule, unfinished and untreated trunk wood means wood harvested from trees with no added surface coatings (
The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule (“DFR”). The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking 5 U.S.C. 553(b). In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment.
Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on September 15, 2015. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.
Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission will withdraw this direct final rule. A notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”), providing an opportunity for public comment, is also being published in this same issue of the
The APA generally requires that a substantive rule must be published not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Because the final rule provides relief from existing testing requirements under the CPSIA, the effective date is September 15, 2015. However, as discussed in section D of the preamble, if the Commission receives a significant adverse comment the Commission will withdraw the DFR and proceed with the NPR published in this same issue of the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for the rules' potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
The rule would relieve toy manufacturers and importers of the responsibility of obtaining third party tests for compliance with the limits on the ASTM elements for components of toys consisting of unfinished and untreated wood. Although the impact will be to reduce testing costs, we expect that the rule would have only limited impact on toy manufacturers and importers for two reasons. First, the rule will affect only those companies that manufacture or import toys that contain unfinished and untreated wood components. We expect that relatively few of the approximately 80,000 toys on the market contain any unfinished and
Second, manufacturers of toys containing unfinished and untreated wood components still would be required to test to other aspects of the ASTM toy standard, so the impact of this rule relative to production costs for most firms should be small. Due to the small number of entities affected and the limited scope of the impact, the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for Commission rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. The Commission's regulations state that safety standards for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Nothing in this rule alters that expectation.
Business and industry, Infants and children, Consumer protection, Imports, Product testing and certification, Toys.
Accordingly, 16 CFR part 1251 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 3, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016; 15 U.S.C. 2063(d)(3)(B).
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”) made provisions of ASTM F963, Consumer Product Safety Specifications for Toy Safety (“toy standard”), a mandatory consumer product safety standard. Among the mandated provisions is section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963 which requires that surface coating materials and accessible substrates of toys that can be sucked, mouthed, or ingested, must comply with solubility limits that the toy standard establishes for eight heavy elements. Materials used in toys subject to section 4.3.5 of the toy standard must comply with the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), unless listed in § 1251.2.
(a) Unfinished and untreated wood does not exceed the limits for the heavy elements established in section 4.3.5 of the toy standard with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107, provided that the material has been neither treated nor adulterated with materials that could result in the addition of any of the heavy elements listed in the toy standard at levels above their respective solubility limits.
(b) For purposes of this section, unfinished and untreated wood means wood harvested from the trunks of trees with no added surface coatings (such as, varnish, paint, shellac, or polyurethane) and no materials added to the wood substrate (such as, stains, dyes, preservatives, antifungals, or insecticides). Unfinished and untreated wood does not include manufactured or engineered woods (such as pressed wood, plywood, particle board, or fiberboard).
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final order.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this final order to temporarily schedule the synthetic opioid,
This final order is effective on July 17, 2015.
John R. Scherbenske, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated her scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the Administrator's intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.
To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): the substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed into schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1). Available data and information for acetyl fentanyl, summarized below, indicate that this synthetic opioid has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The DEA analysis is available in its entirety under the tab “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket of this action at
Clandestinely produced substances structurally related to the schedule II opioid analgesic fentanyl were trafficked and abused on the West Coast in the late 1970s and 1980s. These clandestinely produced fentanyl-like substances were commonly known as designer drugs, and recently, there has been a reemergence in the trafficking and abuse of designer drug substances, including fentanyl-like substances. Alpha-methylfentanyl, the first fentanyl analogue identified in California, was placed into schedule I of the CSA in September 1981. Following the control of alpha-methylfentanyl, the DEA identified several other fentanyl analogues (3-methylthiofentanyl, acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl, beta-hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl, alpha-methylthiofentanyl, thiofentanyl, beta-hydroxyfentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl and 3-methylfentanyl) in submissions to forensic laboratories. These substances were temporarily controlled under schedule I of the CSA after finding that they posed an imminent hazard to public safety and were subsequently permanently placed into schedule I of the CSA.
The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by State and local forensic laboratories across the country. The first laboratory submission of acetyl fentanyl was recorded in Maine in April 2013 according to NFLIS. NFLIS registered eight reports containing acetyl fentanyl in 2013 in Louisiana, Maine, and North Dakota; and 30 reports in 2014 in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
The System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) is a database of drug exhibits sent to DEA laboratories for analysis. Exhibits from this database are from the DEA, other Federal agencies, and some local law enforcement agencies. Acetyl fentanyl was first reported to STRIDE in September 2013 from exhibits obtained through a controlled purchase in Louisiana. In October 2013, an exhibit collected from a controlled purchase of suspected oxycodone tablets in Rhode Island contained acetyl fentanyl as the primary substance. In 2014, STARLiMS (a Web-based, commercial laboratory information management system that is in transition to replace STRIDE) and STRIDE reported eight additional seizures in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Washington.
In August 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an article in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report documenting a series of 14 fatalities related to acetyl fentanyl that occurred between March and May 2013. In December 2013, another fatality associated with acetyl fentanyl was reported in Rhode Island for a total of 15 fatalities. In February 2014, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services issued a health advisory related to acetyl fentanyl following at least three deaths related to this synthetic drug. Toxicologists at the North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner detected acetyl fentanyl in specimens associated with deaths that occurred in January 2014 in Sampson, Person, and
A significant seizure of acetyl fentanyl occurred in April 2013 during a law enforcement investigation in Montreal, Canada. Approximately three kilograms of acetyl fentanyl in powder form and approximately 11,000 tablets containing acetyl fentanyl were seized. Given that a typical dose of acetyl fentanyl is in the microgram range, a three kilogram quantity could potentially produce millions of dosage units. In the United States, tablets that mimic pharmaceutical opioid products have been reported in multiple states, including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, and Washington. Recent reports indicate that acetyl fentanyl in powder form is available over the Internet and has been imported to addresses within the United States.
Evidence also suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including acetyl fentanyl, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. For example, seizures of acetyl fentanyl have been encountered both in powder and in tablet form. It is also known to have caused many fatal overdoses, in which intravenous routes of administration and histories of drug abuse are documented.
The DEA is currently aware of at least 39 fatalities associated with acetyl fentanyl. These deaths occurred in 2013 and 2014 from six states including California, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. STARLiMS and STRIDE, databases capturing drug evidence information from DEA forensic laboratories, have a total of 10 drug reports in which acetyl fentanyl was identified in six cases for analyzed drugs submitted from January 2010—December 2014 from Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Washington. It is likely that the prevalence of acetyl fentanyl in opioid analgesic-related emergency room admissions and deaths is underreported since standard immunoassays cannot differentiate acetyl fentanyl from fentanyl.
The population likely to abuse acetyl fentanyl overlaps with the populations abusing prescription opioid analgesics and heroin. This is evidenced by the routes of administration and drug use history documented in acetyl fentanyl fatal overdose cases. Because abusers of acetyl fentanyl are likely to obtain the drug through illicit sources, the identity, purity, and quantity is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to its abusers. This risk is particularly heightened by the fact that acetyl fentanyl is a highly potent opioid (15.7 fold more potent than that of morphine as tested in mice using an acetic acid writhing method). Thus small changes in the amount and purity of the substance could potentially lead to overdose and death.
Acetyl fentanyl exhibits a pharmacological profile similar to that of fentanyl and other opioid analgesic compounds, and it is a potent opioid analgesic reported to be 1/3 as potent as fentanyl and 15.7 times as potent as morphine in mice tested in an acetic acid writhing method. In addition, studies also showed that the range between the effective dose (ED50) and the lethal dose (LD50) of acetyl fentanyl is narrower than that of morphine and fentanyl, increasing the risk of fatal overdose. Thus, its abuse is likely to pose quantitatively greater risks to the public health and safety than abuse of traditional opioid analgesics such as morphine.
Based on the above pharmacological data, the abuse of acetyl fentanyl at least leads to the same qualitative public health risks as heroin, fentanyl, and other opioid analgesic compounds. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of heroin and opioid analgesics are well established. The abuse of opioid analgesics has resulted in large numbers of drug treatment admissions, emergency department visits, and fatal overdoses.
Acetyl fentanyl has been associated with numerous fatalities. At least 39 overdose deaths due to acetyl fentanyl abuse have been reported in six states in 2013 and 2014, California, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. This indicates that acetyl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to public safety.
Based on the data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, and abuse of acetyl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for this substance in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed into schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for acetyl fentanyl indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 7, 2015, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance into schedule I.
In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein sets forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary
Upon the effective date of this final order, acetyl fentanyl will become subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities, and possession of schedule I controlled substances including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action final order is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to schedule these substances immediately because they pose a public health risk. This temporary scheduling action is taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) exempts the temporary scheduling order
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule and request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around the Big Foot Tension Leg Platform construction site, located in Walker Ridge Block 29 on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of this interim rule is to include the construction area and protect the facility and all operations during the construction phase from all vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways that are not providing services to or working with the facility. Placing a safety zone around the facility while under construction that includes the construction site will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, collisions, security breaches, oil spills, releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.
This rule is effective without actual notice July 17, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 3, 2015 until July 17, 2015. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 3, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2014-0863. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight Waterways Management Branch; telephone 504-671-2138,
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
On March 25, 2015 we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with a request for comments entitled, “Safety Zone; Big Foot TLP, Walker Ridge 29, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico” in the
This interim rule follows an NPRM that received no comments. The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without further notice pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” As stated above, an NPRM proposing a safety zone around the Big Foot TLP facility was published in March and no comments were received. The NPRM provided prior notice and opportunity to comment. This interim rule provides additional opportunity to comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not providing additional notice with respect to this interim rule establishing the safety zone as extending from the construction site rather than from the facility location. Construction and installation operations are expected to resume promptly and immediate action is necessary to establish this interim OCS safety zone during the Big Foot TLP's construction phase to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from the construction operations.
For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define OCS safety zones.
Because of construction and installation complications, the Coast Guard explored establishing the safety zone proposed in the NPRM published in March 2015 (80 FR 15703) as an interim rule, rather than a final rule at this time, extending from the construction site during the construction phase. Chevron also requested that the Coast Guard establish the interim OCS safety zone around the Big Foot TLP construction site located in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico on the OCS. Placing a safety zone around the construction site will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.
The construction and installation complications pose significant safety hazards to vessels and mariners operating in the area. The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule during construction which Chevron anticipates continuing for at least six months. Establishing the OCS safety zone to extend 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from the outside of the
The Coast Guard is establishing an interim OCS safety zone extending 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from the outer edges of the Big Foot TLP's
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the Big Foot TLP—on the Outer Continental Shelf—and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone using alternate routes. Deviation to transit through the safety zone may be requested. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in Walker Ridge Block 29, where this safety zone is now established.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact or a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone using an alternate route. Use of an alternate route may cause minimal delay in reaching a final destination, depending on other traffic in the area and vessel speed. Vessels may request deviation from this rule to transit through the safety zone. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects any impact of this rulemaking establishing a safety zone around an OCS facility to be minimal, with no significant economic impact on small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone around an OCS Facility to protect life, property and the marine environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. The environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
NW Corner 26-56-18.85 N, 090-31-26.44 W
NE Corner 26-56-18.85 N, 090-30-53.06 W
SE Corner 26-55-46.76 N, 090-30-53.06 W
SW Corner 26-55-46.76 N, 090-31-26.44 W,
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Chicago Air and Water Show on a portion of Lake Michigan, on August 13, 2015 through August 18, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the air and water show. During the enforcement period listed below, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (f)(10), Table 33 CFR 165.929, on August 13, 2015, through August 18, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on each day.
If you have questions on this document, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at 630-986-2155, email address
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone; Chicago Air and Water Show listed as item (f)(10) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone encompasses all waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan and Chicago Harbor bounded by a line drawn from 41°55.900′ N at the shoreline, then east to 41°55.900′ N, 087°37.200′ W, then southeast to 41°54.000′ N, 087°36.000′ W, then southwestward to the northeast corner of the Jardine Water Filtration Plant, then due west to the shore. This zone will be enforced on August 13, 2015, through August 18, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on each day.
All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit this safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is extending the temporary safety zones and regulated navigation area that were previously established because the departure of several of the vessels associated with Royal Dutch Shell's (Shell) planned Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations have been delayed. The safety zones and regulated navigation area extended by this rule are necessary to ensure the mutual safety of all waterways users including the specified vessels and those individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights.
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 17, 2015 through July 31, 2015. For purposes of enforcement, the rule is effective with actual notice from July 1, 2015 through July 17, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0295. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Matthew Beck, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone (206) 217-6051, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable since the regulation is immediately necessary to help ensure the safety of all waterway users including the specified vessels and those individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights and holding a notice and comment period at this time would delay regulatory implementation beyond the departure of the last Shell contracted vessel and expected First Amendment activities regarding Shell's operations, thereby increasing the safety risk to all waterways users.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Shell is planning Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations for the spring and summer of 2015. In preparation for those operations, it is staging a large number of vessels in the Puget Sound area. There has been a significant amount of First Amendment activity related to Shell's operations in the Puget Sound during the last month including the formation of a “kayak flotilla” used to exercise the participating individuals First Amendment rights regarding Shell's operations in the region. Among other activities, the “kayak flotilla” attempted to block the POLAR PIONEER's departure from Seattle, Washington. Also, Greenpeace International members conducted an unauthorized boarding of a Shell contracted vessel on the high seas. Draft restrictions, vessel maneuvering characteristics, and geographic/environmental conditions may constrain the ability of large commercial vessels (the Shell-contracted vessels) to maneuver in close quarters with other vessels, particularly small craft piloted by recreational operators. Intentional close-in interaction of these vessels will create an increased risk of collision, grounding, or personal injury for all parties. Furthermore, while moored or at anchor the vessels will have ongoing operations occurring onboard, some of which could pose a safety risk to other maritime traffic. The myriad of potential safety risks to all parties and the port itself is best addressed by mandating a minimum zone of separation. For these reasons, the Coast Guard believes that safety zones around the Shell-contracted vessels are necessary to ensure the safety of all waterways users.
Additionally, the Coast Guard believes that given the nature of the First Amendment activity expected and the likely type of vessels used by individuals desiring to express their First Amendment rights, namely kayaks and other small vessels, a regulated navigation area designating a Voluntary First Amendment Area is necessary to ensure the safety of those vessels and persons. The regulated navigation area encompassing the Voluntary First Amendment Area would do so by establishing it as a “no wake” area, which is particularly important for small boats such as kayaks, to better enable persons and vessels to congregate and exercise their First Amendment rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic.
This rule is extending the rule established at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 165.T13-289 as published in the
In this rule, the Coast Guard is extending the temporary safety zones and regulated navigation area established at 33 CFR 165.T13-289 as published in the
The safety zones are established in subsection (a) of this temporary regulation. Per subsection (a)(1)(i), while transiting, the safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within 500 yards of the vessel in all directions. Per subsection (a)(1)(ii), while moored or anchored, the safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within 100 yards of the vessel in all directions. Persons and/or vessels that desire to enter these safety zones must request permission to
The Coast Guard is also establishing a regulated navigation area to ensure the safety of individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights related to Shell's activities in subsection (b) of this regulation. The Voluntary First Amendment Area is being established in an area where we believe individuals will be able to effectively communicate their message, without posing an undue risk to maritime safety, after analyzing maritime traffic patterns and other environmental factors as well as meeting with some groups who have expressed a desire to exercise their First Amendment rights. The regulated navigation area encompassing the Voluntary First Amendment Area will ensure the safety of small boats by establishing it as a “no wake” area for persons and/or vessels to congregate and exercise their First Amendment rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic. The “no wake” provisions will ensure all interactions between vessels within the area occur at a low rate of speed, thereby reducing risk of collision and personal injury. Likewise, the designation of a Voluntary First Amendment Area will help to ensure that a large congregation of vessels does not impede or endanger other commercial and recreational users who are not associated with Shell's arctic drilling and exploration operations or the associated First Amendment activity.
These provisions are particularly vital given the expected presence of the “kayak flotilla” described above. Persons or vessels desiring to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech regarding Shell's Arctic drilling and exploration operations may enter the regulated navigation area at any time. All other persons or vessels are advised to avoid the regulated navigation area. When inside the regulated navigation area, all vessels must proceed at “no wake” speed and with due regard for all other persons and/or vessels inside the regulated navigation area.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action as the safety zones and regulated navigation area are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones or regulated navigation area may be allowed to do so in accordance with the regulatory provisions.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the affected waterways when the safety zones and regulated navigation areas are in effect. The safety zones and regulated navigation areas will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, however, because the safety zones and regulated navigation area are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones or regulated navigation area may be allowed to do so in accordance with the regulatory provisions.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of all individuals. This regulation establishes a regulated navigation area to create a Voluntary First Amendment Area so that persons and vessels can congregate and exercise their First Amendment free speech rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic. Of particular note, large vessels operating in restricted waters cannot maneuver freely, nor can they stop immediately. As such, any First Amendment activity taking place in immediate proximity to such vessels can quickly result in extremis. The Voluntary First Amendment Area has been located to allow individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights are asked utilize the designated area to the extent possible, however, its use is voluntary. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights outside the designated area are requested to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of temporary safety zones and a regulated navigation area to deal with an emergency situation that is one week or longer in duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(i) All waters within 500 yards of the following vessels while transiting within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10: NOBLE DISCOVERER, BLUE MARLIN, POLAR PIONEER, AIVIQ, FENNICA, NORDICA, ROSS CHOUEST, TOR VIKING, OCEAN WIND, OCEAN WAVE, HARVEY SISUAQ, HARVEY CHAMPION, HARVEY SUPPORTER, HARVEY EXPLORER, NANUQ, GUARDSMAN, KLAMATH, PT OLIKTOK, ARCTIC ENDEAVOR, CORBIN FOSS, ACS, ARCTIC CHALLENGER, ARCTIC SEAL, CROWLEY DIANA G, LAUREN FOSS, TUUQ, BARBARA FOSS, AMERICAN TRADER, and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels.
(ii) All waters within 100 yards of the following vessels while moored or anchored within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10: NOBLE DISCOVERER, BLUE MARLIN, POLAR PIONEER, AIVIQ, FENNICA, NORDICA, ROSS CHOUEST, TOR VIKING, OCEAN WIND, OCEAN WAVE, HARVEY SISUAQ, HARVEY CHAMPION, HARVEY SUPPORTER, HARVEY EXPLORER, NANUQ, GUARDSMAN, KLAMATH, PT OLIKTOK, ARCTIC ENDEAVOR, CORBIN FOSS, ACS, ARCTIC CHALLENGER, ARCTIC SEAL, CROWLEY DIANA G, LAUREN FOSS, TUUQ, BARBARA FOSS, AMERICAN TRADER, and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting the listed vessels.
(2)
(b)
(2)
(c)
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising the rules concerning authorization to manufacture and distribute postage evidencing systems to reflect new revenue assurance practices.
Marlo Kay Ivey, Business Systems Analyst, Payment Technology, U.S. Postal Service, (202) 268-7613
On April 23, 2015, the United States Postal Service published a proposed rule to amend 39 CFR part 501 to support the automated revenue assurance program currently in development. (
The Postal Service believes that the rule as proposed is appropriately written to encompass all postage evidencing systems. While initial automated collection efforts will be facilitated by PC Postage vendors, all customers should pay postage accurately, regardless of the postage technology they elect to use. As automated solutions become available for the various postage evidencing systems USPS will coordinate implementation plans with the parties concerned. Current manual efforts employed by the Postal Service to collect proper postage are costly and inefficient. An automated approach will reduce costs and improve overall recovery efforts. The costs of program administration will be acknowledged and considered as the USPS establishes operative recovery thresholds and certain other program related business rules. Account suspension, however, is already specifically addressed in postal regulations not modified by this proposal (
Administrative practice and procedure.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, 39 CFR part 501 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
(g) A
(d) Approval shall be based upon satisfactory evidence of the applicant's integrity and financial responsibility, commitment to comply with the Postal Service's revenue assurance practices as outlined in section 501.16, and a determination that disclosure to the applicant of Postal Service customer, financial, or other data of a commercial nature necessary to perform the function for which approval is sought would be appropriate and consistent with good business practices within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 410(c)(2). The Postal Service may condition its approval upon the applicant's agreement to undertakings that would give the Postal Service appropriate assurance of the applicant's ability to meet its obligations under this section, including but not limited to the method and manner of performing certain financial, security, and servicing functions and the need to maintain sufficient financial reserves to guarantee uninterrupted performance of not less than 3 months of operation.
(i)
(b)
(2) Within five years preceding submission of the information, the customer violated any standard for the care or use of the Postage Evidencing System, including any unresolved identified postage discrepancies that resulted in revocation of that customer's authorization.
(c)
(6) The customer has any unresolved postage discrepancies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a request submitted on March 14, 2013, and supplemented on November 17, 2014, by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to revise the state implementation plan (SIP) for lead. The submittal updates Indiana's lead rule at Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), Article 15. It also amends 326 IAC Article 20, to incorporate some of the provisions of EPA's National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead smelters. IDEM made the revisions to increase the stringency and clarity of Indiana's lead SIP rules.
This direct final rule will be effective September 15, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 17, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0193, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Indiana's SIP rules for lead are contained in two separate parts of the State's regulations. The first is Article 15, which EPA approved on August 17, 1989 (See 54 FR 33894). This provision addresses lead-bearing emissions from processes and fugitive dust from several facilities in Indiana.
The second regulatory provision is 326 IAC 20-13, which EPA approved on January 15, 2008 (77 FR 2248). This section contains a partial incorporation by reference of EPA's June 13, 1997, NESHAP for secondary lead smelting at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (62 FR 32209). This includes: 1) 326 IAC 20-13-1(c) [incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, NESHAP (June 13, 1997; 62 FR 32209), with exceptions]; 2) 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) [source-specific lead emission limits
On January 5, 2012 (77 FR 556), EPA published amendments to the NESHAP for secondary lead smelting. The final rule revised the standards for secondary lead smelters based on the residual risk and technology reviews required under section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412(f). In addition to revising the emission limits for lead compounds, the amendments to the NESHAP included: Revisions to standards for fugitive emissions; addition of total hydrocarbon, dioxin, and furans emission limits for reverberatory and electric arc furnaces; modification and addition of testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
On March 14, 2013, and supplemented on November 17, 2014, IDEM submitted a request to revise the SIP to update its lead rule at 326 IAC 15. IDEM published several newspaper notices informing the public of the revisions to 326 IAC 15 and 326 IAC 20. A public hearing on these revisions was held on November 7, 2012. There were no comments received.
Below is a discussion of Indiana's rules, including an identification of any significant changes from the previously approved SIP lead rules.
IDEM made several administrative revisions to Article 15 to clarify the language in the rule. In section 2 of this rule, IDEM removed obsolete rule language for sources no longer in operation.
In section 3 of this rule, “Control of fugitive lead dust,” IDEM made minor revisions by removing unnecessary language. For instance, the language in this section of the rule instructs sources listed section 2 to submit their fugitive dust control program to “the department of environmental management, office of air management.” IDEM deleted the words “of environmental management, office of air management” in the revised rule language to simply direct the sources to submit its fugitive dust control programs to “the department.”
In section 4 of this rule, “Compliance,” IDEM made a revision to correct the citation for the appropriate source sampling procedures. Previously, the SIP the source sampling procedures were in 326 IAC 3-2. IDEM has relocated these to 326 IAC 3-6.
EPA finds these administrative changes approvable in Indiana's SIP.
Consistent with amendments to the NESHAP, Indiana added 326 IAC 20-13.1, which incorporates portions of this rule. More specifically, it contains standards for process and fugitive sources at secondary lead smelters, test methods, fugitive dust control, standard operating procedures for baghouses, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, which are covered by other portions of 326 IAC 20-13. When IDEM adopted rule 326 IAC 20-13.1, it did not include any exclusions to the rule that would exempt secondary lead smelters from complying with any operating and testing requirements consistent with the NESHAP. Thus, the secondary lead smelter rule at 326 IAC 20-13.1 provides clarity to the applicability, operating, and testing requirements for secondary lead smelters.
Second, the revisions to the NESHAP revised the lead emission limits that apply to process and process fugitive, and stacks venting fugitive dust emissions. The lead emission limit from process and process fugitive sources was revised from 2.0 milligrams of lead/dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) to 1.0 mg/dscm. The lead emission limit for stacks venting fugitive dust emissions was revised from 2.0 mg/dscm to 0.5 mg/dscm.
In the current SIP, EPA approved source-specific lead emission limits that apply to the secondary lead smelting facility owned and operated by Quemetco. Quemetco is located in Indianapolis, Indiana. For Quemetco, the lead emission limits that apply to a specific process and process fugitive dust, and stacks venting fugitive dust emissions are already as stringent as the NESHAP. IDEM has relocated these limits to 326 IAC 20-13.1-4.
In addition to lead emission limits for Quemetco, IDEM included source-specific lead emission limits for the Muncie (Delaware County), Indiana secondary lead smelting facility owned and operated by Exide Technologies (Exide) at 326 IAC 20-13.1-3. The rule contains lead emission limits for specific processes and process fugitive dust lead emissions at Exide. These emission limits are at levels as stringent as the NESHAP.
When revising the NESHAP for secondary lead smelting, EPA established a facility-wide, flow weighted average, lead emissions limit from stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm. IDEM incorporated this emission limit into 326 IAC 20-13.1-5.
Indiana has requested that EPA approve all portions of 326 IAC 20-13.1 into the SIP, with the following exceptions:
(A.) All provisions related to dioxins, furans, total hydrocarbons, in the following provisions:
(1) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(d); (2) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(f); (3) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(g); (4) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(i); (5) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(j); (6) 326 IAC 20-13.1-10(e); (7) 326 IAC 20-13.1-11(d); (8) 326 IAC 20-13.1-11(e); (9) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(b); (10) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(c); (11) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(d); (12) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(e); (13) 326 IAC 20-13.1-14(e)(2); and (14) 326 IAC 20-13.1-14(e)(3), related to total hydrocarbon.
(B.) certain “General Provisions” and notification provisions under the Federal NESHAP, identified in 326 IAC 20-13.1-1(d); 326 IAC 20-13.1-13(a),
(C.) 326 IAC 20-13.1-15, concerning the affirmative defense to civil penalties for an exceedance of the emissions limit during malfunctions.
IDEM decided that the changes to 326 IAC Article 20 required the removal of any duplicate or conflicting emission limits or other requirements that presently exist in 326 IAC 20-13 in the transition to the new requirements in 326 IAC 20-13.1, and thus, repealed 326 IAC 20-13.
EPA finds the lead emission limits for secondary lead smelters in 326 IAC 20-13.1 are more stringent than and will thus strengthen Indiana's current lead SIP. As such, they are approvable.
EPA is approving Indiana's March 14, 2013, SIP revision request, as supplemented on November 17, 2014, which addresses lead sources in the state. The submission consists of updates and clarifications to Indiana's lead SIP rule at 326 IAC Article 15. It also amends 326 IAC Article 20, to incorporate some of the provisions of EPA's NESHAP for secondary lead smelters at 326 IAC 20-13.1. EPA will take no action on the provision of this rule related to (1) dioxins, furans, and total hydrocarbons, (2) identified
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Emissions reporting, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
In rule document 2015-16385, appearing on pages 38628 through 38652 in the issue of Tuesday, July 7, 2015, make the following correction:
On page 38646, in the first column, in the last paragraph, in the sixth line, “+5” should read “
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for residues of thiabendazole in or on succulent shelled peas.
This action is associated with the utilization of a crisis exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide as a seed treatment on succulent pea seeds. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of thiabendazole in or on this commodity. The time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2018.
This regulation is effective July 17, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 15, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0396, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0396 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 15, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0396, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing a time-limited tolerance for the combined residues of the fungicide thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated) in or on pea, succulent shelled at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). This time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2018.
Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
The emergency exemption to treat pea seed with thiabendazole was requested by the State of Idaho (Applicant) because the seed will be treated in Idaho. However, the seed is being planted in Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, where the emergency conditions exist. Pea growers in these states are faced with a new complex of pea root and foliar disease pathogens that current cultural practices, varieties, and seed treatments do not manage. Pea crop failure in commercial fields has become a severe problem and growers have experienced rapidly increasing yield losses within the pea production area each year for several years.
The Applicant asserts that an emergency condition exists in accordance with the criteria for approval of an emergency exemption, and has utilized a crisis exemption under FIFRA section 18 to allow the use of thiabendazole on as a seed treatment on succulent peas in Idaho for control of Fusarium and Ascochyta blight in Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of thiabendazole in or on succulent peas. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although this time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2018, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on succulent peas after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether thiabendazole meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on succulent peas or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of thiabendazole by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any State other than Idaho to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for thiabendazole, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and the time-limited tolerance for combined residues of the fungicide thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated) on succulent shelled peas at 0.02 ppm.
EPA recently updated its dietary risk assessment in connection with a
Because the Section 18 emergency use of thiabendazole on succulent shelled peas will result in negligible increases in dietary exposure to all subgroups relative to the safety findings reached in the September 25, 2014
Acceptable enforcement analytical methods are available for thiabendazole and benzimidazole in plant commodities. Four spectrophoto fluoro metric methods for the determination of thiabendazole are published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II, and a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method with fluorescence detection (FLD) for the determination of benzimidazole (free and conjugated) is identified in the U.S. EPA Index of Residue Analytical Methods under thiabendazole as Study No. 93020.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for thiabendazole in or on the requested commodity.
Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for residues of thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiabendazole, in or on pea, succulent shelled at 0.02 ppm. This tolerance expires on December 31, 2018.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C
This regulation is effective July 17, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 15, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0585, is available at
Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0585 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 15, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0585, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C
The acute oral lethal dose (LD)
In a 90-day oral toxicity study, GTL petroleum distillates administered by gavage resulted in a statistically significant increase in the incidence and severity of alveolar macrophage accumulations and increased vacuolation of alveolar macrophages in the lung in rats at the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) 200 mg/kg/day. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was 50 mg/kg/day.
In a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study via gavage in rats, GTL petroleum distillates caused maternal and offspring toxicity at 1,000 mg/kg/day. Toxicity was manifested as chronic interstitial/alveolus inflammation in the lungs. The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 50 mg/kg/day since animals in the mid dose (250 mg/kg/day) group were not analyzed. The reproduction NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.
Based upon subsequent studies conducted to evaluate the lung effects, the Agency determined that the effects observed in the 90-day oral toxicity study and 2-generation reproductive toxicity study were caused by gavage administration error and were not test material (dose) related. In a 28-day oral feeding study in rats at doses up to 1,256 mg/kg/day, no adverse effects were observed. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study in the rat (by oral gavage) at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day, no adverse toxicological effects were seen. The results of these two more recent studies alleviated the Agency's concern for the lung effects seen in the 90-day oral toxicity study and the 2-generation reproduction study.
GTL petroleum distillates were evaluated for mutagenic potential using
A neurotoxicity study was not conducted with GTL petroleum distillates. However, signs of neurotoxicity were not observed in acute toxicity tests at doses up to 5,000 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day. Evidence of neurotoxicity was not observed in the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats and in the 28-day oral feeding study in rats.
An immunotoxicity study was not conducted with GTL petroleum distillates. However, alveolar macrophage accumulations and increased vacuolation of alveolar macrophages in the lung was observed in rats at >200 mg/kg/day in both the 90-day oral and 2-generation reproduction toxicity studies. However, these effects were determined to be caused by gavage technique error rather than effects attributable to the test substance.
There are no data specific to the absorption, metabolism, distribution and elimination of GTL petroleum distillates, however, the absorption of other mixtures of normal, branched and cyclic petroleum derived hydrocarbons is inversely related to carbon chain length and is independent of isomeric form, preparation process or type of product. Consequently, when administered orally, Fischer-Tropsch derived hydrocarbons in the range of C
Carcinogenicity studies with GTL petroleum distillates are not available for review. However, based on the lack of carcinogenicity of related linear, branched, and cyclic alkanes and the negligible absorption of GTL petroleum distillates, lack of systemic toxicity at the limit dose, lack of mutagenic concerns, GTL petroleum distillates are not expected to be carcinogenic.
There were no adverse effects in repeat dose toxicity, reproductive, and developmental studies with GTL petroleum distillates at or above limit dose levels to either parental animals or their offspring. Thus, due to the low potential hazard and lack of hazard endpoint, the Agency has determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors applied to a point of departure protective of an identified hazard endpoint is not appropriate for GTL petroleum distillates.
1.
2.
GTL petroleum distillates may be used as an inert ingredient in agricultural pesticide products that could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposure. Residential exposure can occur via dermal and inhalation routes of exposure to residential applicator. Dermal and inhalation exposure can occur from the use of consumer products and foods/food additives containing GTL petroleum distillates. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for GTL petroleum distillates was not conducted.
3.
EPA has not found distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10×) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10×, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
At this time, there is no concern for potential sensitivity to infants and children resulting from exposures to GTL petroleum distillates. There is no reported quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat fetuses to in utero exposure to GTL petroleum distillates in developmental toxicity studies in rats. No quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility has been reported following the pre/postnatal exposure to rats in 2-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats. Given the lack of adverse toxicological effects at limit dose levels, a safety factor analysis has not been used to assess the risk. For these reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
In examining aggregate exposure, EPA takes into account the available and reliable information concerning exposures to pesticide residues in food and drinking water, and non-occupational pesticide exposures. Dietary (food and drinking water) and non-dietary (residential) exposures of concern are not anticipated for GTL petroleum distillates because of its low toxicity based on animal studies showing toxicity at or above the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Taking into consideration all available information on GTL petroleum distillates, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup, including infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to GTL petroleum distillates under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180. 910 for distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4133.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary.
Interim final rule.
This interim final rule establishes standards and procedures by which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may require that certain contracts or orders that promote the national defense be given priority over other contracts or orders. This rule also sets new standards and procedures by which HHS may allocate materials, services, and facilities to promote the national defense. This rule will implement HHS's administration of priorities and allocations actions, and establish the Health Resources Priorities and Allocation System (HRPAS). The HRPAS will cover health resources pursuant to the authority under Section 101(c) of the Defense Production Act as delegated to HHS by Executive Order 13603. Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603, but not covered by this regulation) may be re-delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.
Effective July 17, 2015. Comments must be received by September 15, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0991-AB94 by any of the following methods:
•
• By email directly to
• By mail or delivery to Cassandra Freeman, Director, Division of Acquisition Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 630G, Washington, DC 20201.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements or any other provisions contained in this interim final rule may
The agency program contact is Cassandra R. Freeman, who can be contacted by phone at (202) 205-1855 or via email at
HHS is publishing this rule to comply with a requirement of the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-67) (the “DPAR”). The Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 required that HHS, and all other agencies that previously have been delegated authority to issue rated orders under Executive Order 13603, publish regulations providing standards and procedures for prioritization of contracts and orders and for allocation of materials, services, and facilities to promote the national defense under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. HHS's regulation, along with regulations promulgated by other agencies, will become part of the Federal Priorities and Allocations System.
The HRPAS is part of the Federal Priorities and Allocations System. The HRPAS has two principal components: priorities and allocations. Under the priorities component, certain contracts between the government and private parties or between private parties for the production or delivery of industrial resources are required to be given priority over other contracts to facilitate expedited delivery in promotion of the U.S. national defense. Under the allocations component, materials, services, and facilities may be allocated to promote the national defense. For both components, the term “national defense”' is defined broadly and can include critical infrastructure protection and restoration, emergency preparedness and response, and recovery from natural and man-made disasters. Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603, but not covered by this regulation) may be re-delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.
On September 30, 2009, Congress amended the DPA through the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-67) (the “DPAR”). The DPAR directed, all agencies to which the President has delegated priorities and allocations authority under E.O. 13603, publish final rules establishing standards and procedures by which that authority will be used to promote the national defense in both emergency and nonemergency situations. The DPAR also required all such agencies to consult as appropriate and to the extent practicable to develop a consistent and unified Federal priorities and allocations system. This rule is one of several rules to be published to implement the provisions of the DPAR. The final rules of the agencies with DPAR authorities, which are the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Defense, and Agriculture, will comprise the Federal Priorities and Allocations System (“FPAS”). HHS is publishing this interim final rule in compliance with the provision of the DPAR noted above. HHS's HRPAS provisions are consistent with the FPAS regulations being issued by other agencies. The specific proposals in this rule are more fully described below.
Section 101.1 states the purpose of the HRPAS in general terms, as providing guidance and procedures for use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) priorities and allocations authority with respect to health resources necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.
Section 101.2 provides guidance and procedures for the use of the DPA priorities and allocation authority with respect to health resources necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.
Section 101.3 provides an overview of the HRPAS program eligibility.
This section describes briefly aspects of the HRPAS, including the certain programs for military and health resources under the DPA.
The “Definitions” section appears in § 101.20 and provides definitions for the relevant regulatory terms.
Section 101.30, “Delegation of Authority,” describes fully the President's delegations to HHS. It also describes, in general terms, the items subject to HHS's jurisdiction. This provision facilitates public understanding of the role that each delegate agency plays in the overall priorities and allocations system.
Section 101.31, “Priority ratings,” describes the two possible levels of priority and program identification symbols used when rating an order.
Section 101.32, “Elements of a rated order,” describes in detail what each rated order must include, consisting of the appropriate priority rating, delivery date information, signatures and required language. HHS seeks comment specifically on the text of this provision.
Section 101.33, “Acceptance and rejection of rated orders,” details when orders placed by HHS may or must be accepted or rejected, and what the procedures are for both, including customer notification requirements and certain exceptions for emergency preparedness conditions. Specifically, persons must accept or reject rated orders for emergency response-related approved programs within fifteen (15) working days (or ten (10) working days, depending on the circumstance). HHS requires the shorter time limit in for the recipient to respond to a rated order issued in connection with an emergency response because such orders would require a shorter time frame to ensure delivery in time to provide disaster assistance, emergency response or similar activities. HHS believes that the exigent circumstances inherent in such activities justify requiring a shorter response time.
Section 101.34, “Preferential scheduling,” details procedures in cases where a person receives two or more conflicting rated orders. If a person is unable to resolve such a conflict, this section refers them to special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 101.40 through 101.44.
Section 101.35, “Extension of priority ratings,” requires a person to use rated orders with suppliers to obtain items or services needed to fill a rated order. This allows the priority rating to “extend” from contractor to subcontractor to supplier throughout the entire procurement chain.
Section 101.36, “Changes or cancellations of priority ratings and rated orders,” provides procedures for changing or cancelling a rated order, both by HHS or other persons who placed the order.
Section 101.37, “Use of rated orders,” lists what items must be rated. It also introduces the use of certain program identification symbols used when rated orders may be combined, and details the procedures for combining two or more rated orders, as well as rated and unrated orders.
Section 101.38, “Limitations on placing rated orders,” prohibits the use of rated orders in a list of specific circumstances. This section also
Section 101.40, “General provisions” illustrates when and how HHS can provide special priorities assistance, and provides specific HHS points of contact and the form to be used for requesting such assistance. Special priorities assistance may generally be requested for any reason.
Section 101.41, “Requests for priority rating authority,” directs persons to the Department of Commerce to request rating authority for production or construction equipment. This section also identifies circumstances in which HHS may authorize a person to place a priority rating on an order to a supplier in advance of the issuance of a rated prime contract, and lists factors HHS will consider in deciding whether to grant this authority.
Section 101.42, “Examples of assistance,” provides a number of examples of when special priorities assistance may be provided, although it may generally be provided for any reason.
Section 101.43 lists the criteria for granting assistance, and § 101.44 lists instances in which assistance may not be provided (
Sections 101.50 through 101.52 describe allocations and contain procedures for the use of allocation orders. Specifically, allocation orders will be used only if priorities authority will not provide a sufficient supply of material, services or facilities for national defense requirements, or when use of priorities authority will cause a severe and prolonged disruption in the supply of resources available to support normal U.S. economic activities. Allocation orders will not be used to ration materials or services at the retail level. Allocation orders will be distributed equitably among the suppliers of the resource(s) being allocated and will not require any person to relinquish a disproportionate share of the civilian market. The standards set forth in §§ 101.50 through 101.52 provide reasonable assurance that allocation orders will be used only in situations where the circumstances justify such orders.
Section 101.53 describes the three types of allocation orders that HHS might issue. The types of allocation orders are a set-aside, an allocation directive, and an allotment. A set-aside is an official action that will require a person to reserve resource capacity in anticipation of receipt of rated orders. An allocation directive is an official action that will require a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions (an allocation directive can require a person to stop or reduce production of an item, prohibit the use of selected items, divert supply of one type of product to another, or to supply a specific quantity, size, shape, and type of an item within a specific time period). An allotment is an official action that will specify the maximum quantity of an item authorized for use in a specific program or application. HHS is requiring these three types of allocation orders because it believes that, collectively, they describe the types of actions that might be taken in any situation in which allocation is justified.
Section 101.54, “Elements of an allocation order,” sets forth the minimum elements of an allocation order. Those elements are:
• A detailed description of the required allocation action(s);
• Specific start and end calendar dates for each required allocation action;
• The written signature on a manually placed order, or the digital signature or name on an electronically placed order, of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or his/her designee, which certifies that the order is authorized under this regulation and that the order is consistent with requirements of the regulation;
• A statement that reads in substance:
• A current copy of the HRPAS.
HHS rquires these elements because it believes that they provide a proper balance between the need for standards to permit the public to recognize and understand an allocation order if one is issued, and the expectation that any actual allocation orders will have to be tailored to meet unforeseeable circumstances. The language of § 101.54 precludes HHS from including additional information in an allocation order if circumstances warrant doing so.
Section 101.55, “Mandatory acceptance of allocation orders,” requires that an allocation order must be accepted if a person is capable of fulfilling the order. If a person is unable to comply fully with the required actions specific in an allocation order, the person must notify HHS immediately, explain the extent to which compliance is possible, and give reasons why full compliance is not possible. This section also states that a person may not discriminate against an allocation order in any manner, such as by charging higher prices or imposing terms and conditions different than what the person imposed on contracts or orders for the same resource(s) that were received prior to receiving the allocation order. Section 101.55 makes it clear to the public that the limited circumstances and emergency situations that trigger issuance of an allocation order require immediate response from the public in order to address the situation in an expedient fashion.
Section 101.56, “Changes or cancellations of an allocation order” provides that an allocation order may be changed or cancelled by HHS.
Section 101.60, “General Provisions”, provides HHS and overview regarding implementation of this subpart.
Section 101.61, “Rating Authorizations,” defines a rating authorization as an official action granting specific priority rating authority, and refers persons to § 101.21 to request such priority rating authority.
Section 101.62, “Directives,” defines a directive as an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions. This section details directive compliance for the public.
Section 101.63, “Letters and Memoranda of Understanding,” defines a letter or memorandum of understanding as an official action that may be issued in resolving special priorities assistance cases to reflect an agreement reached by all parties, and explains its use.
Section 101.70, “General Provisions” details the official actions which may be taken by HHS to enforce or administer the DPA and other applicable statutes.
Section 101.71, “Audits and investigations,” details the procedures for official examinations of books, records, documents, and other writings and information to ensure that the provisions of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this regulation, and official actions have been properly followed. An audit or investigation may also include interviews and a systems evaluation to detect problems or failures in the implementation of this regulation.
Section 101.72, “Compulsory process,” provides that if a person refuses to permit a duly authorized HHS representative to have access to necessary information, HHS may seek the institution of appropriate legal action, including ex parte application for an inspection warrant, in any forum of appropriate jurisdiction.
Sections 101.73 and 101.74 both provide procedures for notification of failure to comply with the DPA, these regulations, or HHS official actions, and describe the resulting penalties and remedies.
Section 101.75, “Compliance Conflicts,” requires that persons immediately contact HHS should compliance with the DPA, these regulations, or an official action prevent a person from filling a rated order or from complying with another provision of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this regulation, or an official action.
Section 101.80, “Adjustments, Exceptions, and Appeals,” reflects the procedures necessary to request an adjustment or exception to the provisions of these regulations.
Section 101.81, “Appeals,” provides the procedures, timing and contact information for appealing a decision made on a request for relief in the previous section.
Section 101.90, “Protection against claims,” provides that a person shall not be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with any part of this regulation or an official action.
Section 101.91, “Records and reports,” requires that persons are required to make and preserve for at least three years, accurate and complete records of any transaction covered by this regulation or an official action. Various requirements and procedures regarding such records are provided in this section. The confidentiality provisions of the DPA governing the submission of information pursuant to the DPA and these regulations are also set forth.
Section 101.92, “Applicability of this regulation and official actions,” provides the jurisdictional applicability of this regulation and official actions.
Section 101.93, “Communications,” provides a HHS point of contact for all communications regarding this regulation.
HHS has examined the impacts of the interim final rule under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). This rule is not an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
A summary of the cost benefit analysis is provided below.
This rule sets criteria under which HHS (or agencies to which HHS delegates HHS's DPA authority to issue rated orders) will authorize prioritization of certain orders or contracts as well as criteria under which HHS will issue orders allocating resources or production facilities. To date, HHS has minimally exercised its prioritization authority for contracts during the response to H1N1 influenza in 2009 to order ancillary supplies in support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Immunization Program, and not exercised its existing allocations authority.
Under prioritization, HHS or its Delegate Agency designates certain orders as one of two possible priority levels. Once so designated, such orders are referred to as “rated orders.” The recipient of a rated order must give it priority over an unrated order or an order with a lower priority rating. A recipient of a rated order may place orders at the same priority level with suppliers and subcontractors for supplies and services necessary to fulfill the recipient's rated order and the suppliers and subcontractors must treat the request from the rated order recipient as a rated order with the same priority level as the original rated order. The rule does not require recipients to fulfill rated orders if the price or terms of sale are not consistent with the price or terms of sale of similar non-rated orders. The rule provides a defense from any liability for damages or penalties for actions taken in or inactions required for, compliance with the rule.
The impact of HRPAS on private companies receiving priority orders is expected to vary. However, in most cases, there is likely to be no economic impact in filling priority orders because it will generally just be changing the timing in which orders are completed.
HRPAS is expected to have an overall positive impact on the U.S. public and industry by maintaining and restoring the production, processing, storage, and distribution of health resources during times of both emergency and nonemergency conditions to promote national defense and to prevent civilian hardship in the food marketplace. While HHS has not yet administered HRPAS under DPA authority, the continued use of DPAS by the Department of Defense proves the utility of a priorities and allocations system.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this interim final rule on small entities, a small business, as described in the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes (January 2012 Edition), has a maximum annual revenue of $33.5 million and a maximum of 1,500 employees (for some business categories, these number are lower). A small governmental jurisdiction is a government of a city, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. A small organization is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
This rule sets criteria under which HHS (or agencies to which HHS delegates HHS's DPA authority to issue rated orders) will authorize prioritization of certain orders or contracts as well as criteria under which HHS will issue orders allocating resources or production facilities. Because the rule affects commercial transactions, HHS believes that small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions are unlikely to be affected by this rule. To date, HHS has
The interim final rule has two principle components: prioritization and allocation. Under prioritization, HHS, or its Delegate Agency, designates certain orders as one of two possible priority levels. Once so designated, such orders are referred to as “rated orders.” The recipient of a rated order must give it priority over an unrated order or an order with a lower priority rating. A recipient of a rated order may place orders at the same priority level with suppliers and subcontractors for supplies and services necessary to fulfill the recipient's rated order and the suppliers and subcontractors must treat the request from the rated order recipient as a rated order with the same priority level as the original rated order. The rule does not require recipients to fulfill rated orders if the price or terms of sale are not consistent with the price or terms of sale of similar non-rated orders. The rule provides a defense from any liability for damages or penalties for actions taken in or inactions required for, compliance with the rule.
Although rated orders could require a firm to fill one order prior to filling another, they will not necessarily require a reduction in the total volume of orders. The regulations will also not require the recipient of a rated order to reduce prices or provide rated orders with more favorable terms than a similar non-rated order. Under these circumstances, the economic effects on the rated order recipient of substituting one order for another are likely to be mutually offsetting, resulting in no net economic impact.
Allocations could be used to control the general distribution of materials or services in the civilian market. Specific allocation actions that HHS might take are as follows:
Set-aside: an official action that requires a person to reserve resource capacity in anticipation of receipt of rated orders.
Allocations directive: an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions. An allocation directive can require a person to stop or reduce production of an item, prohibit the use of selected items, or divert supply of one type of product to another, or to supply a specific quantity, size, shape, and type of an item within a specific time period.
Allotment: an official action that specifies the maximum quantity of an item authorized for use in a specific program or application.
HHS has not yet taken any actions under its existing allocations authority, and any future allocations actions would be used only in extraordinary circumstances. As required by section 101(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2071), hereinafter “DPA,” and by Section 201(a) (3) of Executive Order 13603, HHS may implement allocations only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services makes, and the President approves, and determines that there is a scarcity of critical materials and services essential to the national defense, and that the requirements of the national defense cannot otherwise be met without a significant interruption of normal distribution of these essential materials or services in the civilian marketplace that would cause considerable hardship. “National defense” covers programs for military and health resources production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195
Any allocation actions taken by HHS must assure that small business concerns shall be accorded, to the extent practicable; a fair share of the materials or services covered by the allocation action in proportion to the share received by small business concerns under normal conditions, giving such special consideration as may be possible to emerging business concerns, 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2151(e).
Although HHS cannot determine precisely the number of small entities that will be affected by this rule, HHS believes that the overall impact on such entities will not be significant. In most instances, rated contracts will be fulfilled in addition to other (unrated) contracts and, in some instances might actually increase the total amount of business of the firm that receives a rated contract.
Because allocations can be imposed only after an agency determination confirmed by the President, and because HHS has not yet used its allocations authority that has existed since passage of the Defense Production Act in 1950, one can expect allocations will be ordered only in particular circumstances. Any allocation actions would also have to comply with Section 701(e) of DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2151(e)), which provides that small business concerns be accorded, to the extent practicable, a fair share of the material, including services, in proportion to the share received by such business concerns under normal conditions, giving such special consideration as may be possible to emerging business concerns.
Therefore, HHS believes that the requirement for a Presidential determination and the provisions of section 701 of the DPA indicate that any impact on small business will not be significant.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This interim final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement for Request for Special Priorities Assistance, which is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Data required will include: name, location, contact information, items for which the applicant is requesting assistance on, quantity, and delivery date. Public reporting burden for submission of a request for special priorities assistance or priority rating authority is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Public comment is sought regarding: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of HHS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of HHS's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this document, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
HHS reviewed this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), which imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. HHS determined that the rule 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.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates as defined by Title II of UMRA for State, local, or Tribal governments or for the private sector; therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has approved publication of this interim final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Government contracts, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, HHS adds part 101 to subchapter A of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. App. 2061-2171;
This section provides guidance and procedures for use of Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 Section 101(a) priorities and allocations authority with respect to all forms of health resources necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense. The guidance and procedures in this part are consistent with the guidance and procedures provided in other regulations that, as a whole, form the Federal Priorities and Allocations System. Guidance and procedures for use of the DPA priorities and allocations authority with respect to other types of resources are provided for: food resources, food resource facilities, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer in7 CFR part 700; energy supplies in 10 CFR part 217; all forms of civil transportation in 49 CFR part 33; water resources in 32 CFR part 555; and all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials in the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulation (15 CFR part 700).
(a) Section 201 of E.O. 13603, delegates the President's authority under Section 101 of the DPA. DPA Section 101 provides the President with authority to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts and orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense to a number of agencies. Section 201 of E.O. 13603 delegates the President's authority to specific agencies as follows:
(1) The Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) The Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) The Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) The Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) The Secretary of Commerce for all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) Section 202(a) of E.O. 13603 states that the priorities and allocations authority delegated in Section 201 of that Executive Order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(1) By the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;
(2) By the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(3) By the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.
(c) Section 201(e) of E.O. 13603 provides that each department that is delegated priorities and allocations authority under Section 201(a) of E.O. 13603 may use this authority with respect to control of the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market only after:
(1) Making the finding required under Section 101(b) of the DPA; and
(2) The finding has been approved by the President.
(d) Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603 but not covered by this regulation) have been re-delegated by the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (the “ASPR”). The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.
Certain programs to promote the national defense are eligible for priorities and allocations support. These include programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, deployment and sustainment of military forces, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Other eligible programs include emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. 5195
The following definitions pertain to all sections of this part:
(1) Measures to be undertaken in preparation for anticipated hazards (including the establishment of appropriate organizations, operational plans, and supporting agreements, the
(2) Measures to be undertaken during a hazard (including the enforcement of passive defense regulations prescribed by duly established military or civil authorities, the evacuation of personnel to shelter areas, the control of traffic and panic, and the control and use of lighting and civil communications).
(3) Measures to be undertaken following a hazard (including activities for firefighting; rescue; emergency medical, health and sanitation services; monitoring for specific dangers of special weapons; unexploded bomb reconnaissance; essential debris clearance; emergency welfare measures; and immediately essential emergency repair or restoration of damaged vital facilities).
(1) A natural disaster; or
(2) An accidental or human-caused event.
(1) To prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
(2) To reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism;
(3) To minimize damage from a terrorist attack in the United States; and
(4) To recover from a terrorist attack in the United States.
(1) “Maintenance” is the upkeep necessary to continue any plant, facility, or equipment in working condition.
(2) “Repair” is the restoration of any plant, facility, or equipment to working condition when it has been rendered unsafe or unfit for service by wear and tear, damage, or failure of parts.
(3) “Operating Supplies” are any resources carried as operating supplies according to a person's established accounting practice. “Operating Supplies” may include hand tools and expendable tools, jigs, dies, fixtures used on production equipment, lubricants, cleaners, chemicals and other expendable items.
(4) MRO does not include items produced or obtained for sale to other persons or for installation upon or attachment to the property of another person, or items required for the production of such items; items needed for the replacement of any plant, facility, or equipment; or items for the improvement of any plant, facility, or equipment by replacing items which are still in working condition with items of a new or different kind, quality, or design.
(1) Any raw materials (including minerals, metals, and advanced processed materials), commodities, articles, components (including critical components), products, and items of supply;
(2) Any technical information or services ancillary to the use of any such materials, commodities, articles, components, products, or items; and
(3) Natural resources such as oil and gas.
(1) The development, production, processing, distribution, delivery, or use of an industrial resource or a critical technology item;
(2) The construction of facilities;
(3) The movement of individuals and property by all modes of civil transportation; or
(4) Other national defense programs and activities.
The priorities and allocations authorities of the President under Title I of the DPA with respect to all forms of health resources have been delegated to the Secretary under E.O. 13603. The Secretary may re-delegate the Secretary's priority rating activities under the DPA though the allocations authority provided to the Secretary is not subject to delegation per Section 201(e) of E.O. 13603.
(a)
(2) All DO-rated orders have equal priority with each other and take precedence over unrated orders. All DX-rated orders have equal priority with each other and take precedence over DO-rated orders and unrated orders. (For resolution of conflicts among rated orders of equal priority, see § 101.34(c).)
(3) In addition, a Directive regarding priority treatment for a given item issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for that item takes precedence over any DX-rated order, DO-rated order, or unrated order, as stipulated in the Directive. (For a full discussion of Directives, see § 101. 62.
(b)
(c)
Each rated order must include:
(a) The appropriate priority rating (
(b) A required delivery date or dates. The words “immediately” or “as soon as possible” do not constitute a delivery date. A “requirements contract”, “basic ordering agreement”, “prime vendor contract”, or similar procurement document bearing a priority rating may contain no specific delivery date or dates and may provide for the furnishing of items or service from time-to-time or within a stated period against specific purchase orders, such as “calls”, “requisitions”, and “delivery orders”. These purchase orders must specify a required delivery date or dates and are to be considered as rated as of the date of their receipt by the supplier and not as of the date of the original procurement document;
(c) The written signature on a manually placed order, or the digital signature or name on an electronically placed order, of an individual authorized to sign rated orders for the person placing the order. The signature or use of the name certifies that the rated order is authorized under this part and that the requirements of this part are being followed; and
(d)(1) A statement that reads in substance:
This is a rated order certified for national defense use, and you are required to follow all the provisions of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulation at 45 CFR part 101.
(2) If the rated order is placed in support of emergency preparedness requirements and expedited action is necessary and appropriate to meet these requirements, the following sentences should be added following the statement set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section:
(i) This rated order is placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness. It must be accepted or rejected within two (2) days after receipt of the order if:
(A) The order is issued in response to a hazard that has occurred; or
(B) If the order is issued to prepare for an imminent hazard, as specified in HRPAS § 101.33(e).
(ii) [Reserved]
(a)
(2) A person shall not discriminate against rated orders in any manner such as by charging higher prices or by imposing different terms and conditions than for comparable unrated orders.
(b)
(1) A person shall not accept a rated order for delivery on a specific date if unable to fill the order by that date. However, the person must inform the customer of the earliest date on which delivery can be made and offer to accept the order on the basis of that date. Scheduling conflicts with previously accepted lower rated or unrated orders are not sufficient reason for rejection under this section.
(2) A person shall not accept a DO-rated order for delivery on a date which would interfere with delivery of any previously accepted DO- or DX-rated orders. However, the person must offer to accept the order based on the earliest delivery date otherwise possible.
(3) A person shall not accept a DX-rated order for delivery on a date which would interfere with delivery of any previously accepted DX-rated orders, but must offer to accept the order based on the earliest delivery date otherwise possible.
(4) If a person is unable to fill all of the rated orders of equal priority status received on the same day, the person must accept, based upon the earliest delivery dates, only those orders which can be filled, and reject the other orders. For example, a person must accept order A requiring delivery on December 15 before accepting order B requiring delivery on December 31. However, the person must offer to accept the rejected orders based on the earliest delivery dates otherwise possible.
(c)
(1) If the person placing the order is unwilling or unable to meet regularly established terms of sale or payment;
(2) If the order is for an item not supplied or for a service not capable of being performed;
(3) If the order is for an item or service produced, acquired, or provided only for the supplier's own use for which no orders have been filled for two years prior to the date of receipt of the rated order. If, however, a supplier has sold some of these items or provided similar services, the supplier is obligated to accept rated orders up to that quantity or portion of production or service, whichever is greater, sold or provided within the past two years;
(4) If the person placing the rated order, other than the U.S. Government, makes the item or performs the service being ordered;
(5) If acceptance of a rated order or performance against a rated order would violate any other regulation, official action, or order of the HHS issued under the authority of the DPA or another relevant statute.
(d)
(2) If a person has accepted a rated order and subsequently finds that shipment or performance will be delayed, the person must notify the customer immediately, give the reasons for the delay, and advise of a new shipment or performance date. If notification is given verbally, written or electronic confirmation must be provided within five (5) working days.
(e)
(1) The order is issued in response to a hazard that has occurred; or
(2) The order is issued to prepare for an imminent hazard.
(a) A person must schedule operations, including the acquisition of all needed production items or services, in a timely manner to satisfy the delivery requirements of each rated order. Modifying production or delivery schedules is necessary only when required delivery dates for rated orders cannot otherwise be met.
(b) DO-rated orders must be given production preference over unrated orders, if necessary to meet required delivery dates, even if this requires the diversion of items being processed or ready for delivery or services being performed against unrated orders. Similarly, DX-rated orders must be given preference over DO-rated orders and unrated orders. (Examples: If a person receives a DO-rated order with a delivery date of June 3 and if meeting that date would mean delaying production or delivery of an item for an unrated order, the unrated order must be delayed. If a DX-rated order is received calling for delivery on July 15 and a person has a DO-rated order requiring delivery on June 2 and operations can be scheduled to meet both deliveries, there is no need to alter production schedules to give any additional preference to the DX-rated order.)
(c)
(2) If a person is unable to resolve rated order delivery or performance conflicts under this section, the person should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 101.40 through 101.44. If the person's customer objects to the rescheduling of delivery or performance of a rated order, the customer should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 101.40 through 101.44. For any rated order against which delivery or performance will be delayed, the person must notify the customer as provided in § 101.33(d)(2).
(d) If a person is unable to purchase needed production items in time to fill a rated order by its required delivery date, the person must fill the rated order by using inventoried production items. A person who uses inventoried items to fill a rated order may replace those items with the use of a rated order as provided in § 101.37(b).
(a) A person must use rated orders with suppliers to obtain items or services needed to fill a rated order. The person must use the priority rating indicated on the customer's rated order, except as otherwise provided in this part or as directed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
(b) The priority rating must be included on each successive order placed to obtain items or services needed to fill a customer's rated order. This continues from contractor to subcontractor to supplier throughout the entire procurement chain.
(a) The priority rating on a rated order may be changed or canceled by:
(1) An official action of HHS; or
(2) Written notification from the originating agency that placed the rated order.
(b) If an unrated order is amended so as to make it a rated order, or a DO rating is changed to a DX rating, the supplier must give the appropriate preferential treatment to the order as of the date the change is received by the supplier.
(c) An amendment to a rated order that significantly alters a supplier's original production or delivery schedule shall constitute a new rated order as of the date of its receipt. The supplier must accept or reject the amended order according to the provisions of § 101.33.
(d) The following amendments do not constitute a new rated order: a change in shipping destination; a reduction in the total amount of the order; an increase in the total amount of the order which has negligible impact upon deliveries; a minor variation in size or design; or a change which is agreed upon between the supplier and the customer.
(e) If a person no longer needs items or services to fill a rated order, any rated orders placed with suppliers for the items or services, or the priority rating on those orders, must be canceled.
(f) When a priority rating is added to an unrated order, or is changed or canceled, all suppliers must be promptly notified in writing.
(a) A person must use rated orders to obtain:
(1) Items which will be physically incorporated into other items to fill rated orders, including that portion of such items normally consumed or converted into scrap or by-products in the course of processing;
(2) Containers or other packaging materials required to make delivery of the finished items against rated orders;
(3) Services, other than contracts of employment, needed to fill rated orders; and
(4) MRO needed to produce the finished items to fill rated orders.
(b) A person may use a rated order to replace inventoried items (including finished items) if such items were used to fill rated orders, as follows:
(1) The order must be placed within 90 days of the date of use of the inventory.
(2) A DO rating and the program identification symbol indicated on the customer's rated order must be used on the order. A DX rating may not be used even if the inventory was used to fill a DX-rated order.
(3) If the priority ratings on rated orders from one customer or several customers contain different program identification symbols, the rated orders may be combined. In this case, the program identification symbol “H1” must be used (
(c) A person may combine DX- and DO-rated orders from one customer or several customers if the items or services covered by each level of priority are identified separately and clearly. If different program identification symbols are indicated on those rated orders of equal priority, the person must use the program identification symbol “H1” (
(d)
(i) The rated quantities are separately and clearly identified; and
(ii) The four elements of a rated order, as required by § 101.32, are included on the order with the statement required in § 101.32(d) modified to read in substance:
This purchase order contains rated order quantities certified for national defense use, and you are required to follow all applicable provisions of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulations at 45 CFR part 101, subpart A, only as it pertains to the rated quantities.
(2) A supplier must accept or reject the rated portion of the purchase order as provided in § 101.33 and give preferential treatment only to the rated quantities as required by this part. This part may not be used to require preferential treatment for the unrated portion of the order.
(3) Any supplier who believes that rated and unrated orders are being combined in a manner contrary to the intent of this part or in a fashion that causes undue or exceptional hardship may submit a request for adjustment or exception under § 101.80.
(e) A person may place a rated order for the minimum commercially procurable quantity even if the quantity needed to fill a rated order is less than that minimum. However, a person must combine rated orders as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if possible, to obtain minimum procurable quantities.
(f) A person is not required to place a priority rating on an order for less than one-half of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (as established in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (see 48 CFR 2.101) or in other authorized acquisition regulatory or management systems) whichever amount is greater, provided that delivery can be obtained in a timely fashion without the use of the priority rating.
(a)
(2) Rated orders may not be used to obtain:
(i) Delivery on a date earlier than needed;
(ii) A greater quantity of the item or services than needed, except to obtain a minimum procurable quantity. Separate rated orders may not be placed solely for the purpose of obtaining minimum procurable quantities on each order;
(iii) Items or services in advance of the receipt of a rated order, except as specifically authorized by HHS (see § 101.41(c) for information on obtaining authorization for a priority rating in advance of a rated order);
(iv) Items that are not needed to fill a rated order, except as specifically authorized by HHS, or as otherwise permitted by this part; or
(v) Any of the following items unless specific priority rating authority has been obtained from HHS, a Delegate Agency, or the Department of Commerce, as appropriate:
(A) Items for plant improvement, expansion, or construction, unless they will be physically incorporated into a construction project covered by a rated order; and
(B) Production or construction equipment or items to be used for the manufacture of production equipment. [For information on requesting priority rating authority, see § 101.41.]
(vi) Any items related to the development of chemical or biological warfare capabilities or the production of chemical or biological weapons, unless such development or production has been authorized by the President or the Secretary of Defense. This provision does not however prohibit the use of the priority and allocations authority to acquire or produce qualified countermeasures that are necessary to treat, identify, or prevent harm from any biological or chemical agent that may cause a public health emergency affecting national security.
(b)
(1) Food resources, food resource facilities, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Agriculture);
(2) Energy supplies (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Energy);
(3) All forms of civil transportation (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Transportation);
(4) Water resources (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Defense/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); and
(5) Communications services (Resource agency with jurisdiction— National Communications System under E.O. 12472 of April 3, 1984).
(a) The six regulations that comprise the Federal Priorities and Allocations System are designed to be largely self-executing. However, from time-to-time production or delivery problems will arise in connection with rated orders for health resources as covered under this part. In this event, a person should immediately contact the Secretary for guidance, as specified in § 101.93. If the HHS is unable to resolve the problem or to authorize the use of a priority rating and believes additional assistance is warranted, HHS may forward the request to another agency with resource jurisdiction, or the Department of Commerce, as appropriate, for action. Special priorities assistance is provided to alleviate problems that do arise.
(b) Special priorities assistance is available for any reason consistent with this part. Generally, special priorities assistance is provided to expedite deliveries, resolve delivery conflicts, place rated orders, locate suppliers, or to verify information supplied by customers and vendors. Special priorities assistance may also be used to request rating authority for items that are not normally eligible for priority treatment.
(c) A request for special priorities assistance or priority rating authority must be submitted to the Secretary, as specified in § 101.93.
(a) If a rated order is likely to be delayed because a person is unable to obtain items or services not normally rated under this part, the person may request the authority to use a priority rating in ordering the needed items or services.
(b)
(2) When the use of a priority rating is authorized for the procurement of production or construction equipment, a rated order may be used either to purchase or to lease such equipment. However, in the latter case, the equipment may be leased only from a person engaged in the business of leasing such equipment or from a person willing to lease rather than sell.
(c)
(2) The person must state the following in the request:
It is understood that the authorization of a priority rating in advance of our receiving a rated prime contract from the Department of Health and Human Services and our use of that priority rating with our suppliers in no way commits the Department of Health and Human Services or any other government agency to enter into a contract or order or to expend funds. Further, we understand that the Federal Government shall not be liable for any cancellation charges, termination costs, or other damages that may accrue if a rated prime contract is not eventually placed and, as a result, we must subsequently cancel orders placed with the use of the priority rating authorized as a result of this request.
(3) In reviewing requests for rating authority in advance of a rated prime contract, HHS will consider, among other things, the following criteria:
(i) The probability that the prime contract will be awarded;
(ii) The impact of the resulting rated orders on suppliers and on other authorized programs;
(iii) Whether the contractor is the sole source;
(iv) Whether the item being produced has a long lead time;
(v) The time period for which the rating is being requested.
(4) The HHS may require periodic reports on the use of the rating authority granted under paragraph (c) of this section.
(5) If a rated prime contract is not issued, the person shall promptly notify all suppliers who have received rated orders pursuant to the advanced rating authority that the priority rating on those orders is cancelled.
(a) While special priorities assistance may be provided for any reason in support of this part, it is usually provided in situations where:
(1) A person is experiencing difficulty in obtaining delivery against a rated order by the required delivery date; or
(2) A person cannot locate a supplier for an item or service needed to fill a rated order.
(b) Other examples of special priorities assistance include:
(1) Ensuring that rated orders receive preferential treatment by suppliers;
(2) Resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders;
(3) Assisting in placing rated orders with suppliers;
(4) Verifying the urgency of rated orders; and
(5) Determining the validity of rated orders.
Requests for special priorities assistance should be timely,
(a) There is an urgent need for the item; and
(b) The applicant has made a reasonable effort to resolve the problem.
Special priorities assistance is provided at the discretion of HHS or the Delegate Agency when it is determined that such assistance is warranted to meet the objectives of this part. Examples where assistance may not be provided include situations when a person is attempting to:
(a) Secure a price advantage;
(b) Obtain delivery prior to the time required to fill a rated order;
(c) Gain competitive advantage;
(d) Disrupt an industry apportionment program in a manner designed to provide a person with an unwarranted share of scarce items; or
(e) Overcome a supplier's regularly established terms of sale or conditions of doing business.
(a) It is the policy of the Federal Government that the allocations authority under title I of the Defense Production Act may:
(1) Only be used when there is insufficient supply of a material, service, or facility to satisfy national defense supply requirements through the use of the priorities authority or when the use of the priorities authority would cause a severe and prolonged disruption in the supply of materials, services, or facilities available to support normal U.S. economic activities; and
(2) Not be used to ration materials or services at the retail level.
(b) Allocation orders, when used, will be distributed equitably among the suppliers of the materials, services, or facilities being allocated and not require any person to relinquish a disproportionate share of the civilian market.
When HHS plans to execute its allocations authority to address a supply problem within its resource jurisdiction, the Department shall develop a plan that includes the following information:
(a) A copy of the Secretary's finding for Presidential approval made, in accordance with Section 201(e) of E.O. 13603, that the material or materials at issue are scarce and critical materials essential to the national defense and that the requirements for national defense for such material(s) cannot otherwise be met without creating a significant dislocation of the normal distribution of such material(s) in to such a degree as to create appreciable hardship.
(b) A detailed description of the situation to include any unusual events or circumstances that have created the requirement for an allocation action;
(c) A statement of the specific objective(s) of the allocation action;
(d) A list of the materials, services, or facilities to be allocated;
(e) A list of the sources of the materials, services, or facilities that will be subject to the allocation action;
(f) A detailed description of the provisions that will be included in the allocation orders, including the type(s) of allocation orders, the percentages or quantity of capacity or output to be allocated for each purpose, and the duration of the allocation action (
(g) An evaluation of the impact of the proposed allocation action on the civilian market; and
(h) Proposed actions, if any, to mitigate disruptions to civilian market operations.
(a) No allocation action taken by HHS may be used to control the general distribution of a material in the civilian market, unless the Secretary has:
(1) Made a written finding that:
(i) Such material is a scarce and critical material essential to the national defense, and
(ii) The requirements of the national defense for such material cannot otherwise be met without creating a significant dislocation of the normal distribution of such material in the civilian market to such a degree as to create appreciable hardship;
(2) Submitted the finding for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; and
(3) The President has approved the finding.
(b) The requirements of this section may not delegated by the Secretary (See E.O. 13603, Section 201(e)).
There are three types of allocation orders available for communicating allocation actions. These are:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Each allocation order must include:
(a) A detailed description of the required allocation action(s);
(b) Specific start and end calendar dates for each required allocation action;
(c) The written signature on a manually placed order, or the digital signature or name on an electronically placed order, of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The signature or use of the name certifies that the order is authorized under this part and that the requirements of this part are being followed;
(d) A statement that reads in substance:
This is an allocation order certified for national defense use. [Insert the legal name of the person receiving the order] is required to comply with this order, in accordance with the provisions of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulation (45 CFR part 101, subpart A), which is part of the Federal Priorities and Allocations System; and
(e) A current copy of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulation (subpart A of this part).
(a) Except as otherwise specified in this section (see paragraph (c) of this section), a person shall accept and comply with every allocation order received.
(b) A person shall not discriminate against an allocation order in any manner such as by charging higher prices for materials, services, or facilities covered by the order or by imposing terms and conditions for contracts and orders involving allocated materials, services, or facilities that differ from the person's terms and conditions for contracts and orders for the materials, services, or facilities prior to receiving the allocation order.
(c) If a person is unable to comply fully with the required action(s) specified in an allocation order, the person must notify the Secretary, as specified in § 101.93, immediately, explain the extent to which compliance is possible, and give the reasons why full compliance is not possible. If notification is given verbally, written or electronic confirmation must be provided within five (5) working days. Such notification does not release the person from complying with the order to the fullest extent possible, until the person is notified by the Department of Health and Human Services that the order has been changed or cancelled.
An allocation order may be changed or canceled by an official action of the Department of Health and Human Services.
(a) HHS may take specific official actions to implement the provisions of this subpart.
(b) These official actions include, but are limited to, Rating Authorizations, Directives, and Memoranda of Understanding (
(a) A Rating Authorization is an official action granting specific priority rating authority that:
(1) Permits a person to place a priority rating on an order for an item or service not normally ratable under this part; or
(2) Authorizes a person to modify a priority rating on a specific order or series of contracts or orders.
(b) To request priority rating authority, see § 101.41.
(a) A Directive is an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions.
(b) A person must comply with each Directive issued. However, a person may not use or extend a Directive to obtain any items from a supplier, unless expressly authorized to do so in the Directive.
(c) A Priorities Directive takes precedence over all DX-rated orders, DO-rated orders, and unrated orders previously or subsequently received, unless a contrary instruction appears in the Directive.
(d) An Allocations Directive takes precedence over all Priorities Directives, DX-rated orders, DO-rated orders, and unrated orders previously or subsequently received, unless a contrary instruction appears in the Directive.
(a) A Letter or Memorandum of Understanding is an official action that may be issued in resolving special priorities assistance cases to reflect an agreement reached by all parties including HHS, the Department of Commerce (if applicable), a Delegate Agency (if applicable), the supplier, and the customer).
(b) A Letter or Memorandum of Understanding is not used to alter scheduling between rated orders, to authorize the use of priority ratings, to
(a) HHS may take specific official actions for any reason necessary or appropriate to the enforcement or the administration of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action. Such actions include Administrative Subpoenas, Demands for Information, and Inspection Authorizations.
(b) Any person who places or receives a rated order or an allocation order must comply with the provisions of this part.
(c) Willful violation of the provisions of title I or section 705 of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action of the Department of Health and Human Services is a criminal act, punishable as provided in the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, and as set forth in § 101.74.
(a) Audits and investigations are official examinations of books, records, documents, other writings and information to ensure that the provisions of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, and official actions have been properly followed. An audit or investigation may also include interviews and a systems evaluation to detect problems or failures in the implementation of this part.
(b) When undertaking an audit or investigation, HHS shall:
(1) Define the scope and purpose in the official action given to the person under investigation; and
(2) Have ascertained that the information sought or other adequate and authoritative data are not available from any Federal or other responsible agency.
(c) In administering this part, HHS may issue the following documents that constitute official actions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d) The production of books, records, documents, other writings, and information will not be required at any place other than where they are usually kept, if, prior to the return date specified in the Administrative Subpoena or Demand for Information, a duly authorized official of HHS is furnished with copies of such material that are certified under oath to be true copies. As an alternative, a duly authorized representative of HHS may enter into a stipulation with a person as to the content of the material.
(e) An Administrative Subpoena, Demand for Information, or Inspection Authorization, shall include the name, title, or official position of the person to be served, the evidence sought to be adduced, and its general relevance to the scope and purpose of the audit, investigation, or other inquiry. If employees or agents are to be interviewed; if books, records, documents, other writings, or information are to be produced; or if property is to be inspected; the Administrative Subpoena, Demand for Information, or Inspection Authorization will describe them with particularity.
(f) Service of documents shall be made in the following manner:
(1) Service of a Demand for Information or Inspection Authorization shall be made personally, or by Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested at the person's last known address. Service of an Administrative Subpoena shall be made personally. Personal service may also be made by leaving a copy of the document with someone at least 18 years old at the person's last known dwelling or place of business.
(2) Service upon other than an individual may be made by serving a partner, corporate officer, or a managing or general agent authorized by appointment or by law to accept service of process. If an agent is served, a copy of the document shall be mailed to the person named in the document.
(3) Any individual 18 years of age or over may serve an Administrative Subpoena, Demand for Information, or Inspection Authorization. When personal service is made, the individual making the service shall prepare an affidavit as to the manner in which service was made and the identity of the person served, and return the affidavit, and in the case of subpoenas, the original document, to the issuing officer. In case of failure to make service, the reasons for the failure shall be stated on the original document.
(a) If a person refuses to permit a duly authorized representative of the Department of Health and Human Services to have access to any premises or to the source of information necessary to the administration or the enforcement of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or official actions, HHS, through its authorized representative may seek compulsory process. Compulsory process means the institution of appropriate legal action, including ex parte application for an inspection warrant or its equivalent, in any forum of appropriate jurisdiction.
(b) Compulsory process may be sought in advance of an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, if, in the judgment of the Secretary there is reason to believe that a person will refuse to permit an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, or that other circumstances exist which make such process desirable or necessary.
(a) At the conclusion of an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, or at any other time, HHS may inform the person in writing of HHS's position regarding that person's non-compliance with the requirements of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.
(b) In cases where HHS determines that failure to comply with the provisions of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action was inadvertent, the person may be informed in writing of the particulars involved and the
(a) Willful violation of the provisions of the DPA, the priorities provisions of the Selective Service Act and related statutes (when applicable), this part, or an official action, is a crime and upon conviction, a person may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalties provided by the DPA are a $10,000 fine, or one year in prison, or both. The maximum penalties provided by the Selective Service Act and related statutes are a $50,000 fine, or three years in prison, or both.
(b) The Government may also seek an injunction from a court of appropriate jurisdiction to prohibit the continuance of any violation of, or to enforce compliance with, the DPA, this part, or an official action.
(c) In order to secure the effective enforcement of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, and official actions, the following are prohibited:
(1) No person may solicit, influence or permit another person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.
(2) No person may conspire or act in concert with any other person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.
(3) No person shall deliver any item if the person knows or has reason to believe that the item will be accepted, redelivered, held, or used in violation of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action. In such instances, the person must immediately notify HHS that, in accordance with this provision, delivery has not been made.
If compliance with any provision of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action would prevent a person from filling a rated order or from complying with another provision of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action, the person must immediately notify the Secretary, as specified in § 101.93, for resolution of the conflict.
(a) A person may submit a request to the Secretary for an adjustment or exception on the ground that:
(1) A provision of this part or an official action results in an undue or exceptional hardship on that person not suffered generally by others in similar situations and circumstances; or
(2) The consequences of following a provision of this part or an official action are contrary to the intent of the DPA and other applicable statutes, or this part.
(b) Each request for adjustment or exception must be in writing and contain a complete statement of all the facts and circumstances related to the provision of this part or official action from which adjustment is sought and a full and precise statement of the reasons why relief should be provided.
(c) The submission of a request for adjustment or exception shall not relieve any person from the obligation of complying with the provision of this part or official action in question while the request is being considered unless such interim relief is granted in writing by the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative.
(d) A decision of the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative under this section may be appealed to the Secretary (For information on the appeal procedure, see § 101.81.)
(a) Any person whose request for adjustment or exception was denied by the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative under Section. 94a.80, may appeal to the Secretary who, through the Secretary's designated representative, shall review and reconsider the denial.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an appeal must be received by the Secretary no later than 45 days after receipt of a written notice of denial. After this 45 day period, an appeal may be accepted at the discretion of the Secretary.
(2) For requests for adjustment or exception involving rated orders placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness (see § 101.33(e)), an appeal must be received by the Secretary, no later than 15 days after receipt of a written notice of denial. Contract performance under the order shall not be stayed pending resolution of the appeal.
(c) Each appeal must be in writing and contain a complete statement of all the facts and circumstances related to the action appealed from and a full and precise statement of the reasons the decision should be modified or reversed.
(d) In addition to the written materials submitted in support of an appeal, an appellant may request, in writing, an opportunity for an informal hearing. This request may be granted or denied at the discretion of the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative.
(e) When a hearing is granted, the Secretary may designate an HHS employee to act as the Secretary's representative and hearing officer to conduct the hearing and to prepare a report. The hearing officer shall determine all procedural questions and impose such time or other limitations deemed reasonable. In the event that the hearing officer decides that a printed transcript is necessary, all expenses shall be borne by the appellant.
(f) When determining an appeal, the Secretary may consider all information submitted during the appeal as well as any recommendations, reports, or other relevant information and documents available to HHS or consult with any other persons or groups.
(g) The submission of an appeal under this section shall not relieve any person from the obligation of complying with the provision of this part or official action in question while the appeal is being considered unless such relief is granted in writing by the Secretary.
A person shall not be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with any provision of this part, or an official action, notwithstanding that such provision or action shall subsequently be declared invalid by judicial or other competent authority.
(a) Persons are required to make and preserve for at least three years, accurate and complete records of any transaction covered by this part or an official action.
(b) Records must be maintained in sufficient detail to permit the determination, upon examination, of whether each transaction complies with the provisions of this part or any official action. However, this part does not specify any particular method or system to be used.
(c) Records required to be maintained by this part must be made available for examination on demand by duly authorized representatives of HHS as provided in § 101.71.
(d) In addition, persons must develop, maintain, and submit any other records and reports to HHS that may be required for the administration of the DPA and other applicable statutes, and this part.
(e) DPA Section 705(d), as implemented by E.O. 13603, provides that information obtained under this section which the Secretary deems confidential, or with reference to which a request for confidential treatment is made by the person furnishing such information, shall not be published or disclosed unless the Secretary determines that the withholding of this information is contrary to the interest of the national defense. Information required to be submitted to HHS in connection with the enforcement or administration of the DPA, this part, or an official action, is deemed to be confidential under DPA Section 705(d) and shall be handled in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(a) This part and all official actions, unless specifically stated otherwise, apply to transactions in any state, territory, or possession of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(b) This part and all official actions apply not only to deliveries to other persons but also include deliveries to affiliates and subsidiaries of a person and deliveries from one branch, division, or section of a single entity to another branch, division, or section under common ownership or control.
(c) This part and its schedules shall not be construed to affect any administrative actions taken by HHS, or any outstanding contracts or orders placed pursuant to any of the regulations, orders, schedules or delegations of authority previously issued by HHS pursuant to authority granted to HHS, by the President under the DPA and E.O. 13603. Such actions, contracts, or orders shall continue in full force and effect under this part unless modified or terminated by proper authority.
All communications concerning this part, including requests for copies of the part and explanatory information, requests for guidance or clarification, and requests for adjustment or exception shall be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Washington, DC.
This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on July 8, 2015.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Amendment 8), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule expands portions of the northern and western boundaries of the Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) (Oculina Bank HAPC) and allows transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC by fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard; modifies vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements for rock shrimp fishermen transiting through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on aboard; expands a portion of the western boundary of the Stetson Reefs, Savannah and East Florida Lithoherms, and Miami Terrace Deepwater Coral HAPC (CHAPC) (Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC), including modifications to the shrimp access area A, which is renamed “shrimp access area 1”; and expands a portion of the northern boundary of the Cape Lookout Lophelia Banks Deepwater CHAPC (Cape Lookout CHAPC). In addition, this rule makes a minor administrative change to the names of the shrimp fishery access areas. The purpose of this rule is to increase protections for deepwater coral based on new information for deepwater coral resources in the South Atlantic.
This rule is effective August 17, 2015.
Electronic copies of Amendment 8, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted in writing to Anik Clemens, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; and OMB, by email at
Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305.
South Atlantic coral is managed under the FMP. The FMP is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
On May 20, 2014, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 8 and requested public comment (79 FR 28880). On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 8 and requested public comment (79 FR 31907). Subsequently, NMFS published a correction to the notice of availability (79 FR 37269, July 1, 2014) and the proposed rule (79 FR 37270, July 1, 2014) to correct an error in the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC. The proposed rule and NOA stated that the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC would expand “by 405.42 square miles (1,050 square km), for a total area of 694.42 square miles (1,798.5 square km) . . .” However, this was incorrect. The published corrections explained that the increase in size of the Oculina Bank HAPC would be 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km). The Secretary approved the amendment on August 18, 2014. The proposed rule and Amendment 8 set forth the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by this final rule is provided below.
This final rule expands the boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC and allows transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC by fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard; modifies the VMS
This final rule increases the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km) and, except for a limited transit provision described below, extends the current prohibitions to the larger area, and increases protection of coral. The prohibitions for the Oculina Bank include the following: It is unlawful to use a bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot or trap, and if aboard a fishing vessel it is unlawful to anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain. Additionally, it is unlawful to fish for or possess rock shrimp in or from the Oculina Bank HAPC on board a fishing vessel.
This final rule establishes a transit provision to allow fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard to transit the Oculina Bank HAPC under limited circumstances. To be considered to be in transit and thus allowed to possess rock shrimp on board a vessel in the Oculina Bank HAPC, a vessel must have a valid commercial permit for rock shrimp, the vessel's gear must be appropriately stowed (
This final rule increases the size of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC by 490 square miles (1,269 square km), for a total area of 24,018 square miles (62,206 square km), and increases the size of the Cape Lookout CHAPC by 10 square miles (26 square km), for a total area of 326 square miles (844 square km), and extends the current CHAPC gear prohibitions to the larger areas to increase protection of deepwater coral ecosystems. The prohibitions for the CHAPCs include the following: It is unlawful to use a bottom longline, trawl (mid-water or bottom), dredge, pot or trap, and if aboard a fishing vessel, it is unlawful to anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain. Additionally, it is unlawful to fish for or possess coral in or from the CHAPCs on board a fishing vessel.
Additionally, the expansion of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC provides royal red shrimp fishermen a new zone adjacent to the existing shrimp access area A (renamed “shrimp access area 1”, as discussed in the next section of this preamble) within which they can haul-back fishing gear without drifting into an area where their gear is prohibited. Thus, this rule expands the shrimp fishery access area to include the new haul-back zone.
This rule also revises the names of the shrimp fishery access areas, from “shrimp access area A-D” to “shrimp access area 1-4”, in the regulations implemented through the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1 (75 FR 35330, June 22, 2010) to more closely match the names in the FMP. This final rule also revises 50 CFR 622.224(c)(3)(i)-(iv), to change the four shrimp fishery access areas titles.
NMFS received a total of 35 comment letters on Amendment 8 and the proposed rule, which include letters from a Federal agency, an environmental organization, private citizens, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, and fishing associations. Five letters expressed support for the amendment and three letters were unrelated to the actions in Amendment 8. One comment letter was signed by 257 members of the rock shrimp fishing industry and opposed the implementation of the amendment. The specific comments on the actions contained in Amendment 8 and the proposed rule and NMFS's respective responses, are summarized below.
WinPlot
In addition to analyzing the relative importance of rock shrimp revenue within the total fishing revenue, the significance of any economic effects will be determined by the expected reduction in rock shrimp harvest. It is not possible to determine with certainty the reduction in rock shrimp harvest that may occur as a result of the proposed expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC because available data does not allow for the tabulation of rock shrimp harvest per tow, and the harvest area is recorded by statistical grid (60 nautical miles squared). Additionally, the distribution and abundance of rock shrimp in any area is highly variable from year to year. Although anecdotal information made available through public comment may suggest higher rock shrimp yields in the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC in 2013, sufficient information is not available to conclude this higher abundance of rock shrimp will persist or that it is more representative of future conditions than the historic average. Further, it has not been shown that the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is the source of substantial rock shrimp harvest in years when total rock shrimp harvests have been high. In the absence of harvest data per tow, the assessment of the expected reduction in rock shrimp harvest was based on the assumption that rock shrimp harvest is uniformly distributed over the statistical grid and, thus, the reduction in harvest as a result of the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC would be proportionate to the amount of area in the expansion relative to the area in the total statistical grid within which harvest is reported. Although this assumption may not capture the actual harvest that has occurred in the expansion area, or the potential higher productivity that may occasionally occur in future years, NMFS has determined this assumption is reasonable.
Since publication of the proposed rule, NMFS Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) published a final rule to specify requirements related to approved VMS units, which describes the requirements for vendors wishing to provide VMS units for domestic fisheries (70 FR 77399, December 24, 2014). NMFS has now determined that the discussion of the VMS requirements in the proposed rule preamble and economic analysis for Coral Amendment 8 was incorrect. The preamble in the proposed rule stated that the proposed transit provisions would require that some VMS units would need to be replaced or would be required to have software/hardware upgrades to allow transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on board. Estimates of the costs of these upgrades were provided in the proposed rule. However, NMFS has since determined that the VMS units currently operating in the fishery are capable of signaling at a rate of at least 1 ping per 5 minutes, as is required by Amendment 8 and this rule.
Therefore, no replacement units or upgrades will likely be necessary for fishing vessels with rock shrimp on board that choose to transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC. As a result, the only costs associated with this final rule
In addition, NMFS fixes a spelling mistake in this final rule. This rule changes the spelling of “Lithotherm” to “Lithoherm” in the name of the CHAPC “Stetson Reefs, Savannah and East Florida Lithoherms, and Miami Terrace Deepwater Coral HAPC” in 50 CFR 622.224(c)(1)(iii).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of deepwater coral resources in the South Atlantic and is consistent with Amendment 8, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for this rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact this rule is expected to have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The purpose of this rule is to address recent discoveries of deepwater coral resources and protect deepwater coral ecosystems in the Council's jurisdiction from activities that could compromise their condition. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule.
Comments on the proposed rule are addressed in the comments and responses section of this final rule and the changes to the final rule are discussed in the changes from the proposed rule section of this final rule. No changes were made to the rule in response to these comments.
This rule does not include any reporting or record-keeping requirements other than those associated with the VMS requirements discussed below.
This rule is expected to directly apply up to 700 vessels that commercially harvest snapper-grouper species and up to 104 vessels that commercially harvest rock shrimp in the affected areas of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South Atlantic. Among the vessels that harvest rock shrimp, an estimated 9 vessels also harvest royal red shrimp. Although potentially all vessels in the snapper-grouper commercial sector could potentially be affected, the number of vessels that actually fish in the affected areas is expected to be small, as evidenced by the minimal economic effects expected to occur as a result of this rule (described below). The average vessel involved in commercial snapper-grouper harvest is estimated to earn approximately $28,700 (2012 dollars) in annual gross revenue, and the average vessel permitted to harvest rock shrimp is estimated to earn approximately $20,500 (2012 dollars) in annual rock shrimp gross revenue. The average annual gross revenue for vessels that harvest both rock shrimp and royal red shrimp is estimated to be approximately $113,000 (2012 dollars). However, although there are an estimated 104 vessels permitted to harvest rock shrimp, the number of vessels that actually harvest rock shrimp in the South Atlantic is substantially less. Over the period 2009-2011, only 31, 19, and 18 vessels harvested rock shrimp in the South Atlantic in these years, respectively. Based on sample data from these vessels (10 vessels in 2009, 7 vessels in 2010, and 9 vessels in 2011), the average annual total revenue from all fishing activity during these years was approximately $334,000 (2012 dollars) in 2009, $725,000 in 2010, and $629,000 in 2011. More recent data are not available. NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this rule.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States including seafood dealers and harvesters. A business involved in commercial finfish fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, Finfish Fishing). The receipts threshold for a business involved in shrimp fishing is $5.5 million (NAICS code 114112, Shellfish Fishing). Because the average annual gross revenues for the commercial fishing operations expected to be directly affected by this rule are significantly less than the SBA revenue threshold, all these businesses are believed to be small business entities.
This rule contains four separate actions. The first action expands the boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km). Expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to affect vessels that harvest snapper-grouper, rock shrimp, and royal red shrimp because some fishermen have historically harvested these species in this area and will be prevented by the expansion from continuing to fish here. The expected maximum potential reduction in total gross revenue from snapper-grouper species as a result of the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is approximately $56,000 (2012 dollars), or less than 0.3 percent of the total average annual revenue received by South Atlantic commercial fishing vessels from snapper-grouper species. The expected maximum potential reduction in revenue from snapper-grouper species is minimal, and fishermen may be able to absorb the reduction or adapt their fishing practices to the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC and increase their fishing effort, and harvest, in other locations to mitigate the impact of the reduction. Additionally, fishermen may benefit from spill-over effects (increased total harvest or more cost-efficient harvest) of the enhanced productivity of the protected Oculina Bank HAPC.
All vessels that harvest royal red shrimp are expected to also harvest rock shrimp. Royal red shrimp are not managed in a fishery management plan by the Council, therefore, neither logbooks nor VMS units are required to harvest royal red shrimp. As a result, NMFS cannot determine with available data what portion of the average annual royal red shrimp harvest may be affected by the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC. However, the primary effect of the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to be on the harvest of rock shrimp and not the harvest of royal red shrimp. This rule is expected to reduce the total revenue from rock shrimp for all potentially affected rock shrimp fishermen by a maximum of approximately $189,500 (2012 dollars).
Translating this expected reduction in total revenue to an average reduction per vessel is difficult because of the variability in participation in the fishery from year-to-year, as well as variability in revenue. As discussed above, significantly more vessels are permitted to harvest rock shrimp (104 vessels) than harvest rock shrimp (18-31 vessels,
The second action establishes transit provisions through the Oculina Bank HAPC for a vessel with rock shrimp on board. This rule will allow transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC by a vessel with rock shrimp on board if the vessel maintains a direct and non-stop continuous course at a minimum speed of 5 knots (as determined by an operating VMS approved for the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery and the VMS onboard the vessel registers a VMS ping (signal) rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes), and the vessel's gear is appropriately stowed (
Subsequent to publication of the proposed rule, however, NMFS determined that all of the VMS units operated by the affected rock shrimp vessels are capable of communicating at the higher ping rate. As a result, no vessel that desires to transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on board will be required to purchase a new VMS unit or acquire an upgrade and the only change in costs will be an increase in communication costs. Despite this increase in communication costs, any increase will be voluntarily incurred because the rule will not require that vessels transit the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on board. The net economic effect per entity of transiting is expected to be positive. Transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to reduce operating expenses by allowing a vessel to avoid time-consuming and costly travel around the area with rock shrimp onboard. Also, revenue may be increased if a reduction in travel time allows longer fishing. Overall, a fisherman will only choose to incur the increased VMS communication costs associated with transit if they conclude they will receive a net increase in economic benefits, regardless of the source of these benefits. As a result, this component of the rule is expected to have a direct positive economic effect on all affected small entities.
Combined, the expected effects of the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC and transit provisions for vessels with rock shrimp on board are expected to range from a minor short term reduction in the average annual gross revenue from rock shrimp to a net positive economic effect on the average rock shrimp vessel. Although the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to reduce rock shrimp revenue from this area, the transit provisions are expected to reduce operating costs and potentially increase rock shrimp revenue by allowing more time to harvest rock shrimp from other areas, where permitted.
The third action in this rule will expand the boundaries of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC by 490 square miles (1,269 square km), for a total area of 24,018 square miles (62,206 square km). Fishing for snapper-grouper species does not occur normally in this area and fishing for other finfish or golden crab will not be expected to be affected by the expansion of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC. This action will also establish a gear haul back/drift zone to accommodate the royal red shrimp fishery that occurs in this area. As a result, this component of the rule is not expected to reduce the revenue of any small entities.
The fourth action will expand the boundaries of the Cape Lookout CHAPC by 10 square miles (26 square km), for a total area of 326 square miles (844 square km). Similar to the expansion of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC, fishing for snapper-grouper species does not occur normally in this area and fishing for other finfish or golden crab is not expected to be affected because of the small size of the expansion and availability of nearby areas with similar fishable habitat for these species. As a result, this component of the rule is not expected to reduce the revenue of any small entities.
Among the actions in this rule, only the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to directly reduce the revenue of any small entities. Four alternatives, including the no action status quo alternative, were considered for the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC. Two of these alternatives are included in this rule. The no action alternative was not adopted because it would not have achieved the objective of increasing the protection of deepwater coral ecosystems in the Council's jurisdiction. The second alternative would have increased the area of expansion and, as a result, would result in a larger reduction in fishing revenue to directly affected small entities than this rule. Because the other actions considered in this rule (actions 2-4) would not be expected to result in any negative economic effects on any directly affected small entities, the issue of significant alternatives to reduce any significant negative effects is not relevant.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which have been approved by the Office of
These estimates of the public reporting burden include the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as small entity compliance guides. As part of the rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all South Atlantic snapper-grouper and South Atlantic rock shrimp vessel permit holders.
Coral, CHAPC, Coral reefs, Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, HAPC, Shrimp, South Atlantic.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b)
(i) In the Oculina Bank HAPC, no person may:
(A) Use a bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap.
(B) If aboard a fishing vessel, anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain.
(C) Fish for or possess rock shrimp in or from the Oculina Bank HAPC, except a shrimp vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for rock shrimp that possesses rock shrimp may transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC if fishing gear is appropriately stowed. For the purpose of this paragraph, transit means a direct and non-stop continuous course through the area, maintaining a minimum speed of five knots as determined by an operating VMS and a VMS minimum ping rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes; fishing gear appropriately stowed means that doors and nets are out of the water and onboard the deck or below the deck of the vessel.
(ii) [Reserved]
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(iii)
(A) Rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:
(B) The outer boundary of the EEZ in a northerly direction from Point 181 to the Origin.
(3) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meetings and webinars.
This notice announces a series of meetings of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the
See
Unless otherwise specified in the
John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email:
The meetings will be held:
Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.
DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; An Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); A military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D and Class E airspace and remove Class E airspace in the Columbus, OH, area. Decommissioning of the non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and/or cancellation of NDB approaches at Ohio State University Airport, Columbus, OH, has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport, as well as the Port Columbus International Airport, will be updated.
0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
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.
Roger Waite, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-7652.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 controlled airspace at Ohio State University Airport, Columbus, OH.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1649/Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document 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
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class D and E airspace in the Columbus, OH, area. Decommissioning of the Dan Scott NDB navigation aid and cancellation of the NDB approach at Ohio State University Airport has made this action necessary. Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D would be removed as it is no longer required. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Port Columbus International Airport would be reconfigured due to the Dan Scott NDB decommissioning. The geographic coordinates of Ohio State University Airport and Port Columbus International Airport would be updated to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, 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 D and E airspace designations 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, will 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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,400 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Ohio State University Airport, excluding that airspace within the Port Columbus International Airport, OH, Class C airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Port Columbus International Airport, and within 3.3 miles either side of the 094° bearing from Port Columbus International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.1 miles east of the airport, and within a 7-mile radius of Rickenbacker International Airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 045° bearing from Rickenbacker International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.5 miles northeast of the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Ohio State University Airport, and within a 7.4-mile radius of Bolton Field Airport, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Fairfield County Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Darby Dan Airport, excluding that airspace within the London, OH, Class E airspace area.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Cuba Municipal Airport, Cuba, MO; Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; Mountain View Airport, Mountain View, MO; Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO. Decommissioning of the non-directional radio beacons (NDB) and/or cancellation of NDB approaches due to advances in Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports. Geographic coordinates are also adjusted at Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; and Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO.
0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC. 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2015-0842/Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-2, 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.
Roger Waite, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-7652.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0842/Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document 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
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) at Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Cuba Municipal Airport, Cuba, MO; Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; Mountain View Airport, Mountain View, MO; Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO. Also, Class E airspace extending upward from the surface would be amended at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs and/or cancellation of the NDB approach at each airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations for SIAPs at the airports. Geographic coordinates also would be adjusted for Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace areas 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, will 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.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Cuba Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 204° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles southwest of the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the Farmington VORTAC 300° radial extending from the 6.4-mile radius of the airport to the VORTAC.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Lamar Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Mountain View Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Nevada Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) is proposing to determine that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not contain heavy elements that would exceed the limits specified in the Commission's toy standard, ASTM F963-11. Based on this proposed determination, unfinished and untreated trunk wood in toys would not require third party testing. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Submit comments by August 17, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081, by any of the following methods:
Randy Butturini, Project Manager, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Hwy, Room 814, Bethesda, MD 20814; 301-504-7562: email;
Along with this proposed rule, CPSC is publishing a direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations relating to property transferred in connection with the performance of services. These proposed regulations affect certain taxpayers who receive property transferred in connection with the performance of services and make an election to include the value of substantially nonvested property in income in the year of transfer.
Comments must be received by October 15, 2015.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135524-14), room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135524-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning these proposed regulations, Thomas Scholz or Michael Hughes at (202) 317-5600 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments, and/or to request a hearing, Regina Johnson, at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).
Section 83(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides generally that if, in connection with the performance of services, property is transferred to any person other than the person for whom such services are performed, the excess of the fair market value of the property (determined without regard to any restriction other than a restriction which by its terms will never lapse) as of the first time that the transferee's rights in the property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever occurs earlier, over the amount (if any) paid for the property is included in the service provider's gross income for the taxable year which includes such time. Section 83(b) and § 1.83-2(a) permit the service provider to elect to include in gross income, as compensation for services, the excess (if any) of the fair market value of the property at the time of transfer over the amount (if any) paid for the property.
Under section 83(b)(2), an election made under section 83(b) must be made in accordance with the regulations thereunder and must be filed with the IRS no later than 30 days after the date on which the property is transferred to the service provider. Under § 1.83-2(c), an election under section 83(b) is made by filing a copy of a written statement with the IRS office with which the person who performed the services files his or her return. In addition, the person who performed the services is required to submit a copy of such statement with his or her income tax return for the taxable year in which such property was transferred. Section 1.83-2(d) requires that the person who performed the services also submit a copy of the section 83(b) election to the person for whom the services were performed.
In recent years, it has come to the attention of the IRS that many taxpayers who wish to electronically file (e-file) their annual income tax return have been unable to do so because of the requirement in § 1.83-2(c) that they submit a copy of their section 83(b) election with their income tax return. Commercial software available for e-filing income tax returns does not consistently provide a mechanism for submitting a section 83(b) election with an individual's e-filed return. As a result, an individual who has made a section 83(b) election may be unable to e-file his or her return and at the same time comply with the requirement in § 1.83-2(c) that a copy of the section 83(b) election be submitted with the return. An individual who made a section 83(b) election would be required to paper file his or her income tax return to comply with the requirements under § 1.83-2(c).
Since the introduction of the e-file program, the IRS has encouraged taxpayers to file returns electronically. The e-file program reduces the amount of paper the government must process, and this reduction of paper processing allows the IRS to be more efficient and use valuable resources to address other critical work.
In order to remove this obstacle to e-filing an individual tax return, the proposed regulations would eliminate the requirement under § 1.83-2(c) that a copy of the section 83(b) election be submitted with an individual's tax return for the year the property is transferred. As described in this preamble, section 83(b)(2) requires that an election made under section 83(b) be filed with the IRS no later than 30 days after the date that the property is transferred to the service provider. This statutory requirement provides the IRS with the original section 83(b) election. Section 83(b) elections are scanned by the service center receiving the election, and an electronic copy of the election is generated. The creation of this electronic copy of the section 83(b) election eliminates the need for a taxpayer to submit a copy of the section 83(b) election with his or her individual tax return.
Taxpayers are reminded of their general recordkeeping responsibilities pursuant to section 6001 of the Code, and more specifically of the need to keep records that show the basis of property owned by the taxpayer. Taxpayers must maintain sufficient records to show the original cost of the property and to support the tax treatment of the property transfer reported on the taxpayers' returns. Taxpayers must keep these records as long as they may be needed for the administration of any provision of the Code. Generally, this means records that support items shown on a return must be retained until the period of limitations for that return expires. See section 6501 of the Code. A copy of any section 83(b) election made with respect to property must be kept until the period of limitations expires for the return that reports the sale or other disposition of the property.
The proposed regulations would remove the second sentence in § 1.83-2(c) of the existing regulations. This would eliminate the requirement that taxpayers submit a copy of a section 83(b) election with their tax return for the year in which the property subject to the election was transferred.
These regulations under section 83 are proposed to apply as of January 1, 2016, and would apply to property transferred on or after that date. Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for property transferred on or after January 1, 2015.
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are timely submitted to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Thomas Scholz and Michael Hughes, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(c)
(g)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation area (RNA) on the Middle Waterway in Tacoma, Washington. The RNA will protect the sediment cap areas in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats (CB-NT) Superfund Cleanup Site in the Middle Waterway Problem Area. This regulated navigation area would prohibit activities that could disrupt the integrity of the engineered sediment caps that have been placed within the Middle Waterway Problem Area. These activities include vessel grounding, anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or other such activities that would disturb the integrity of the sediment caps. It will not affect transit or navigation of this area or the existing industrial activities occurring in this area.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 15, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 17, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Johnny Zeng, Waterways Management Division, Sector Puget Sound, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6175, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The Coast Guard received notice from the U.S. EPA requesting the establishment of a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) for the Middle Waterway Problem Area of the CB-NT Superfund Cleanup Site in Tacoma, Washington. This request was received as a result of the need to protect the engineered sediment caps in the Middle Waterway from activities that could disrupt the integrity of the caps within the CB-NT Superfund Cleanup Site.
The CB-NT was added to the U.S. EPA's National Priorities List (Superfund) in September 1983 because of hazardous substance contamination in the sediment. The EPA selected the Middle Waterway Problem Area for remedial action, and subsequently cleanup activities were conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Remediation activities identified for the Middle Waterway included dredging, placement of enhanced natural recovery material, placement of caps, and natural recovery. The caps consist of approximately three feet of sand and gravel and light-loose riprap, and were placed in various locations within the waterway to contain the contaminated sediments. These caps were designed to withstand activities common to a working waterfront. The cap areas cover approximately two acres of sediment in the waterway. Construction activities were initiated in July 2003 and completed in January 2005. A Remedial Action Completion Report documenting the cleanup activities was completed and approved by the U.S. EPA in April 2005.
Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the authority to establish RNAs in defined water areas that are determined to have hazardous conditions and in which vessel traffic can be regulated in the interest of safety. See 33 U.S.C. 1231 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Coast Guard District Commanders are granted authority under 33 CFR 165.11 to regulate vessel traffic in areas with hazardous conditions. This rule is necessary to prevent disturbance of the sediment caps established in the Middle Waterway Problem Area of the CB-NT Superfund Cleanup Site. Disruption of the integrity of the caps may result in a hazardous condition and harm to the marine environment. As such, this RNA is necessary to protect the integrity of the caps and will do so by prohibiting maritime activities that could disturb or damage them. Enforcement of this RNA will be managed by Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound assets including Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound through radar and closed circuit television sensors. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound may also be assisted by other state, local, or government agencies in the enforcement of this rule.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent RNA on the Middle Waterway to protect the sediment caps in the Middle Waterway Problem Area of the CB-NT Superfund Site. It would do so by restricting vessel anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or other activities that could disrupt the integrity of the caps and the underlying contaminated sediments located in the proposed RNA. Activities common in the proposed regulated areas include tugboat and log-rafting activities, tugboat moorage, removal and launching of ships for repair, and other ship repair and maintenance activities. The cap areas were designed to be compatible with the activities described above that are associated with a working waterfront. The material used for the caps was chosen to be able to contain underlying sediments without altering the main activities of the working waterway.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This expectation is based on the fact that the RNA established by the rule would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic, and the prohibited activities are not routine for the designated areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rulemaking does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rulemaking elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not economically significant and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 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 Coast Guard and EPA consulted with the Puyallup tribe in coming to this determination.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated navigation area which prevents activities which would disturb the riverbed within the areas outlined in this regulation. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated with remediation efforts in the Middle Waterway superfund sites, provided that the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound (COTP), is given advance notice of those activities by the EPA.
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request submitted on March 14, 2013, and supplemented on November 17, 2014, by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to revise the state implementation plan for lead. The submittal updates Indiana's lead rule at Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), Article 15. It also amends 326 IAC Article 20, to incorporate some of the provisions of EPA's National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for secondary lead smelters. IDEM made the revisions to increase the stringency and clarity of Indiana's lead SIP rules.
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0193 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010. These revisions to the Texas SIP revise the minor New Source Review (NSR)
Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0283, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ms. Aimee Wilson, (214) 665-7596; email
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to the EPA for approval into the state SIP, preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and minor NSR.
The minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source/major modification thresholds and thus do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. Any submitted SIP revision, including revisions to a minor NSR program, must meet the applicable requirements for SIP elements in section 110 of the Act, and be consistent with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
The EPA is proposing to approve portions of the March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010 Texas SIP submittals as revisions to the Texas minor NSR SIP for portable facilities. This action only addresses the provisions relevant to the portable facilities program—30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) sections 116.120 and 116.178 submitted on March 19, 2010 and 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12) submitted on July 2, 2010. These provisions collectively establish the definitions applicable to portable facilities, criteria for relocating and changing the location of portable facilities, and public notice requirements for portable facilities.
The TCEQ submitted to the EPA revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address definitions related to portable facilities and rules regarding the relocation and changes of location of portable facilities on March 19, 2010. Texas previously adopted the revisions to the SIP on February 12, 2010; specifically definitions pertaining to portable facilities at 30 TAC section 116.20 and provisions for the relocation and change of location of portable facilities at 30 TAC section 116.178.
On June 2, 2010, the TCEQ adopted revisions to the State Implementation Plan to adopt amendments made to the 30 TAC Chapter 39 Public Notice provisions for NSR permits, including provisions specific to portable facilities at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12). The revisions were submitted to the EPA on July 2, 2010. As detailed in the Technical Support Document (TSD), this action will only address 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12); all other portions of this SIP submittal have been addressed by the EPA in separate actions.
The SIP submittals being evaluated as part of this rulemaking provide for the movement of existing portable facilities permitted under the Texas minor NSR program; therefore, the provisions for the change of location or relocation of portable facilities are evaluated against the federal requirements for minor NSR at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 and in conjunction with the existing SIP-approved provisions of the Texas minor NSR permitting program. All portable facilities are permitted under the existing minor NSR SIP provisions in Chapter 116. The portable facilities are either permitted through a case-by case minor NSR permit subject to the requirements under 30 TAC sections 116.110-116.115 or through a Standard Permit issued under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F. The EPA has previously approved these minor NSR permitting mechanisms as consistent with Federal minor NSR requirements.
The TCEQ issues the underlying minor NSR portable facility permits to be protective of the NAAQS and increment. 30 TAC sections 116.20 and 116.178 provide that once a permit has been issued to a portable facility, the facility can be moved either through a change of location or a relocation. A change of location occurs when a portable facility is moved to a new location and is required to go through the SIP-approved minor NSR public notice requirements of Chapter 39. A relocation of a portable facility is movement of the portable facility without public notice under Chapter 39. Relocations occur in one of two scenarios. First, portable facilities can be relocated to a location in support of a public works project in which the new site is located in or contiguous to the right-of way of the public works project. The second possibility, is that a portable facility relocates to a site in which a portable facility has previously been located at any time during the previous two years and the site was subject Chapter 39 public notice requirements. Public notice requirements for the change of location or relocation of a portable facility are established at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12). Our evaluation summarized below, and detailed more fully in our accompanying TSD, demonstrates that the portable facilities program satisfies applicable requirements for minor NSR programs.
The change of location or relocation of a portable facility permit does not change the underlying portable facility permit requirements and does not establish a new minor NSR permit. Rather, these provisions enable an existing permitted facility to move as provided under the portable designation. Under both a change of location or relocation, the minor NSR permit (either a case-by-case minor NSR permit issued under 30 TAC sections 116.110-116.115 or a Standard Permit issued under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F) was required to conduct a health impact and air quality analysis prior to issuance. The TCEQ's record demonstrates that emissions associated with portable facilities are typically minimal and the underlying permit contains the appropriate emission limits, permit terms, and conditions to ensure that the portable facility will have minimal environmental impacts at the property line. Additionally, the TCEQ has the responsibility to review each request for a change of location or relocation of a portable facility; the TCEQ will deny a request for a change of location or relocation if movement will result in adverse impacts on attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or increment violations.
The EPA's minor NSR regulations require public notice for each minor NSR permit. Because neither the change of location nor relocation of a portable facility results in a new minor NSR permit than the permit that was originally public noticed, there is no specific federal requirement for a new public notice. Relocations of portable facilities with minor NSR permits can occur since there is no underlying change to the permit terms and conditions and the TCEQ evaluates each requested relocation for adverse environmental impacts on attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or increment violations.
The EPA has also evaluated the March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010 revisions pertaining to Portable Facilities under section 110(l) of the Act. We have preliminarily determined that the TCEQ satisfied all procedural requirements pursuant to section 110(l) as detailed in our accompanying TSD. Further, the EPA has preliminarily determined that the Portable Facilities SIP revisions satisfy the minimum requirements for a minor NSR program, including adequate provisions for legal enforceability and public participation to ensure protection of the control strategy and any applicable NAAQS. The Portable Facilities program also contains sufficient safeguards to prevent circumvention of Major NSR permitting requirements. Therefore, we find that the Portable Facilities program is protective of the NAAQS, increment, attainment and reasonable further progress, and any other applicable control strategy requirements and will therefore satisfy the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act.
The EPA is proposing to approve portions of the March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010, revisions to the Texas SIP to revise the minor NSR program for portable facilities. We have evaluated the SIP submissions for whether they meet the Act and 40 CFR part 51, and are consistent with EPA's interpretation of the relevant provisions. Based upon our evaluation, the EPA is preliminarily concluding that the March 9, 2010 and July 2, 2010, SIP revision submittals for portable facilities and public participation for portable facilities meet the applicable requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 51. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the following provisions pertaining to portable facilities into the Texas minor NSR SIP:
• 30 TAC section 116.20 adopted on February 10, 2010, submitted on March 19, 2010;
• 30 TAC section 116.178 adopted on February 10, 2010, submitted on March 19, 2010; and
• 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12) adopted on June 2, 2010, submitted on July 2, 2010.
The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). After review and consideration of public comments, we will take final action on the SIP revisions that are identified herein.
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 document 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 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Portable facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New Hampshire regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 8-hr ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO
The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID number as indicated in the instructions section below, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
This rulemaking addresses submissions from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH-DES). The state submitted its infrastructure SIP for each NAAQS on the following dates: 2008 Pb—November 7, 2011; 2008 ozone—December 31, 2012; 2010 NO
This rulemaking also addresses certain infrastructure SIP elements for the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM
EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from New Hampshire that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of” a new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is triggered by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any other action. Section 110(a)(2) includes the specific elements that “each such plan” must address.
EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (“SSM” emissions) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (“director's discretion”); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” (
EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. Historically, EPA has elected to use non-binding guidance documents to make recommendations for states' development and EPA review of infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA guidance applicable to these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied in several documents. Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 Memo (Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 Memo provides additional guidance for certain elements regarding the 2006 PM
Pursuant to section 110(a), and as noted in the 2011 Memo and the 2013 Memo, states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. NH-DES held public hearings for each infrastructure SIP on the following dates: 2008 Pb—October 3, 2011; 2008 ozone—December 31, 2012; 2010 NO
This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.
New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) at Chapter 21-O established the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH-DES), and RSA Chapter 125-C provides the Commissioner of NH-DES with the authority to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet state and Federal ambient air quality standards. New Hampshire also has SIP-approved provisions for specific pollutants. For example, NH-DES has adopted primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for each of these pollutants in its Chapter Env-A 300 Ambient Air Quality Standards, as follows: for PM
This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. Each year, states submit annual air monitoring network plans to EPA for review and approval. EPA's review of these annual monitoring plans includes our evaluation of whether the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.
NH-DES continues to operate a monitoring network, and EPA approved the state's most recent Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for Pb, ozone, NO
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major sources and major modifications; and, (iii) permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications. A discussion of GHG permitting and the “Tailoring Rule”
NH-DES staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to RSA Chapter 125-C: Air Pollution Control, of the New Hampshire Statutes. Specifically, RSA Chapter 125-C:15, Enforcement, authorizes the Commissioner of the NH-DES or the authorized representative of the Commissioner, upon finding a violation of Chapter 125-C has occurred, to issue a notice of violation or an order of abatement, and to include within it a schedule for compliance. Additionally, RSA 125-C:15 I-b, II, III, and IV provide for penalties for violations of Chapter 125-C. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) applies to new major sources or modifications made to major sources for pollutants where the area in which the source is located is in attainment of, or unclassifiable with regard to, the relevant NAAQS. NH-DES's EPA-approved PSD rules, contained at Part Env-A 619, contain provisions that address the majority of the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements related to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
EPA's “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (Phase 2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (
On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary changes regarding NO
On May 16, 2008 (
The explicit references to SO
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as condensables, in PM
On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary changes obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule, including provisions that explicitly identify precursors to PM
Therefore, we are proposing that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new “major source baseline date” for PM
On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary changes obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule, including the increments established by the 2010 NSR Rule for incorporation into the SIP, as well as the revised major source baseline date, trigger date, and baseline area level of significance for PM
With respect to greenhouse gas permitting, EPA's “Tailoring Rule,” and element C,
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.
At present, EPA has determined that New Hampshire's SIP is sufficient to satisfy element C with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved New Hampshire PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy element C. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of element C.
For the purposes of the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
In summary, we are proposing to approve the majority of New Hampshire's submittals for this sub-element pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved New Hampshire's minor NSR program on September 22, 1980 (45 FR 62814), and approved updates to the program on August 14, 1992. (See 57 FR 36606). Since this date, New Hampshire and EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
We are proposing to find that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution that states must address. It covers the following 5 topics, categorized as sub-elements: Sub-element 1, Contribute to nonattainment, and interference with maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution abatement; and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, and these items are further categorized into the 4 prongs discussed below, 2 of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126
With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Memo notes that the physical properties of Pb prevent it from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as PM
New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS notes that there are no sources of Pb emissions located in close proximity to any of the state's borders with neighboring states. Additionally, New Hampshire's submittal and the emissions data the state collects from its sources indicate that there is no single source of Pb, or group of sources, anywhere within the state that emits enough Pb to cause ambient concentrations to approach the Pb NAAQS. Our review of data within our National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database confirms this, and therefore we propose that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
In today's rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove New Hampshire's compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state.
EPA notes that New Hampshire has satisfied the majority of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
New Hampshire has submitted revisions to its PSD regulations that are consistent with the EPA's requirements contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, and the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA proposed approval of a number of these SIP revisions on January 21, 2015, (see 80 FR 2860),
States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.
EPA approved New Hampshire's NNSR regulations on July 27, 2001 (66 FR 39104). These regulations contain provisions for how the state must treat and control sources in nonattainment areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the requirements with respect to the prohibition of interference with a neighboring state's PSD program for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011 Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze.
New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on August 22, 2012 (See 77 FR 50602). Accordingly, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the visibility protection requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement.
Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a provision requiring such notification
As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, in a separate action we are proposing to conditionally approve one element of New Hampshire's PSD program pertaining to notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. Therefore, we propose to also conditionally approve New Hampshire's compliance with the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 relating to international pollution abatement. New Hampshire does not have any pending obligations under section 115 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues. Additionally, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to comply with the requirements with respect to state boards under section 128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, where a state relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS. This sub-element, however, is inapplicable to this action, because New Hampshire does not rely upon local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions.
New Hampshire, through its infrastructure SIP submittals, has documented that its air agency has the requisite authority and resources to carry out its SIP obligations. New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, authorizes the Commissioner of the NH-DES to enforce the state's air laws, establish a permit program, accept and administer grants, and exercise incidental powers necessary to carry out the law. Additionally, RSA-125-C:12, Administrative Requirements, authorizes the Commissioner to collect fees to recover the costs of reviewing and acting upon permit applications and enforcing the terms of permits issued. The New Hampshire SIP, as originally submitted on January 27, 1972, and subsequently amended, provides additional descriptions of the organizations, staffing, funding and physical resources necessary to carry out the plan. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
New Hampshire has made several amendments to its Statutory Authority since its statutes were submitted to EPA for approval in 1972. In its December 31, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal for ozone, New Hampshire submitted an updated amendment to the statutory authority within Title I: The State and its Government: Chapter 21-O:11 Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Council. Additionally, within its September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 SO
EPA proposes to approve these statutes into the SIP, and also proposes that upon final approval of these statutes into the SIP, New Hampshire will have demonstrated that it has met the infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.
Of relevance within New Hampshire, RSA 21-O:11, Air Resources Council, establishes the New Hampshire Air Resources Council, a state board that has the authority to hear enforcement and permit appeals. The Council consists of 11 members, 6 of whom must represent the public interest. Those representing the public interest “may not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders, and may not serve as attorney for, act as consultant for, serve as officer or director of, or hold any other official or contractual relationship with any person subject to permits or enforcement orders.” New Hampshire RSA 21-0:11 further provides that “[a]ll potential conflicts of interest shall be adequately disclosed.”
EPA's review of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submissions has raised one issue that warrants further evaluation. Section 128(a)(2) requires that a state's SIP provide for adequate disclosure of conflicts of interest by “members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers.” The use of the disjunctive “or” between “board or body” and “head of an executive agency” results in ambiguity concerning whether merely one or both of these parties must disclose conflicts of interest, and if it is only one of these entities, which one? This ambiguity is relevant in the case of the submission from New Hampshire because under state law included within such submission, only the members of the Air Resources Council are required to disclose conflicts of interest, not the head of the executive agency. In order to determine whether this is sufficient for purposes of meeting the requirements of section 128(a)(2), we have evaluated the statutory language more closely.
First, the term “or” can be interpreted as “one or the other, but not necessarily both,” or it can be interpreted as “and.” Although the word “or” could be read to mean “and” in some circumstances, we believe that, in this instance, it is appropriate to give the word “or” its most straightforward meaning. In isolation, it could seem unreasonable to give “or” the first meaning, as that would allow a state to require adequate disclosure of conflict of interest by either the members of the state board or the head of an agency, without regard to whether that disclosure requirement applies to the entity that makes the final permit or enforcement order decision. To read section 128(a)(2) to require disclosure by the entity that is not the actual final decisionmaker appears logically inconsistent and contrary to the overall purposes of section 128. EPA believes that the purpose of section 128(a)(2) is to assure that conflicts of interest are disclosed by the entity making the permit or enforcement order decision, and requiring this of the ultimate decisionmaker rather than other parties that may be involved in the process.
As discussed above, under New Hampshire law pertaining to the Air Resources Council, “[a]ll potential conflicts of interest shall be adequately disclosed.” Under the structure of the State's program, the Commissioner makes certain decisions such as the issuance of air permits and enforcement orders. However, under state law these permits and enforcement orders issued by the Commissioner can be appealed to the Air Resources Council in an adjudicative proceeding. RSA 21-O:11, IV; RSA 21-O:14, I. Given this division of authority in the State, we believe that the Air Resources Council is functionally the final decisionmaker with respect to permits and enforcement orders in New Hampshire, and thus the disclosure of conflicts of interest by members of the Council is necessary to meet the requirements of section 128(a)(2). Naturally, a state may elect to require disclosure of conflicts of interest by other state officials and employees as well, and this would be fully consistent with the explicit reservation of authority for states to impose more stringent requirements than those imposed by section 128.
For the foregoing reasons, the EPA believes that New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals contain provisions that meet the requirements of section 128(a)(1) and section 128(a). Accordingly, we are proposing approval of the infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the requirements of section 128.
New Hampshire submitted RSA 21-O:11, Air Resources Council, for incorporation into the SIP on December 31, 2012, and we are proposing to approve it into the New Hampshire SIP. Upon approval of RSA 21-O:11 into the SIP, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also require the
New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, authorizes the Commissioner of NH-DES to require the installation, maintenance, and use of emissions monitoring devices and to require periodic reporting to the Commissioner of the nature and extent of the emissions. This authority also enables the Commissioner to correlate this information to any applicable emissions standard and to make such information available to the public. NH-DES implements Chapter Env-A 800, Testing and Monitoring Procedures, and Chapter Env-A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, as the primary means of fulfilling these obligations. New Hampshire's Chapters Env-A 800 and 900 have been approved into the SIP (See 77 FR 66388; November 5, 2012). Additionally, under RSA 125-C:6, VII, and Env-A 103.04, emissions data are not considered confidential information. EPA recognizes that New Hampshire routinely collects information on air emissions from its industrial sources and makes this information available to the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions that present an “imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.” Section 303 further authorizes the Administrator to issue “such orders as may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment” in the event that “it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by commencement of such civil action.”
We propose to find that New Hampshire's submittals and certain state statutes provide for authority comparable to that in section 303. New Hampshire's submittals specify that RSA 125-C:9, Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency, authorizes the Commissioner of NH-DES, with the consent of the Governor and Air Resources Council, to issue an order requiring actions to be taken as the Commissioner deems necessary to address an air pollution emergency. Such orders are effective immediately upon issuance. We note also that RSA 125-C:15, I, provides that, “[u]pon a finding by the commissioner that there is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment, the commissioner shall issue an order of abatement requiring immediate compliance and said order shall be final and enforceable upon issuance, but may be appealed to the council within 30 days of its issuance, and the council may, after hearing, uphold, modify, or abrogate said order.” With regard to the authority to bring suit, RSA 125-C:15, II, further provides that violation of such an order “shall be subject to enforcement by injunction, including mandatory injunction, issued by the superior court upon application of the attorney general.”
Furthermore, New Hampshire has broad statutory authority (see RSA 125-C:9, Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency) to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health; however, New Hampshire does not have regulations that specifically address all the 40 CFR part 51 subpart H requirements. New Hampshire does, however, as a matter of practice, post on the internet daily forecasted ozone levels through the EPA AIRNOW and EPA ENVIROFLASH systems. Information regarding these two systems is available on EPA's Web site at
Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, for any NAAQS, except lead, New Hampshire have an approved contingency plan for any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) within the state that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II. A contingency plan is not required if the entire state is classified as Priority III for a particular pollutant. See 40 CFR part 51 subpart H. Classifications for all pollutants for AQCRs in New Hampshire can be found at 40 CFR 52.1521. The entire state of New Hampshire is classified as Priority III for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide.
With regard to ozone, however, we note that New Hampshire's December 31, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS contends that it is a Priority I region for ozone, although as mentioned above each AQCR in the state is listed as Priority III for ozone within 40 CFR 52.1521. New Hampshire's submittal cites air quality monitoring data to substantiate its view.
EPA's last update to the priority classifications for New Hampshire occurred in 1972. See 37 FR 10879, May 31, 1972. As noted above, New Hampshire's submittal, and a supplement to that submittal made on May 21, 2015, cite more recent ozone air quality data. This information indicates that the proper ozone classification for the New Hampshire portion of the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate AQCR would be Priority I. Therefore, we are proposing to revise New Hampshire's priority classification for the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate AQCR from Priority III to Priority I for ozone. This reclassification triggers the contingency plan obligation requirement of 40 CFR 51.151, but New Hampshire's submittal requests, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1), an exemption from the contingency plan obligation because the state is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.152(d), we are proposing to grant New Hampshire's request for an exemption from the contingency obligation in light of the state being designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.330. Additionally, as documented within the state's submittal, we note that recent air monitoring data have not come close to the significant harm level for ozone of 0.6 parts per million (ppm) on a 2-hour average, and the state has only exceeded 0.1 ppm on three occasions in the 2012-2014 timeframe. See 40 CFR 51.151.
Regarding SO
In its September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 SO
The Public Service Company of New Hampshire's (PSNH's) Merrimack Station, a large coal-fired electric utility located in Bow, has historically been the largest SO
As mentioned above, New Hampshire's SO
EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
This section requires states to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, provides that the Commissioner of NH-DES may develop a comprehensive program and provide services for the study, prevention, and abatement of air pollution. Additionally, Chapter Env-A 200, Procedural Rules, which was approved into the New Hampshire SIP on October 28, 2002 (see 67 FR 65710) provides for public hearings for SIP revision requests prior to their submittal to EPA. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D attainment plans through separate processes.
The evaluation of the submissions from New Hampshire with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
States must provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements.
New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, authorizes the Commissioner of NH-DES to advise, consult, and cooperate with the cities, towns, and other agencies of the state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other groups or agencies in matters relating to air quality. Additionally, RSA 125-C:6 enables the Commissioner to coordinate and regulate the air pollution control programs of political subdivisions to plan and implement programs for the control and abatement of air pollution. Furthermore, New Hampshire regulations at Part Env-A 621 direct NH DES to notify town officials, regional planning agencies, and FLMs, among others, of the receipt of certain permit applications and the NH DES' preliminary determination to issue, amend, or deny such permits. Therefore, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are
As part of the fulfillment of RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, New Hampshire issues press releases and posts warnings on its Web site advising people what they can do to help prevent NAAQS exceedances and avoid adverse health effects on poor air quality days. New Hampshire is also an active partner in EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash air quality alert programs. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD. New Hampshire's PSD program in the context of infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Our proposed actions are reiterated below.
New Hampshire's PSD regulations are consistent with the EPA's requirements regarding this sub-element with the exception of the notification to neighboring states provision. Therefore, we are proposing that New Hampshire has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
To satisfy element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commissioner of NH-DES in RSA 125-C:6, New Hampshire reviews the potential impact of major sources consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, “Guidelines on Air Quality Models.” The modeling data are sent to EPA along with the draft major permit. For non-major sources, Part Env-A 606, Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling Impact Analysis Requirements, specifies the air pollution dispersion modeling impact analysis requirements that apply to owners and operators of certain sources and devices in order to demonstrate compliance with the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan, RSA 125-C, RSA 125-I, and any rules adopted thereunder. The state also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and EPA in order to perform large scale urban airshed modeling. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing a permit.
New Hampshire implements and operates the Title V permit program, which EPA approved on September 24, 2001. See 66 FR 48806. Chapter Env-A 700, Permit Fee System, establishes a fee system requiring the payment of fees to cover the costs of: Reviewing and acting upon applications for the issuance of, amendment to, modification to, or renewal of a temporary permit, state permit to operate, or Title V operating permit; implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of these permits; and developing, implementing, and administering the Title V operating permit program. In addition, Part Env-A 705 establishes the emission-based fee program for Title V and non-Title V sources. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Pursuant to element M, states must consult with, and allow participation from, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
As previously mentioned, Chapter Env-A 200, Part Env-A 204 provides a public participation process for all stakeholders that includes a minimum of a 30-day comment period and an opportunity for public hearing for all SIP-related actions. Additionally, RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, provides that the Commissioner shall consult with the cities, towns, other agencies of the state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other affected agencies or groups in matters relating to air quality. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
EPA is proposing to approve SIP submissions from New Hampshire certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
In the above table, the key is as follows:
Also, with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM
In addition, we are proposing to incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP the following New Hampshire statutes which were included for approval in New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals:
Additionally, we are proposing to update the 40 CFR 52.1521 classifications for several of New Hampshire's air quality control regions for ozone and sulfur dioxide based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state, and to grant the state's request for an exemption from the infrastructure SIP contingency plan obligation for ozone.
As noted in Table 2, we are proposing to conditionally approve one portion of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals pertaining to the state's PSD program. The outstanding issues with the PSD program concern the lack of a requirement that neighboring states be notified of the issuance of a PSD permit by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. For this reason, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this portion of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP revisions for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from the date of approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to submit an update to its PSD program that fully remedies the lack of notification requirement mentioned above. If the State fails to do so, this action will become a disapproval one year from the
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into the New Hampshire SIP the statutes identified within Table 1 of this proposal. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur Oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland (Maryland). This revision includes amendments to Maryland's regulation for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and meets the requirement to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards for coatings for metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts. These amendments will reduce emissions of VOC from these source categories and help Maryland attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0404 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at
On July 28, 2014, the State of Maryland through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP concerning the adoption of the coating standards located in the Metal Furniture Coatings and the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTGs.
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment.
In developing these CTGs, EPA, among other things, evaluates the sources of VOC emissions from these categories, and the available control approaches for addressing these categories, including the cost of such approaches. Based on available information and data, EPA provides recommendations for RACT for VOC from these categories. States can follow the CTGs and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations.
In September 2007, EPA published a new CTG for Metal Furniture Coatings (EPA-453/R-07-005), and in September 2008, EPA published a new CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003). These CTGs discuss the nature of VOC emissions from these industries, the available control technologies for addressing such emissions, the cost of available control options, and other information. EPA developed new CTGs for these industries after reviewing existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches, new source performance standards (NSPS), previously issued CTGs, and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for these source categories.
Metal furniture coatings include the coatings that are applied to the surfaces of metal furniture. A metal furniture substrate is the furniture or components of furniture constructed either entirely or partially from metal. Metal furniture includes, but is not limited to, the following types of products: Household, office, institutional, laboratory, hospital, public building, restaurant, barber and beauty shop, and dental furniture, as well as components of these products. Metal furniture also includes office and store fixtures, partitions, shelving, lockers, lamps and lighting fixtures, and wastebaskets. Metal furniture coatings include paints and adhesives and are typically applied without a primer. Higher solids and powder coatings are used extensively in the metal furniture surface coating industry. Metal furniture coatings provide a covering, finish, or functional or protective layer, and can also provide a decorative finish to metal furniture.
Miscellaneous metal parts surface coating categories include the coatings that are applied to the surfaces of a varied range of metal parts and products. These parts or products are constructed either entirely or partially from metal. They include, but are not limited to, metal components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: Fabricated metal products, small and large farm machinery, commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure craft (recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components, railroad cars, heavier vehicles,
On July 28, 2014, MDE submitted to EPA a SIP revision (#14-02) concerning the adoption of the emission limits for metal furniture coatings found in the Metal Furniture Coatings CTG and miscellaneous metal parts coatings found in the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG.
EPA is proposing to approve the State of Maryland's SIP revision submitted on July 28, 2014, adopting the requirements of EPA's CTGs for the coating of metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts, as RACT for these source categories. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
In this proposed rulemaking action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the MDE rules regarding control of VOC emissions from metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts coatings as described as section II of this proposed action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Maryland's adoption of CTG recommendations for metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts coatings does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 80 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of, and requests public comment on, a petition for rulemaking from Tri Marine Management Company, LLC (“Tri Marine”). The petitioner requests that NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking to implement the 2015 limit on fishing effort by U.S. purse seine vessels on the high seas and in the U.S. exclusive economic zone in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention), and to issue a rule exempting from the limit any U.S. purse seine vessel that, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least half its catch to tuna processing facilities in American Samoa.
Comments on the petition must be submitted in writing by August 17, 2015.
You may submit comments on the petition, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0088, by either of the following methods:
•
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
•
Copies of the petition are available at
Tom Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5032.
Since 2009, NMFS regulations have established limits on fishing effort by U.S. purse seine fishing vessels in the area of application of the Convention (Convention Area), including in the area known as the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or ELAPS, which is comprised of all areas of high seas and the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between the latitudes of 20° N. and 20° S. in the Convention Area. These regulations are promulgated under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
NMFS has established the purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the Convention, to which it is a party. Among those obligations is the need to implement the decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission), which was established by the Convention. NMFS has established the purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS to implement a series of Commission decisions for tropical tuna stocks in the Convention Area.
Recently, NMFS established a purse seine fishing effort limit in the ELAPS for 2015 in an interim rule published May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29220). The limit is 1,828 fishing days.
On June 8, 2015, NMFS issued a notice announcing that the purse seine fishery in the ELAPS would close as a result of reaching the limit of 1,828 fishing days (80 FR 32313). The closure took effect June 15, 2015, and will
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, interested persons may petition Federal agencies for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
In a petition to NMFS dated May 12, 2015, Tri Marine requested that NMFS take two actions. First, Tri Marine requested that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days on the high seas.” Second, Tri Marine requested that “NOAA issue a rule exempting from that high seas limit any US flag purse seine vessel which, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.”
At the time of Tri Marine's initial request, NMFS was preparing to issue an interim rule establishing a limit on purse seine fishing effort in the ELAPS for 2015. As described above, NMFS established a limit in the ELAPS for 2015 in an interim rule published May 21, 2015. Accordingly, the first part of Tri Marine's request has been addressed. In the interim rule, NMFS acknowledged that it had received Tri Marine's petition for rulemaking, and stated that it will consider and respond to the petition separately from the interim rule.
With regard to the second part of Tri Marine's request, the petition explains that as a result of decisions by the Republic of Kiribati, U.S. purse seine vessels' access to their traditional fishing grounds in 2015 has been dramatically reduced, and that the high seas portion of the ELAPS can be expected to be closed to fishing as early as June. The petition further states that because of the limited fishing grounds now available to the American Samoa-based purse seine fleet and other factors, including an unusually low tuna price and the higher cost of access to fishing grounds in the region, the ability of American Samoa-based tuna vessels to operate profitably is in serious question, and the loss of a reliable supply of tuna from these vessels will jeopardize the ability of the canneries in American Samoa to compete in world markets. The petition states that under the Convention, American Samoa is afforded special treatment as a small island developing state or participating territory for purposes of applying conservation and management measures of the Commission, and therefore NMFS should develop rules that exempt from the ELAPS limit those vessels that deliver to the canneries in American Samoa.
The petition includes further information on the basis of the request, including information related to the recommendations of the Governor of American Samoa's Fisheries Task Force, and an “issue brief” with statements about the nature of the issue and how the requested rule(s) would address it.
In a second letter to NMFS dated May 26, 2015, which supplements the May 12, 2015, petition, Tri Marine acknowledged the interim rule published May 21, 2015, and amended its request. Tri Marine requested that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days (both) on the high seas and in the US EEZ,” and further requested that “NOAA issue a rule exempting from the ELAPS limits any US flag purse seine vessel which, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.”
See the
NMFS has determined that the petition contains enough information to enable NMFS to consider its substance. NMFS is issuing this notice to solicit comments on the petitioner's request. NMFS is particularly interested in comments on the nature and severity of the problem identified by the petitioner, whether any exigencies exist, and whether the petitioner's requests would solve the alleged problem in an efficient and fair manner.
NMFS will consider public comments in deciding whether to proceed with the rulemaking(s) requested by Tri Marine. Once NMFS decides whether or not to proceed, or to proceed in part, it will publish a notice of its decision in the
16 U.S.C. 6901
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; extension of the comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, announce the extension of the public comment period on our May 21, 2015, proposed revisions to the regulations concerning petitions under section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
The comment period for the proposed rule published in the
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will post all comments on
Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803, telephone 703/358-2171; facsimile 703/358-1735; or Angela Somma, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone 301/427-8403. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this extended comment period on our proposed revisions to the regulations concerning petitions under section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
If you have already submitted comments or information during the public comment period that began May 21, 2015, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final rule.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
On May 21, 2015, we published a proposed rule regarding changes to the regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.14 concerning petitions, to improve the content and specificity of petitions and to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the petitions process to support species conservation. Our proposed revisions to § 424.14 would clarify and enhance the procedures by which the Services will evaluate petitions under section 4(b)(3) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3). We proposed to revise the regulations pertaining to the petition process to provide greater clarity to the public on the petition-submission process, which will assist petitioners in providing complete petitions. These revisions would also maximize the efficiency with which the Services process petitions, making the best use of available resources. These changes would improve the quality of petitions through expanded content requirements and guidelines, and, in doing so, better focus the Services' energies on petitions that merit further analysis.
The comment period on the May 21, 2015, proposed rule was originally scheduled to close on July 20, 2015. We have received comments requesting an extension to that date, and we now announce that we will accept comments on the proposed revisions to the regulations concerning petitions at 50 CFR 424.14 as specified in
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Agency for International Development.
60-Day Notice.
The U.S. Agency for International Development invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This information collection was first approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2008, and the Partner Information Form has been used successfully in screening programs in West Bank/Gaza and elsewhere since the OMB approval.
The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days from the date of its publication for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2015.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 0412-0577 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID AID_FRDOC_0001. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
(3)
Written comments should address one or more of the following points:
(a) Whether the continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument (PIF) and supporting documents, to George Higginbotham, Senior Management Policy Analyst, USAID, RRB, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523 or at
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) relative to an oral rabies vaccination field trial in New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia. The supplemental EA analyzes expanding the field trial for an experimental oral rabies vaccine for wildlife to additional areas in Ohio and increasing bait distribution density in
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 17, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
The supplemental environmental assessment and any comments we receive may be viewed at
This notice and the supplemental EA are also posted on the APHIS Web site at
Mr. Richard Chipman, Rabies Program Coordinator, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 59 Chennell Drive, Suite 7, Concord, NH 03301; (603) 223-9623. To obtain copies of the supplemental environmental assessment, contact Ms. Beth Kabert, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Services, 140-C Locust Grove Road, Pittstown, NJ 08867; (908) 735-5654, fax (908) 735-0821, email:
The Wildlife Services (WS) program in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) cooperates with Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private individuals to research and implement the best methods of managing conflicts between wildlife and human health and safety, agriculture, property, and natural resources. Wildlife-borne diseases that can affect domestic animals and humans are among the types of conflicts that APHIS-WS addresses. Wildlife is the dominant reservoir of rabies in the United States.
Currently, APHIS conducts an oral rabies vaccination (ORV) program to control the spread of rabies. The ORV program has utilized a vaccinia-rabies glycoprotein (V-RG) vaccine. APHIS-WS' use of the V-RG vaccine has resulted in several notable accomplishments, including the elimination of canine rabies from sources in Mexico, the successful control of gray fox rabies virus variant in western Texas, and the prevention of any appreciable spread of raccoon rabies in the eastern United States. While the prevention of any appreciable spread of raccoon rabies in the eastern United States represents a major accomplishment in rabies management, the V-RG vaccine has not been effective in eliminating raccoon rabies from high-risk spread corridors. This fact prompted APHIS-WS to evaluate rabies vaccines capable of producing higher levels of population immunity against raccoon rabies to better control the spread of this disease.
In 2011, APHIS-WS initiated a field trial to study the immunogenicity and safety of a promising new wildlife rabies vaccine, human adenovirus type 5 rabies glycoprotein recombinant vaccine in portions of West Virginia, including U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service National Forest System lands. The vaccine used in this field trial is an experimental oral rabies vaccine called ONRAB (produced by Artemis Technologies Inc., Guelph, Ontario, Canada).
To further assess the immunogenicity of ONRAB in raccoons and skunks for raccoon rabies virus variant, APHIS-WS determined the need to expand the field trial into portions of New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia, including National Forest System lands. On July 9, 2012, we published in the
Given promising immunogenicity levels documented during the field trial of the ONRAB vaccine and the need for further field testing, APHIS is considering expanding the current field trial for the ONRAB vaccine in Ohio. APHIS has prepared a supplemental EA in which we analyze expanding the area of the field trial zone in Ohio to include Ashtabula and Trumbull Counties. This would add approximately 405 square miles to the field trial. In addition, the supplemental EA analyzes the impacts associated with increasing the ONRAB ORV bait distribution density from the program standard rate of 194-388 baits per square mile to 776 baits per square mile over a portion of the current field trial zones in West Virginia. The supplemental EA analyzes a number of environmental issues or concerns with the ONRAB vaccine and activities associated with the field trial, such as capture and handling animals for monitoring and surveillance purposes with regard to the proposed action.
We are making the supplemental EA available to the public for review and comment. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading
The supplemental EA may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see
The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Economic Research Service
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations, this notice announces the Economic Research Service's (ERS) intention to request renewal of approval for an annual information collection on supplemental food security questions in the Current Population Survey (CPS), commencing with the December 2016 survey. These data will be used: To monitor household-level food security and food insecurity in the United States; to assess food security and changes in food security for population subgroups; to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs; to improve the measurement of food security; and to provide information to aid in public policy decision making.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Food Assistance Branch, Food Economics Division, Economic Research Service, Room 5-233A, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC 20050-1800. Submit electronic comments to
Alisha Coleman-Jensen at the address in the preamble. Tel. 202-694-5456.
ERS is responsible for conducting studies and evaluations of the Nation's food and nutrition assistance programs that are administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. In Fiscal Year 2014, the Department spent over $104 billion to ensure access to nutritious, healthful diets for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Service administers the 15 food assistance programs of the USDA including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly called the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). These programs, which serve 1 in 4 Americans, represent our Nation's commitment to the principle that no one in our country should lack the food needed for an active, healthy life. They provide a safety net to people in need. The programs' goals are to provide needy persons with access to a more nutritious diet, to improve the eating habits of the Nation's children, and to help America's farmers by providing an outlet for the distribution of food purchased under farmer assistance authorities.
The data collected by the food security supplement will be used to monitor the prevalence of food security and the prevalence and severity of food insecurity among the Nation's households. The prevalence of these conditions as well as year-to-year trends in their prevalence will be estimated at the national level and for population subgroups. The data will also be used to monitor the amounts that households spend for food and their use of community food pantries and emergency kitchens. These statistics along with research based on the data will be used to identify the causes and consequences of food insecurity, and to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs. The data will also be used to improve the measurement of food security and to develop measures of additional aspects and dimensions of food security. This consistent measurement of the extent and severity of food insecurity will aid in policy decision-making.
The supplemental survey instrument was developed in conjunction with food security experts nationwide as well as survey method experts within the Census Bureau and was reviewed in 2006 by the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council. This supplemental information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular monthly CPS interviewing. Interviews will be conducted using Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) and Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) methods.
Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. 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.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with the MS Records.
We will consider comments that we receive by September 15, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include date, volume and page number, the OMB Control Number, and the title of the information collection of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Clay Lagasse at the above address.
Clay Lagasse, (202) 205-9893.
The form is manual. The types of MS being performed are currently at the Land (Office or Field) and Commodity Bin. Using the FSA-409 to make a request, the producer provides FSA: the farm serial number, program year, farm location, contact person, and type of service request (acreage or production). The MS procedure is done in accordance with 7 CFR part 718. FSA is using the collected information to fulfill producers' measurement request and to ensure that measurements are accurate.
A producer will use the FSA-409 to request and receive certain MS information from FSA and provide it to FSA at the time of applying for certain program benefits. The MS information includes, but is not limited to, measuring land and crop areas, quantities of farm-stored commodities, and appraising the yields of crops in the field.
The formula used to calculate the total burden hours is “the estimated average time per response (including travel time)” times “the total estimated annual response.”
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces the annual adjustments to the “national average payments,” the amount of money the Federal Government provides States for lunches, afterschool snacks and breakfasts served to children participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; to the “maximum reimbursement rates,” the maximum per lunch rate from Federal funds that a State can provide a school food authority for lunches served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program; and to the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to non-needy children in a school or institution which participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. The payments and rates are prescribed on an annual basis each July. The annual payments and rates adjustments for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs reflect changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The annual rate adjustment for the Special Milk Program reflects changes in the
These rates are effective from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.
Steve Hortin, Branch Chief, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, VA 22302; or phone (703) 305-4375.
For the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to a non-needy child in a school or institution which participates in the Special Milk Program is 20.00 cents. This reflects a decrease of 3 cents from the School Year (SY) 2014-15 level, based on the 12.89 percent decrease in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products from May 2014 to May 2015 (from a level of 251.4 in May, as previously published in the
As a reminder, schools or institutions with pricing programs that elect to serve milk free to eligible children continue to receive the average cost of a half-pint of milk (the total cost of all milk purchased during the claim period divided by the total number of purchased half-pints) for each half-pint served to an eligible child.
To supplement these section 4 payments, section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759 (a)) provides special cash assistance payments to aid schools in providing free and reduced price lunches. The section 11 National Average Payment Factor for each reduced price lunch served is set at 40 cents less than the factor for each free lunch.
As authorized under sections 8 and 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1757 and 1759a), maximum reimbursement rates for each type of lunch are prescribed by the Department in this Notice. These maximum rates are to ensure equitable disbursement of Federal funds to school food authorities.
The following specific section 4, section 11 and section 17A National Average Payment Factors and maximum reimbursement rates for lunch, the afterschool snack rates, and the breakfast rates are in effect from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Due to a higher cost of living, the average payments and maximum reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States.
In school food authorities which served 60 percent or more free and reduced price lunches in School Year 2013-14, payments are:
School food authorities certified to receive the performance-based cash assistance will receive an additional 6 cents (adjusted annually) added to the above amounts as part of their section 4 payments.
For schools “not in severe need” the payments are:
For schools in “severe need” the payments are:
The following chart illustrates the lunch National Average Payment Factors with the sections 4 and 11 already combined to indicate the per lunch amount; the maximum lunch reimbursement rates; the reimbursement rates for afterschool snacks served in afterschool care programs; the breakfast National Average Payment Factors including “severe need” schools; and the milk reimbursement rate. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. The payment factors and reimbursement rates used for the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam are those specified for the contiguous States.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Special Milk Programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555, No. 10.553 and No. 10.556, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).
Sections 4, 8, 11 and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1757, 1759a, 1766a) and sections 3 and 4(b) of the Child Nutrition Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1772 and 42 U.S.C. 1773(b)).
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the national average value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu of donated foods, to be provided in school year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
Effective date: July 1, 2015.
Carolyn Smalkowski, Program Analyst, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594; or telephone (703) 305-2680.
These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.555 and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c) and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c) and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in the NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments on July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month average value of the Producer Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions for March, April, and May each year (Price Index). Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the same value of donated foods (or cash in lieu of donated foods) for school lunches shall also be established for
The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry and fish; dairy; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April, and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index decreased by 3.75 percent from 217.35 for March, April, and May of 2014, as previously published in the
Sections 6(c)(1)(A) and (B), 6(e)(1), and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)(1)(A) and (B) and (e)(1), and 1766(h)(1)(B)).
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the annual adjustments to the national average payment rates for meals and snacks served in child care centers, outside-school-hours care centers, at-risk afterschool care centers, and adult day care centers; the food service payment rates for meals and snacks served in day care homes; and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Further adjustments are made to these rates to reflect the higher costs of providing meals in the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The adjustments contained in this notice are made on an annual basis each July, as required by the laws and regulations governing the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
These rates are effective from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.
Steve Hortin, Branch Chief, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594; phone 703-305-4375.
The terms used in this notice have the meanings ascribed to them in the Child and Adult Care Food Program regulations, 7 CFR part 226.
Pursuant to sections 4, 11, and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) and 7 CFR 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the Program regulations, notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). These rates are in effect during the period, July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.
As provided for under the law, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually, on July 1, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, for the most recent 12-month period. In accordance with this mandate, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) last published the adjusted national average payment rates for centers, the food service payment rates for day care homes, and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, on July 16, 2014, in the
The following national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks are in effect from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. Due to a higher cost of living, the reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which institutions receive as additional assistance for each lunch or supper served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the
Payments for breakfasts served are:
Payments for lunch or supper served are:
Payments for snack served are:
Payments for breakfast served are:
Payments for lunch and supper served are:
Payments for snack served are:
Monthly administrative payments to sponsors for each sponsored day care home (no changes from 2014-2015 annual levels) are:
The following chart illustrates the national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks in effect from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 2.97 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2014 to May 2015, (from 247.952 in May 2014, as previously published in the
The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 0.63 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2014 to May 2015, (from 239.504 in May 2014, as previously published in the
The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect a 0.04 percent decrease during the 12-month period, May 2014 to May 2015 (from 237.900 in May 2014, as previously published in the
The total amount of payments available to each State agency for distribution to institutions participating in CACFP is based on the rates contained in this notice.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.
CACFP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).
This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to OMB review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518).
Sections 4(b)(2), 11a, 17(c) and 17(f)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(2), 1759a, 1766(f)(3)(B)) and section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)(1)(B)).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Additional information concerning the Committee, including the meeting agenda, supporting documents and minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at
The teleconference will be held on July 15, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The meeting is subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via web and telephone conferencing. Internet access is required to participate in the web-based conferencing. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the
Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-1190. 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 to:
1. Develop one pager for Under Secretary Bonnie, and
2. Develop the August Committee meeting agenda.
The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250 or by email to
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICR Liaison, (202) 482-8093,
This collection is needed to provide services to exporters who have either lost their original license and require a duplicate, or who wish to transfer their ownership of an approved license to another party.
Submitted in paper form.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) to correct a ministerial error.
Effective date: July 17, 2015.
Joseph Shuler or Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1293 or (202) 482-2778, respectively.
On June 5, 2015, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results.
The merchandise subject to the order is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” We analyzed the ministerial error allegation and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in our calculation of HYSCO's margin for the
In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review.
For assessment purposes, HYSCO reported the name of the importer of record and the entered value for all of their sales to the United States during the period of review (POR). Accordingly, we calculated importer-specific
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by HYSCO for which it did not know were destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of amended final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for HYSCO will be equal to the respective weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.80 percent, the “all others” rate established pursuant to a court decision.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).
These amended final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Actand 19 CFR 351.224(f).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.
The Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on wind towers from the PRC with respect to 50 companies for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, based on a request by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (WTTC).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, WTTC withdrew its request for review within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the CVD order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess CVDs on all entries of wind towers from the PRC during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under 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 the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce.
Solicitation of Comments; Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management is soliciting comments on a program change amendment to the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program (PRCZMP). This notice describes the opportunities for public comment on the program change.
The hearing on the program amendment to the PRCMP will be held on Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9 a.m. local time at the Environmental Agencies Building, PR-8838 Km. 6.3, Auditorium 4th Floor, El Cinco, Rio Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Please send written comments to Joelle Gore, Stewardship Division Chief (Acting), NOAA Office for Coastal Management, NOS/OCM/SD, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, Room 10622, N/OCM6, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or
Jackie Rolleri, at
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act provides incentives to encourage and assist states, commonwealths and territories to develop and implement programs to manage land and water uses which may affect coastal land and water resources. The PRCZMP was approved by NOAA in 1978. Since that time, statutory and regulatory changes have been made to the organizational structure of the land use agencies which comprise the PRCZMP, the land use authority of local governments, and permit review process. These changes are in force and being implemented as laws of the Commonwealth pursuant to the Puerto Rico Permit Process Reform Act of 2009 (Law 161), as amended by Law 151 of 2013, and pursuant to the Autonomous Municipalities Act of 1991 (Law 81). In order to demonstrate that the program continues to meet the requirements for program approval established under the Coastal Zone Management Act and its implementing regulations, the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources has submitted these changes to NOAA for approval. Copies of the proposed changes are available by navigating from the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources homepage at
NOAA's Office for Coastal Management has determined that these changes are a program amendment. As such, NOAA is required to hold a public hearing on the amendment. The focus of the hearing is whether the PRCZMP continues to meet the requirements for program approval as specified in the Coastal Zone Management Program regulations at 15 CFR part 923. For those interested in making oral statements at the public hearing, the submission of supplemental written comments is encouraged.
In addition to the hearing, NOAA is soliciting written comments from the public on the amendment. Written comments will be accepted before and after the public hearing through September 23, 2015.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Legislative Committee will meet by teleconference.
The meeting will be held on August 4, 2015, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., please call NMFS-AKR-RA Conference Line 907-586-7060 (max 30).
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.
Chris Oliver, Executive Director; phone: (907) 271-2809.
The Committee will discuss and develop comments on pending legislation regarding Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization or other fisheries related legislation. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
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).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires, as codified under 50 CFR part 665, any person (1) fishing for,
The two forms have been combined and minor changes made.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public hearings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold five public hearings and one webinar to solicit Public comments on Draft Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
The meetings will be held August 3-20, 2015. For specific dates and times see
The Public document can be obtained by contacting the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950 at (978) 465-0492 or on their Web site at
Thomas Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The agendas for the following six hearings are as follows: NEMFC staff will brief the public on the northeast multispecies amendments and the contents of the DEIS prior to opening the hearing for public comments. The schedule is as follows:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
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).
This information collection covers the submissions made by patent applicants and patentees to excuse small and micro entity fee payment errors, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 37 CFR 1.28(c) and 1.29(k). Specifically, 37 CFR 1.28(c) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the small entity amount. 37 CFR 1.29(k) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the micro entity amount.
This information collection is necessary so that patent applicants and patentees may pay the balance of fees due (
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before August 17, 2015 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: 8/17/2015.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a product and service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Effective date: 8/17/2015.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 6/5/2015 (80 FR 32096-32097) and 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and service are added to the Procurement List:
On 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Rome, New York, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Department of the Air Force, DOD.
Notice of intent to issue a partially exclusive patent license.
Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Sky Tube Live, LLC, a corporation of New York, having a place of business at 1855 West Road, Oneida, New York 13421 a partially exclusive license in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: U.S. Patent No. 8,732,100, issued on May 20th, 2014 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Event Detection Permitting Per Event Adjustment of False Alarm Rate.”
An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at
The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on August 12, 2015. Public registration will begin at 8:15 a.m.
The Board meeting will be conducted at the Gaylord Opryland Resort Hotel & Convention Center, 2800 Opryland Drive, Nashville, TN 37214 at 615-889-1000 or
Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (USACE) announces the intent to prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan (MREFPP) from Burlington, North Dakota, to a point downstream of Minot, North Dakota. The purpose of the document is to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the MREFPP.
Questions about the proposed action and programmatic EIS may be directed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, ATTN: Mr. Terry J. Birkenstock, Deputy Chief, Regional Planning & Environment Division North, 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700, St. Paul, MN 55101-1678; telephone: (651) 290-5264; email
The Mouse River (alternatively known as the Souris River) is approximately 435 miles long. The river begins in the southeastern portion of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, flows south and east through north central North Dakota, and then turns north before returning to Canada in southwest Manitoba.
Most of the annual flow on the Mouse River is attributed to snow melt and spring rains. In June 2011, heavy rains in the upstream portions of the watershed exceeded the storage capacity of upstream reservoirs already full from the April snowmelt. Flows in excess of 26,900 cubic feet per second (cfs) overwhelmed the existing Federal flood risk management projects (designed to pass 5,000 cfs from Burlington to Minot) and emergency flood fighting efforts, causing over $690 million in damages to more than 4,700 structures.
The MREFPP Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was developed for the North Dakota State Water Commission in February 2012. Implementation of the MREFPP is expected to extend over 20 years and involves the construction of more than 30 segments. Features of the MREFPP include 17.5 miles of new levees, 1.4 miles of channel realignment, 2 high-flow bypasses, 2.8 miles of new floodwalls, 6 bridge modifications, and 126 acres of overbank excavation. Additional details on the MREFPP PER can be found at mouseriverplan.com.
The Souris River Joint Water Resources Board (SRJB) has proposed to move forward with the design and construction of the first three segments of the MREFPP, which includes approximately 2 miles of levees and 1,500 feet of floodwall. These segments would not, by themselves, provide independent utility for flood risk management. Features in the Burlington through Minot reach of the MREFPP are interdependent in the proposal for flood risk management and provide independent flood risk management benefits. Therefore, all effects associated with features in the Burlington through Minot reach of the MREFPP will be included in the scope of analysis evaluated through the programmatic EIS.
Construction of the MREFPP will require alteration of existing Federal flood risk management projects. Such alterations may be approved by the Secretary of the Army under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). Although the Federal government will not be constructing the alterations, approval of the alterations is a Federal action and therefore requires compliance with the NEPA and other applicable environmental laws including, but not limited to, the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Additionally, as part of the MREFPP, discharges of fill material have been proposed in waters of the United States, requiring a permit from USACE under 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Issuance of a Section 404 permit is considered a Federal action, triggering NEPA, NHPA, and ESA obligations. Coordination with other Federal agencies will take place throughout the scoping process. USACE will act as the lead Federal agency for environmental compliance with the NEPA.
Significant resources and issues have been and will continue to be identified through public meetings and coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies. A number of public meetings have been held to discuss the project, including meetings hosted by USACE on April 8, 2015, in Burlington and April 9, 2015 in Minot. An additional public scoping meeting will be held on August 19, 2015, at the Minot Municipal Auditorium, Room 201, 420 3rd Ave SW. in Minot, North Dakota. An open house will run from 6 p.m. until 7 p.m. central standard time and will be followed by presentations and public comment.
Preparation of the EIS is expected to take several months. It is anticipated that the programmatic EIS for the MREFPP will be available for public review in the summer/fall of 2016.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701
On May 18, 2011, a Boeing K707 aerial refueling tanker, carrying approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, operated by Omega Air Inc., crashed during take‐off on Runway 21 into Mugu Lagoon at the end of Point Mugu Taxiway Alpha at NBVC Point Mugu. Spill response crews protected most of the lagoon and were able to limit crash impacts to an area of approximately 79 acres of wetlands. The crash scattered debris and different portions of the plane, scoured tracks into the marsh, and left the remaining fuselage partially buried in mudflats. A Unified Command (UC) was instituted immediately following the incident that consisted of staff from NBVC Point Mugu, CDFW-OSPR, U.S. Coast Guard, USFWS, and aircraft owner Omega Air, Inc. The UC oversaw the emergency response and spill containment debris clean-up operations.
The natural resources trustees (Trustees) under OPA are the CNRSW, USFWS and CDFW-OSPR and are acting in accordance with the natural resources authorities provided by the OPA, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable Federal laws and regulations including the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300.600-300.615), the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations applicable to OPA (15 CFR part 990), and the DoN Environmental Readiness Program Manual (OPNAVINST 5090.1D). USFWS and CDFW-OSPR are co-Trustees in this response, with CNRSW serving as lead Trustee. As owner and operator of the crashed plane from which the fire and release occurred, the Trustees identified Omega Air, Inc. as the Responsible Party (RP). The Trustees have coordinated with representatives of the RP on NRDA activities.
The Trustees began the pre-assessment phase of the NRDA in accordance with 15 CFR 990.40, to determine if they had jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA, and, if so, whether it was appropriate to do so. During the pre-assessment phase, the Trustees collected and analyzed the following:
1. Data reasonably expected to be necessary to make a determination of jurisdiction or a determination to conduct restoration planning;
2. Ephemeral data; and/or
3. Information needed to design or implement anticipated emergency restoration and/or assessment as part of the restoration planning phase.
The NRDA regulations provide that the Trustees are to prepare a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning (Notice) if they determine certain conditions have been met, and if they decide to quantify the injuries to natural resources and to develop a restoration plan. This Notice announces, pursuant to 15 CFR 990.44, that the Trustees, having collected and analyzed data, intend to proceed with restoration planning actions to address injuries to natural resources resulting from the crash. The purpose of this restoration planning effort is to further evaluate injuries to natural resources and services and to use that information to determine the need for, type of, and scale of compensatory restoration actions.
Navy Region Southwest, Attention: Ms. Deb McKay, Code N40, Pt Mugu Omega Air Tanker Crash Spill, 937 North Harbor Drive, Box 81, San Diego, CA 92132, Phone: 619-532-2284, or
1. Assess natural resource injuries resulting from a discharge of oil or the substantial threat of a discharge and response activities, and
2. Develop and implement a plan for restoration of such injured resources. The Federal Trustees are designated pursuant to the NCP and Executive Order 12777 (Implementation of Section 311 of the FWPCA of October 18, 1972, as amended, and the OPA). State Trustees for California are designated pursuant to the NCP and the “Governor's Designation of State Natural Resource Trustees under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, the OPA, and California Health and Safety Code” § 25352(c), dated October 5, 2007.
The Trustees have determined that they have jurisdiction to pursue restoration planning pursuant to the OPA in order to resolve liability for injuries to natural resources and services. Specifically, the Trustees have determined pursuant to 15 CFR 990.41:
1. The crash of the aircraft resulted in a discharge of oil into and upon navigable waters of the U.S. and such occurrence constitutes an “Incident” within the meaning of 15 CFR 990.30;
2. The Incident was not permitted pursuant to Federal, State, or local law; was not from a public vessel; and was not from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act (43 U.S.C. 1651
3. Natural resources under the trusteeship of the Trustees have been injured as a result of the Incident.
Using information gathered since the crash, during the response, and the NRDA initiation phase, the Trustees have determined that the crash injured natural resources under the trusteeship of the Trustees. The air tanker crash and subsequent fire, oil spill, and cleanup action is known to have impacted aquatic organisms, vegetation, birds, wildlife, geologic resources, and hydrology. The incident exposed these resources to oil, metals, and contaminants of potential concern. The response use of heavy equipment to remove debris and sandbags to contain the spill also caused injury to the
1. As stated above, injuries have resulted from the incident on May 18, 2011.
2. Response actions did not address all injuries resulting from the incident to the extent that restoration would not be necessary. Although response actions were initiated soon after the spill, the nature of the incident (fire, oil spill, and physical disturbance) and the sensitivity of the environment precluded the complete prevention of injuries to natural resources. Injured natural resources may return to baseline, but interim losses of services provided by these natural resources have occurred, and will continue until resources return to baseline health/condition.
3. Feasible primary and compensatory restoration actions exist to address injuries and lost human uses resulting from the incident. In preparation for restoration planning, the Trustees have begun to compile a list of restoration projects that could potentially be implemented to compensate for interim losses resulting from the incident. All potential restoration sites would be located within the bounds of NBVC Point Mugu and would involve construction projects to enhance the services of existing wetlands.
The Trustees have the tools and procedures to evaluate the injuries and define the appropriate type and scale of restoration for the injured natural resources. Among the available procedures are computer modeled injury assessments; field and laboratory study of geology and sediment, plants, wildlife, water quality, hydrologic resources; as well as additional literature searches. Appropriate procedures such as these will be used to determine the extent of injury to natural resources and their services, and Habitat Equivalency Analysis will be used to determine the appropriate compensation for those injuries.
During the restoration planning phase, the Trustees will evaluate potential projects, determine the scale of restoration actions needed to make the environment and the public whole, and release a draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan for public review and comment.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
This notice is effective July 17, 2015.
The Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program on or after July 1, 2015, but before July 1, 2016.
Ian Foss, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE., Room 114I1, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 377-3681 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), provides formulas for determining the interest rates charged to borrowers for loans made under the Direct Loan Program including: Federal Direct Subsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans); Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans); Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loans); and Federal Direct Consolidation Loans (Direct Consolidation Loans).
Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans (collectively, Direct Loans) first disbursed on or after July 1, 2013, have a fixed interest rate that is calculated based on the high yield of the 10-year Treasury notes auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage (a “margin”). Therefore, while the interest rate determination for new loans will be different from year to year, each of these loans will have a fixed interest rate for the life of the loan. In each case the calculated rate is capped by a maximum interest rate.
The following chart contains specific information on the calculation of the interest rates for Direct Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2015, but before July 1, 2016. We publish a separate notice containing the interest rates for Direct Loans that were made in prior years.
If an application for a Direct Consolidation Loan is received by the Department on or after July 1, 2013, the interest rate on that loan is the weighted average of the consolidated loans, rounded up to the nearest higher
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1087,
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy.
Notice of intent to grant an exclusive license.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) hereby gives notice that the Department of Energy (DOE) intends to grant an exclusive license to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 8,470,276, “Process for CO
Written comments, objections, or nonexclusive license applications must be received at the address listed below no later than August 3, 2015. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Comments, applications for nonexclusive licenses, or objections relating to the prospective exclusive license should be submitted to Jessica Sosenko, Technology Transfer Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 or via facsimile to (412) 386-4183.
Jessica Sosenko, Technology Transfer Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; Telephone (412) 386-7417; Email:
Section 209(c) of title 35 of the United States Code gives DOE the authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in Department-owned inventions where a determination is made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely to be achieved expeditiously, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written comments and objections.
CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., a small business, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions and has a plan for commercialization of the inventions. DOE intends to grant the license, upon a final determination in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), unless within 15 days of publication of this notice, NETL's Technology Transfer Manager (contact information listed above), receives in writing any of the following, together with supporting documents:
(i) A statement from any person setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or
(ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.
The proposed license would be exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the United States, and
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
ITC Lake Erie Connector LLC (ITC Lake Erie) has applied for a Presidential Permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the United States border with Canada.
Comments or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 17, 2015.
Comments or motions to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260 or via electronic mail at
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential Permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038.
On May 29, 2015, ITC Lake Erie filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential Permit. ITC Lake Erie has it principal place of business in Novi, Michigan. ITC Lake Erie is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITC Lake Erie Holdings LLC, which is, though another entity, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITC Holdings Corp.
ITC Lake Erie proposes to construct and operate the ITC Lake Erie Connector Project (the project), a ± 320 kilovolt (kV) high-voltage direct current (HVDC) bi-directional electric transmission line that would originate Haldimand County, Ontario, Canada, and terminate in Erie County, Pennsylvania. The proposed project facilities would be capable of transmitting up to 1000 megawatts (MW) of power.
The U.S. portion of the proposed project would cross the U.S.-Canada border in Lake Erie as a submerged line, buried in the lake bed, and would run approximately 35.4 miles before reaching the shore on private property, west of Erie Bluffs Park. From the shore, the line would be buried underground for approximately 7.1 miles, along mostly roadway rights-of-way and terminate at the proposed Erie Converter Station. From the Erie Converter Station, a 345 kV alternating current (AC) transmission line would run approximately 1,900-3,000 feet (depending on final routing) underground and connect into the U.S. grid at the existing Erie West Substation owned by Penelec. The total length of the Project would be 72.4 miles, with the U.S. portion totaling about 42.5 miles.
The Project would be operated in accordance with the established engineering and technical criteria of the Independent System Operator of Ontario (IESO) and the PJM Interconnection (PJM). In the U.S., the Project would be placed under operational control of PJM.
Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888 (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, DOE invites comments on whether it would be appropriate to condition any Presidential Permit issued in this proceeding on compliance with these open access principles.
Additional copies of such motions to intervene also should be filed directly with: Andrew Jamieson, Counsel, ITC Holdings Corp., 27175 Energy Way, Novi, MI 48377,
Before a Presidential Permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, determines the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential Permit application.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, or by accessing the program Web site at
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; extension of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the June 12, 2015, notice of data availability of the “Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual” is being extended by 30 days.
The public comment period for the notice of data availability published June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33515) is being extended by 30 days to September 10, 2015, in order to provide the public additional time to submit comments.
Written comments on the notice of data availability may be submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the notice of data availability (80 FR 33515) for the addresses and detailed instructions. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection either electronically at
For questions on the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual update and how to submit comments, contact Mr. Larry Sorrels, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C439-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-5041; fax number: (919) 541-0839; email address:
The EPA received two requests to extend the comment period on the June 12, 2015, notice of data availability of the “Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual.” Based on the evaluation of those requests and the level of interest in the notice of data availability, the EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 30 days. The public comment period will end on September 10, 2015, rather than August 11, 2015. This will ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on all of the information available, including the notice of data availability and other materials in the docket.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for nominations for Clean Air Excellence Awards.
This notice announces the competition for the 2016 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program. EPA established the Clean Air Excellence Awards Program in February 2000 to recognize outstanding and innovative efforts that support progress in achieving clean air.
All submissions of entries for the Clean Air Excellence Awards Program must be postmarked by September 11, 2015.
Additional information on this awards program, including the entry form, can be found on EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Web site:
Awards Program Notice: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7403(a)(1) and (2) and sections 103(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), notice is hereby given that the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) announces the opening of competition for the 2016 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program (CAEAP). The intent of the program is to recognize and honor outstanding, innovative efforts that help to make progress in achieving cleaner air. The CAEAP is open to both public and private entities. Entries are limited to efforts related to air quality in the United States. There are five general award categories: (1) Clean Air Technology; (2) Community Action; (3) Education/Outreach; (4) Regulatory/Policy Innovations; and (5) Transportation Efficiency Innovations. There are also two special awards categories: (1) Thomas W. Zosel Outstanding Individual Achievement Award; and (2) Gregg Cooke Visionary Program Award. Awards are given periodically and are for recognition only.
Entry Requirements: All applicants are asked to submit their entry on a CAEAP entry form, contained in the CAEAP Entry Package, which may be obtained from the CAAAC Web site at
Judging and Award Criteria: EPA staff will use a screening process, with input from outside subject experts, as needed. Members of the CAAAC will provide advice to EPA on the entries. The EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation will make the final award decisions. Entries will be judged using both general criteria and criteria specific to each individual category. These criteria are listed in the 2016 Entry Package.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before August 17, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
The Federal Communications Commission previously announced its intention to hold an Open Meeting on Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. With respect
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Will Wiquist, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, July 16, 2015, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.
The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually:
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Will Wiquist, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 15, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the
The purpose of this information collection is to maintain OMB approval of a certification requirement for portable GMPCS transceivers to prevent interference, reduce radio-frequency (“RF”) radiation exposure risk, and make regulatory treatment of portable GMPCS transceivers consistent with treatment of similar terrestrial wireless devices, such as cellular phones.
The Commission is requiring that applicants obtain authorization for the equipment by submitting an application and exhibits, including test data. If the Commission did not obtain such information, it would not be able to ascertain whether the equipment meets the FCC's technical standards for operation in the United States. Furthermore, the data is required to ensure that the equipment will not cause catastrophic interference to other telecommunications services that may impact the health and safety of American citizens.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Commission gives notice that it has formally requested that the parties to the below listed agreement provide additional information pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents the agreement amendments from becoming effective as originally scheduled. Interested parties may file comments within fifteen (15) days after publication of this notice in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 3, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), announcement is made of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting on
July 21-22, 2015 (
Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878.
Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this meeting should contact: Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone: (301) 427-1554.
Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities dictate.
A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.
Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the “AHRQ RFA HS15-001 Patient Safety Learning Laboratories: Innovative Design and Development to Improve Healthcare Delivery Systems (P30).” are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by August 17, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
The survey is designed to enable medical offices to assess provider and staff opinions about patient safety issues, medical error, and error reporting. The survey includes 38 items that measure 10 composites of patient safety culture. In addition to the composite items, 14 items measure how often medical offices have problems exchanging information with other settings and other patient safety and quality issues. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in December 2008 on the AHRQ Web site (located at
The Medical Office SOPS Comparative Database consists of data from the AHRQ Medical Office SOPS.
The goal of this project is to renew the Medical Office SOPS Comparative Database. This Database will:
(1) Allow medical offices to compare their patient safety culture survey results with those of other medical offices,
(2) Provide data to medical offices to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process, and
(3) Provide supplemental information to help medical offices identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor—Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to: The quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services; quality measurement and improvement; and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Survey data from the AHRQ Medical Office SOPS are used to produce three types of products: (1) A Medical Office SOPS Comparative Database Report that is produced periodically and made publicly available on the AHRQ Web site (see
Medical offices are asked to voluntarily submit their Medical Office SOPS survey data to the Comparative Database. The data are then cleaned and aggregated and used to produce a Comparative Database Report that displays averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 38 items that measure 10 composites of patient safety culture, and 14 items measuring how often medical offices have problems exchanging information with other settings and other patient safety and quality issues. The report also displays these results by medical office characteristics (size of office, specialty, geographic region, etc.) and respondent characteristics (staff position).
Data submitted by medical offices are used to give each medical office its own customized survey feedback report that presents the medical office's results compared to the latest comparative database results.
Medical offices use the Medical Office SOPS, Comparative Database Reports and Individual Medical Office Survey Feedback Reports for a number of purposes, to
• Raise staff awareness about patient safety.
• Diagnose and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their medical office.
• Identify strengths and areas for improvement in patient safety culture.
• Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions.
• Compare patient safety culture survey results with other medical offices in their efforts to improve patient safety and health care quality.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 150 POCs, each representing an average of 10 individual medical offices each, will complete the database submission steps and forms annually. Completing the registration form will take about 3 minutes. The Medical Office Information Form is completed by all POCs for each of their medical offices (150 × 10 = 1,500 forms in total) and is estimated to take 5 minutes to complete. Each POC will complete a data use agreement which takes 3 minutes to complete and submitting the data will take an hour on average. The total burden is estimated to be 291 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Assessing the Impact of Organizational and Personal Antecedents on Proactive Health/Safety Decision Making—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NIOSH, under Public Law 91-596, Sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1977) has the responsibility to conduct research relating to innovative methods,
This research relates to the interplay of personal, organizational, and cultural influences on risk-taking and proactive decision-making behaviors among mine workers. The antecedents, or characteristics, that impact these behaviors are not well understood in mining. Understanding the degree to which antecedents influence decisions can inform the focus of future health and safety management interventions.
NIOSH proposes a project that seeks to empirically understand the following: What are the most important organizational antecedent characteristics needed to support worker health and safety (H&S) performance behaviors in the mining industry?
What are the most important personal antecedent characteristics needed to support worker health and safety (H&S) performance behaviors in the mining industry?
To answer the above questions, NIOSH researchers developed a psychometrically supported survey. Researchers identified seven worker perception-based `organizational values' and four `personal characteristics' that are presumed to be important in fostering H&S knowledge, motivation, proactive behaviors, and safety outcomes. Because these emergent, worker perception-based constructs have a theoretical and empirical history, psychometrically tested items exist for each of them.
NIOSH researchers will administer this survey at mine sites to as many participating mine workers as possible to answer the research questions. Upon data collection and analysis NIOSH researchers will revalidate each scale to ensure that measurement is valid. A quantitative approach, via a short survey, allows for prioritization, based on statistical significance, of the antecedents that have the most critical influence on proactive behaviors. Data collection will take place with approximately 1,200 mine workers over three years. The respondents targeted for this study include any active mine worker at a mine site, both surface and underground. All participants will be between the ages of 18 and 75, currently employed, and living in the United States. Participation will require no more than 20 minutes of workers' time (5 minutes for consent and 15 minutes for the survey). There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Upon collection of the data, it will be used to answer what organizational/personal characteristics have the biggest impact on proactive and compliant health and safety behaviors. Dominance and relative weights analysis will be used as the data analysis method to statistically rank order the importance of predictors in numerous regression contexts. Safety proactive and safety compliance will serve as the dependent variables in these regression analyses, with the organizational and personal characteristics as independent variables.
Findings will be used to improve the safety and health organizational values and focus of mine organizations, as executed through their health and safety management system for mitigating health and safety risks at their mine site. Specifically, if organizations are lacking in values that are of high importance among employees, site leadership knows where to focus new, innovative methods, techniques, and approaches to dealing with their occupational safety and health problems. Finally, the data can be directly compared to data from other mine organizations that administered the same standardized methods to provide broader context for areas in which the mining industry can focus more attention if trying to encourage safer work behavior.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
National Disease Surveillance Program III—CDC Support for Case Investigation, Contact Tracing, and Case Reports—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The international outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa began March 10, 2014. The initial cases were from southern Guinea, near its rural border with Liberia and Sierra Leone. Highly mobile populations contributed to increasing waves of person-to-person transmission of EVD that occurred in multiple countries in West Africa. The CDC activated its Emergency Operations Center on July 9, 2014 to help coordinate technical assistance and control activities with international partners and to deploy teams of public health experts to the affected countries.
The operations turned to the United States (U.S.) when the first imported case of EVD was diagnosed in Texas on September 30, 2014. In response, on October 11, 2014, the CDC Quarantine Stations and the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Patrol mobilized to screen, detect, and refer arriving travelers who were potential persons at risk for EVD to appropriate state, territorial, and local (STL) authorities. The CDC also increased its commitment to support STL public health authorities to combat and control the spread of EVD within their jurisdictions.
Thus in 2014, the CDC requested and received an expedited emergency review and approval from OMB of an information collection request to initiate multiple urgently needed information collections in West Africa, at U.S. ports of entry, and within STL jurisdictions. These information collections allowed the agency to accomplish its primary mission on many fronts to quickly prevent public harm, illness, and death from the uncontrolled spread of EVD.
This new collection of information is designed to allow CDC to conduct active disease surveillance in support of and at the request of STL authorities among respondents that may include the general public, workers, and STL authorities. This should cut down on the need for multiple steps in emergency requests that were experienced in the first year of the 2014 Ebola virus response.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total annualized burden requested is 14,702 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Testicular Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development.” The draft guidance addresses nonclinical findings that may raise concerns of a drug-related adverse effect on the testes, clinical monitoring of adverse testicular effects early in clinical development, and the design and conduct of a safety clinical trial assessing drug-related testicular toxicity. The draft guidance is intended
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 15, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Eufrecina Deguia, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5348, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0881.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Testicular Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development.” This draft guidance is intended to help sponsors identify nonclinical signals that raise concern regarding the potential for human testicular toxicity and to evaluate those signals appropriately in human studies.
The draft guidance describes the standard battery of nonclinical studies that are used to assess the effects of pharmaceuticals on the male reproductive system. The draft guidance discusses findings in nonclinical studies that may increase the level of concern for drug-related testicular toxicity. Examples of nonclinical studies that could be used to further evaluate initial signals of testicular toxicity are also described. The draft guidance then provides a general approach on how to weigh the relevance of nonclinical findings, taking into account factors that can confound the interpretation of these findings.
If a concerning nonclinical signal is identified, the draft guidance presents suggestions for clinical monitoring when the drug is initially administered to humans. These suggestions aim to minimize the hazards to men while making possible the collection of data that will assist in evaluating the potential toxicity of the drug in the target population. These early studies, however, are not intended to be a definitive evaluation of the potential for testicular toxicity of the drug. Rather, they can provide clinical information that, together with the nonclinical information, will support a judgment as to whether the testicular toxicity signal warrants indepth evaluation in a dedicated safety study.
If a reasonable basis for concern of human testicular toxicity exists, a dedicated clinical safety trial with a primary objective of evaluating drug-related testicular toxicity may be warranted. The draft guidance provides recommendations for the design of such a trial, including conduct, endpoints, and presentation of results. These are general recommendations for the purpose of defining the role of drugs in testicular injury; however, the specific details of an individual trial may vary depending on the context of use of the drug product.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the evaluation of testicular toxicity during drug development. It does not establish rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This 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 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 15, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 502(x) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(x)), which was added by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 109-462), requires the label of a nonprescription drug product marketed without an approved application in the United States to include a domestic address or domestic telephone number through which a manufacturer, packer, and distributor may receive a report of a serious adverse event associated with the product. The guidance document contains questions and answers relating to this labeling requirement and provides guidance to industry on the following topics: (1) The meaning of “domestic address” for purposes of the labeling requirements of section 502(x) of the FD&C Act; (2) FDA's recommendation for the use of an introductory statement before the domestic address or phone number that is required to appear on the product label under section 502(x) of the FD&C Act; and (3) FDA's intent regarding enforcing the labeling requirements of section 502(x) of the FD&C Act.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a public meeting and an opportunity for public comment on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Huntington's disease and Parkinson's disease. Patient-Focused Drug Development is part of FDA's performance commitments made as part of the fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). The public meeting is intended to allow FDA to obtain patient perspectives on the impact of Huntington's disease and Parkinson's disease on daily life and patient views on treatment approaches. Although these are both neurological diseases, since they are quite distinct, FDA will structure this public meeting into two distinct sessions. The morning session, scheduled from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., will be
The public meeting will be held on September 22, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by September 14, 2015 (see
The meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Participants must enter through Building 1 and undergo security screening. For more information on parking and security procedures, please refer to
Submit electronic comments to
FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at:
Graham Thompson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1146, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5003, FAX: 301-847-8443,
FDA has selected Huntington's disease (HD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) as the focus of a public meeting under Patient-Focused Drug Development, an initiative that involves obtaining a better understanding of patient perspectives on the severity of a disease and the available therapies for these conditions. Patient-Focused Drug Development is being conducted to fulfill FDA performance commitments that are part of the reauthorization of PDUFA under Title I of the Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144). The full set of performance commitments is available at
FDA committed to obtain the patient perspective on 20 disease areas during the course of PDUFA V. For each disease area, the Agency will conduct a public meeting to discuss the disease and its impact on patients' daily lives, the types of treatment benefit that matter most to patients, and patients' perspectives on the adequacy of the available therapies. These meetings will include participation of FDA review divisions, the relevant patient communities, and other interested stakeholders.
On April 11, 2013, FDA published a notice (78 FR 21613) in the
The purpose of this Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting is to obtain input on the symptoms and other impacts of HD and PD that matter most to patients, as well as perspectives on current approaches to treating these conditions. HD is a fatal genetic disorder that causes the progressive degeneration of nerve cells in the brain, resulting in uncontrolled movements, loss of intellectual faculties, and emotional disturbance. Each child of an HD parent has a 50-50 chance of inheriting the HD gene, and a person who inherits the HD gene will eventually develop the disease. Physicians may prescribe a number of medications to help control emotional and movement problems associated with HD. While medicines may help keep these clinical symptoms under control, there is no current treatment to stop or reverse the course of the disease.
PD belongs to a group of conditions called motor system disorders, which are the result of the loss of dopamine-producing brain cells. As nerve cells become impaired or die, individuals begin to experience tremor, muscle rigidity or stiffness, slowing of movement, and impaired balance and coordination. The cause of PD is unknown, but factors such as genetics and environmental triggers may play a role. Although there is no cure for PD, medications can help manage the levels of dopamine and other neurotransmitters in the brain to improve symptoms. Deep brain stimulation is a surgery that may also be used to manage symptoms if medications are not effective.
The questions that will be asked of patients and patient stakeholders at the meeting are listed in this section, organized by topic. For each topic, a brief initial patient panel discussion will begin the dialogue. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion inviting comments from other patient and patient stakeholder participants. In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient input addressing these questions through written comments, which can be submitted to the public docket (see
1. Of all the symptoms that you experience because of your condition, which one to three symptoms have the most significant impact on your life? (Examples may include: ability to control movements, balance/coordination, difficulty concentrating, sleeping, mood/behavior, etc.)
2. Are there specific activities that are important to you but that you cannot do at all or as fully as you would like because of your condition? (Examples of activities may include sleeping through the night, daily bathing/showering, cooking, eating, dressing, shopping, etc.)
• How do your symptoms affect your daily life on the best days? On the worst days?
3. How has your condition and its symptoms changed over time?
• Do your symptoms come and go? If so, do you know of anything that makes your symptoms better? Worse?
4. How has your condition affected your social interactions, including relationships with family and friends?
5. How has your condition affected your mood (for example: depression, apathy, patience/tolerance for frustration)?
1. What are you currently doing to help treat your condition or its symptoms? (Examples may include prescription medicines, over-the-counter products, and other therapies including non-drug therapies such as diet modification and exercise.)
(a) What specific symptoms do your treatments address?
(b) How has your treatment regimen changed over time, and why?
2. How well does your current treatment regimen treat the most significant symptoms of your disease?
(a) How well do these treatments improve your ability to do specific activities that are important to you in your daily life?
(b) How well have these treatments worked for you as your condition has changed over time?
3. What are the most significant downsides to your current treatments, and how do they affect your daily life? (Examples of downsides may include bothersome side effects, interacts with other medications, need to visit your doctor more frequently, etc.)
4. Assuming there is no complete cure for your condition, what would you look for in an ideal treatment for your condition or a specific aspect of your condition?
1. Of all the symptoms that you experience because of your condition, which one to three symptoms have the most significant impact on your life? (Examples may include difficulty moving, pain, constipation, difficulty concentrating or remembering, daytime sleepiness, etc.)
2. Are there specific activities that are important to you but that you cannot do at all or as fully as you would like because of your condition? (Examples of activities may include daily hygiene, feeding, dressing, etc.)
• How do your symptoms affect your daily life on the best days? On the worst days?
3. How has your ability to cope with symptoms changed over time?
• Do your symptoms come and go? If so, do you know of anything that makes your symptoms better? Worse?
4. What worries you most about your condition?
5. How has your condition affected your social interactions, including relationships with family and friends?
1. What are you currently doing to help treat your condition or its symptoms? (Examples may include prescription medicines, over-the-counter products, and other therapies including non-drug therapies such as diet modification and exercise.)
• What specific symptoms do your treatments address (for example: depression, constipation, memory difficulty, sleepiness, ability to move)?
2. How well does your current treatment regimen treat the most significant symptoms of your disease?
• How well do these treatments improve your ability to do specific activities that are important to you in your daily life?
3. What are the most significant downsides to your current treatments, and how do they affect your daily life? (Examples of downsides may include bothersome side effects, need to visit your doctor or take medications frequently, cause sleepiness, etc.)
4. Assuming there is no complete cure for your condition, what would you look for in an ideal treatment for your condition or a specific aspect of your condition?
If you wish to attend this meeting, visit
Patients who are interested in presenting comments as part of the initial panel discussions will be asked to indicate in their registration which topic(s) they wish to address. These patients also must send to
Regardless if you attend the public meeting, you can submit electronic or written responses to the questions pertaining to HD Topics 1 and 2 and PD Topics 1 and 2 to the public docket (see
As soon as a transcript is available, FDA will post it at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be webcast and will be available at the following link
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sujata Vijh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this Information Collection Request must be received no later than September 15, 2015.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
OMB No. 0915-XXXX—NEW.
This request is to expand the UDS data reporting resource to the BHW NMHC grantees and IPCP program cooperative agreement awardees. Calendar year data would be submitted annually to enable BHW to track clinical practice and patient outcome data. The data collection is limited to NMHC and IPCP grantees and cooperative agreement awardees because of the similarities these care models share with health centers; therefore, the use of the pre-existing infrastructure will enable HRSA to populate the data set with additional sources, making the resource more robust.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than August 17, 2015.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
A 60-day
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of an extension of a currently approved collection: 1625-0010, Defect/Noncompliance Report and Campaign Update Report. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 15, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0378] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0378], and must be received by September 15, 2015. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2015-0378], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
1.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Sincerely,
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision of a currently approved collection: 1625-0004, United States Coast Guard Academy Application and Supplemental Forms. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 15, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0468] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICR(s) are available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval of revisions of the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0468], and must be received by September 15, 2015. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2015-0468], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (via
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
1. TITLE: United States Coast Guard Academy Application and Supplemental Forms.
OMB CONTROL NUMBER: 1625-0004.
SUMMARY: This collection contains the application and all supplemental forms required to be considered as an applicant to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
NEED: The information is needed to select applicants for appointment as Cadet, U.S. Coast Guard to attend the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
FORMS: CGA-14, CGA-14A, CGA-14B, CGA-14D.
RESPONDENTS: Approximately 2,500 applicants apply annually to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
FREQUENCY: Applicants must apply only once per year.
BURDEN ESTIMATE: The estimated burden has decreased from 24,250 hours to 21,750 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated number of annual respondents.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before August 17, 2015.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.
Effective date: July 1, 2015.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.
Brazoria and Ellis Counties for Individual Assistance.
Bowie, Cherokee, and Harrison Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
Callahan, Dickens, Edwards, Frio, Hartley, Hill, Leon, Parker, Real, Trinity, and Victoria Counties for Public Assistance.
Dallas, Eastland, Hidalgo, and Nueces Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
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 notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4218-DR), dated May 12, 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.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 12, 2015.
Bath and Harlan Counties for Public Assistance.
Bath County for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any 48-hour period during or proximate the incident period.
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.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 15, 2015.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1521, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 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.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.
Erath, Jim Wells, and Montgomery Counties for Individual Assistance.
Angelina, Frio, and Trinity Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
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 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.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 26, 2015.
Delaware, Greer, Harman, and Nowata Counties for Public Assistance.
Mayes County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
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 State of Wyoming (FEMA-4227-DR), dated July 7, 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, in a letter dated July 7, 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 State of Wyoming resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of May 24 to June 6, 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 Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. McCool, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Wyoming have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Johnson and Niobrara Counties for Individual Assistance.
All areas within the State of Wyoming are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
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 notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 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.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.
Fayette County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
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 notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4222-DR), dated May 26, 2015, and related determinations.
Effective date: July 2, 2015.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 26, 2015.
Mayes and Tulsa Counties for Individual Assistance.
Carter, Jefferson, Latimer, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Pushmataha, and Stephens Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
(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.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of July 16, 2015, which has been established for the
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 15, 2015.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1524, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
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.
Effective date: June 17, 2015.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 26, 2015.
Rogers County for Individual Assistance.
Choctaw, Cotton, and Tillman Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
Craig, Custer, Dewey, Grant, Jefferson, Kay, Kingfisher, Major, Noble, Ottawa, and Roger Mills Counties for Public Assistance.
Kiowa, Oklahoma, and Wagoner Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
On March 26, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) made a determination that the suspension on the import of sport-hunted African elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe on or after April 4, 2014, would be continued until further notice. The decision to continue the suspension on importation of African elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe through the 2015 hunting season and future hunting seasons is due to the Service's inability to determine that the killing of the animal whose trophy is intended for import into the United States would enhance the survival of the species in the wild. The suspension on importation of trophies taken during calendar year 2015 or future hunting seasons could be lifted if additional information on the status and management of elephants in Zimbabwe becomes available which satisfies the conditions of the 4(d) special rule under the Endangered Species Act (Act).
Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; fax (703) 358-2280; or email
Timothy J. Van Norman, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2280 (fax); or
The African elephant (
Zimbabwe has had an active elephant hunting program for over 20 years, and imports into the United States have occurred at least since 1997, when the Zimbabwe elephant population, along with populations in Botswana and Namibia, was downlisted to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (South Africa's population was downlisted at a later date). When the population was downlisted, the Service published a notice in the
On April 4, 2014, the Service announced an interim suspension of imports of sport-hunted elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe during the 2014 season. This finding was revised on April 17, 2014, primarily to clarify that the suspension applied only to elephants hunted on or after April 4, 2014. This determination was announced in the
Prior to April 4, 2014, the Service had limited information regarding the elephant population in Zimbabwe, its management, and how U.S. hunters were contributing to the enhancement of the species within Zimbabwe. Due to this limited information, the Service determined that it did not have sufficient information to make the required determination under paragraph 17.40(e)(3)(iii)(C), and therefore announced an interim suspension on April 4, 2015 (revised on April 17), until such time as sufficient information was obtained that would allow the Service to make the required finding. On April 4, 2014, the Service also sent a letter to Zimbabwe requesting information regarding the status of elephants in Zimbabwe and the hunting program. On April 17, 2014, the Director-General of ZPWMA sent a response to the Service inquiry. Several weeks later, the Service received a number of documents, copies of Zimbabwean laws, and other supporting documentation that was referenced in the ZPWMA response. In addition, since that time, the Service has received additional supporting information from individuals and associations connected to the hunting industry in Zimbabwe or southern Africa and U.S.-based conservation and hunting nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The Service also delivered a second letter, dated October 31, 2014, to ZPWMA while attending the 13th Annual African Wildlife Consultative Forum in Ethiopia. This letter requested clarification of information submitted to the Service, and also requested additional information to address questions that were raised from our review of available information. The Service received a response to this inquiry on December 10, 2014.
Based on the information provided, Zimbabwe's current national elephant management plan consists primarily of two documents:
One concern expressed in the April 2014 and July 2014 findings was whether management of elephants in Zimbabwe was based on accurate population estimates. According to the
According to information provided to the Service, Zimbabwe has a methodology, including participation from a number of stakeholders, for establishing annual hunting quotas for all areas of the country. However, while the described methodology appears to be based on sound wildlife management principles, the Service continues to have fundamental questions regarding how quotas are specifically established and how overall off-take, such as poaching and problem animal control, were taken into account, or to what degree biological factors are taken into consideration (as opposed to economic and societal considerations). The current quota setting process utilized by ZPWMA may take into consideration the issues raised in the Service's finding; however, without documentation of the system providing an explanation of the system used and describing the calculations, the Service cannot determine if sport-hunting quotas are reasonable or beneficial to elephant populations and, therefore, whether sport-hunting is enhancing the survival of the species.
The Zimbabwean Parks and Wild Life Act has established the regulatory mechanism for the ZPWMA and its programs, and also provides for substantial penalties for the unlawful possession of or trading in ivory. In addition, the General Laws Amendment Act (No. 5) of 2010 provides for mandatory imprisonment of not less than 9 years for poaching. If properly enforced, it appears these penalties would be a sufficient deterrent for poachers. However, based on the information available to the Service, we do not have a good understanding of the ZPWMA's annual operational budget, how much money is generated by elephant hunting, or how these funding levels impact the ability of ZPWMA to adequately implement the Parks and Wild Life Act or to carry out day-to-day management activities or anti-poaching efforts. In January 1996, the Government of Zimbabwe approved the establishment of the Parks and Wild Life Conservation Fund, a statutory fund responsible for financing operations directly from wildlife revenues. However, revenues generated through sport-hunting conducted on State and private lands are primarily used to finance ZPWMA, and only limited additional funding is available from appropriated funds from the Zimbabwe government or outside funding from NGOs. While the Service did receive additional information from ZPWMA and other sources on the revenue generated through hunting (in general) and other sources (in general), we still lack sufficient information on revenue generated through elephant hunting, particularly from U.S. hunters. It is possible that additional documentation could be provided to substantiate claims that revenue from U.S. hunters generated through elephant hunting provides a significant benefit to elephants in the wild, but until such time, we are unable to determine if these claims are accurate.
In 1989, Zimbabwe established the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) to encourage reduction in human-elephant conflicts through conservation-based community development and to provide an economic incentive to improve community tolerance of wildlife, including elephants. In the past, the CAMPFIRE program has been the model for community-based conservation efforts in several other African countries and was identified as an innovative program. Under a community-based conservation program, like CAMPFIRE, rural communities should benefit from revenue generated by sport-hunting. With increased human-elephant conflicts on Communal lands, sport-hunting may be an important tool that gives these communities a stake in sustainable management of the elephant as a natural and economic resource and provides the enhancement that would meet the U.S. criteria for authorizing imports of trophies. Much of the information provided to the Service over the past year focused on the benefits U.S. hunters provided to CAMPFIRE activities and community-based wildlife management. However, the information did not provide a clear connection between hunting revenues coming from U.S. hunters (
As was stated in the July 2014 and March 26, 2015, findings, there are clearly “bright spots” of elephant conservation efforts being carried out by non-governmental entities and individuals in Zimbabwe that are providing a benefit to elephants. Individual safari outfitters and landowners have established their own management efforts, including anti-poaching activities, on areas under their control, either through ownership of the land or leases. These entities have made significant strides to ensure the long-term survival of elephants on their lands. These efforts, however, have been adversely affected by unilateral or seemingly arbitrary actions taken by the central government or RDC, such as land redistribution activities, which minimize conservation efforts, and reduced lease durations. These “bright spots” are not numerous enough, in and of themselves, to overcome the problems currently facing Zimbabwe elephant populations or to support a finding that sport hunting throughout Zimbabwe would enhance the survival of the species. While additional information was provided since the July findings, much of this information only expanded on areas already identified in
Therefore, based on the information currently available to the Service on government efforts to manage elephant populations, efforts to address human-elephant conflicts and poaching, and the state of the hunting program within the country, and without current data on population numbers and trends being incorporated into a national management strategy or plan, the Service is unable to make a finding that sport-hunting in Zimbabwe is enhancing the survival of the species and that imports of trophies would meet the criteria established under the Act for African elephants. The March 26, 2015, enhancement finding has been posted at
This suspension does not prohibit U.S. hunters from traveling to Zimbabwe and participating in an elephant hunt. The Act does not prohibit take (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared Draft Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area and the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area and a Draft Amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP. The three planning efforts were initiated concurrently and are supported by a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). By this notice; the BLM announces the opening of the public comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft RMPs/Draft RMP Amendment and Draft EIS within 90 days following the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of the Draft RMPs/Draft RMP Amendment and Draft EIS in the
You may submit comments related to the Draft RMPs/Draft RMP Amendment and Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Copies of the Draft RMPs/Draft RMP Amendment and Draft EIS are available in the BLM St. George Field Office, at the above address and the BLM Utah State Office Public Room, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 during business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. The Draft RMPs/Draft RMP Amendment and Draft EIS is also available on the following Web site:
Keith Rigtrup, RMP Planner, telephone 435-865-3000; address: 345 East Riverside Drive, St. George, Utah 84790; email:
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The purpose of this planning process is to satisfy specific mandates from the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11, at Title 1, Subtitle O, hereinafter OPLMA) that directed the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, to develop comprehensive management plans for the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area (63,480 acres of public land) and the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (44,859 acres of public land), located in Washington County, Utah. Both National Conservation Areas (NCAs) were established on March 30, 2009, when President Barack Obama signed OPLMA into law. The decisions contained within the Draft RMPs/Draft EIS do not pertain to private and State lands within the boundaries of the NCAs.
The need to amend the St. George Field Office RMP (approved in 1999) is also derived from OPLMA. Section 1979 (a)(1) and (2) directed the Secretary, through the BLM, to identify areas located in the County where biological conservation is a priority; and undertake activities to conserve and restore plant and animal species and natural communities within such areas. The administrative designation of new areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) to provide special management attention to biological resources, as well as the identification of priority biological conservation areas, will satisfy this legislative mandate, and will be accomplished through an amendment to the St. George Field Office RMP.
Section 1977 (b)(1) of OPLMA, directed the BLM to develop a comprehensive travel management plan for public lands in Washington County. The St. George Field Office RMP must be amended to modify certain existing off-highway vehicle (OHV) area designations (open, limited or closed), to be in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 43 CFR 8340.0-5, (f), (g), and (h) respectively and 43 CFR 8342.1 (a-d) and related agency policies, before this comprehensive travel management plan can be developed.
The Draft RMPs/Draft EIS include goals, objectives, and management actions for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the natural and cultural resource values of the Beaver Dam Wash
The Draft RMPs/DEIS analyzes four alternatives for the long term management of resource values and land uses in the two NCAs. Alternative A is the No Action alternative and would continue management of the public lands under current goals, objectives, and management decisions from the 1999 St. George Field Office RMP, as modified by congressional designations pursuant to OPLMA.
Alternative B emphasizes resource protection while allowing land uses and developments that are consistent with the NCA purposes, current laws, regulations, and policies.
Management actions would strive to protect ecologically important areas, native vegetation communities, habitats for wildlife, including special status species, cultural resources, and the scenic qualities of each NCA from natural and human-caused impacts. Intensive management of land uses and authorizations would avoid or lessen resource impacts.
Alternative C emphasizes the conservation and protection of resource values and the restoration of damaged lands, through the use of native species. This alternative would also implement higher levels of restrictions on land uses and developments to achieve conservation objectives.
Alternative D emphasizes a broader array and higher level of public use and access, while still meeting the congressionally-defined purpose of conservation and protection of resource values and scenic qualities in the two NCAs. This alternative would provide the greatest management flexibility relating to land uses and authorizations.
Alternative B has been identified as the BLM's preferred alternative in the Draft RMPs/Draft EIS but does not represent the final agency direction for the two NCAs. The Proposed RMPs, developed as a result of public comment on the Draft RMPs, may include objectives and actions analyzed in the other alternatives and reflect changes or adjustments based on new information or changes in BLM policies or priorities.
The Draft EIS also analyzes four alternatives to amend the St. George Field Office RMP to address biological conservation and travel management issues on public lands outside of the two NCAs.
Alternative A (No Action) would continue to manage public lands under the goals, objectives, and decisions of the St. George Field Office RMP. Eight existing ACECs would continue to be managed, under current management prescriptions from that RMP. Area designations for motorized vehicle travel would continue to manage a majority of the public lands as limited to existing roads and trails.
Alternative B (the BLM's preferred alternative) addresses biological conservation through the proposed designation of three new ACECs (South Hills (1,950 acres), State Line (1,410 acres), and Webb Hill (520 acres)) to provide special management for native plant and animal species and natural systems; 8 existing ACECs would be retained, with no changes to the current management prescriptions. A Bull Valley Multi-Species Management Area (87,031 acres) is identified as a priority biological conservation area and management decisions are proposed to protect wildlife habitats and migration corridors. This alternative includes a proposal to identify specific routes for motorized vehicle travel in the St. George Field Office planning area. Route designations and use-limitations will be further developed in a comprehensive travel management plan to be created after the record of decision for these RMPs has been signed.
Alternative C would emphasize the use of special designations to achieve the biological conservation objectives mandated by OPLMA. Under this alternative, 14 new ACECs are proposed for administrative designation: (Dalton Wash (14 acres), Grafton (47 acres), Harrisburg Bench (111 acres), Moody Wash (24 acres), Mosquito Cove (88 acres), North Creek (54 acres), Santa Clara River Baker (32 acres), Santa Clara River Veyo (16 acres), Scarecrow Peak (9,655 acres), Shinob Kibe (70 acres), South Hills (1,950 acres), State Line (1,410 acres), Virgin River (245 acres), and Webb Hill (520 acres)). Eight existing ACECs would be retained. A Bull Valley Multi-Species Management Area (87,031 acres) is identified as a priority biological conservation area and management decisions are proposed to protect wildlife habitats and migration corridors through exclusion of new rights-of-way and closure to fluid leasable and saleable minerals developments. This alternative includes a proposal to identify specific routes for motorized vehicle travel in the St. George Field Office planning area. Route designations and use-limitations will be further developed in a comprehensive travel management plan to be created after the record of decision for these RMPs has been signed.
Alternative D relies primarily on management decisions from the St. George RMP, current laws, regulations, and policies to satisfy OPLMA's legislative direction relating to biological conservation. No new ACECs would be designated and eight currently designated ACECs would be retained. A Bull Valley Multi-Species Management Area (87,031 acres) is identified for management as a priority biological conservation area and management decisions are proposed to protect wildlife habitats through management of 955 acres as a rights-of-way avoidance area. This alternative includes a proposal to identify specific routes for motorized vehicle travel in the St. George Field Office planning area. Route designations and use-limitations will be further developed in a comprehensive travel management plan to be created after the record of decision for these RMPs has been signed.
Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), this notice announces a concurrent public comment period on proposed ACECs to protect plant and animal species and natural processes. The following management prescriptions may apply to the individual areas under consideration, if administratively designated as ACECs through the RMP amendment process: Retain public lands in federal ownership; avoid or exclude new rights-of-way; close to the harvesting of native seeds, plants, and plant materials for commercial purposes and personal use; close or place use constraints on fluid leasable and saleable mineral developments; close to dispersed camping and recreational target shooting; exclude competitive, commercial, and organized group events; protections via visual resource management class designation; and close or limit motorized travel to designated roads and trails.
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 above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Final notice of sale.
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will open and publicly announce bids for blocks offered in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (WPA) Lease Sale 246 (WPA Sale 246), in accordance with the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, as amended) and the implementing regulations issued pursuant thereto (30 CFR parts 550 and 556). The WPA Sale 246 Final Notice of Sale (NOS) Package (Final NOS Package) contains information essential to potential bidders. Bidders are charged with knowing the contents of the documents contained in the Final NOS Package.
Interested parties, upon request, may obtain a compact disc (CD-ROM) containing the Final NOS Package by contacting the BOEM Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Region at the following address: Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, (504) 736-2519 or (800) 200-GULF, or by visiting the BOEM Web site at
This Final NOS includes the following sections:
In WPA Sale 246, BOEM is offering for lease all blocks and partial blocks listed in the document “List of Blocks Available for Leasing” included in this Final NOS Package. All of these blocks are shown on the following leasing maps and Official Protraction Diagrams (OPDs):
A CD-ROM (in ArcGIS and Acrobat (.pdf) format) containing all of the GOM Region leasing maps and OPDs, is available from the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office for a price of $15.00. These GOM Region leasing maps and OPDs also are available online for free in .pdf and .gra formats at
For the current status of all WPA leasing maps and OPDs, please refer to 66 FR 28002 (May 21, 2001), 67 FR 60701 (September 26, 2002), 72 FR 27590 (May 16, 2007), 76 FR 54787 (September 2, 2011), 79 FR 32572 (June 5, 2014), and 80 FR 3251 (January 22, 2015). In addition, Supplemental Official OCS Block Diagrams (SOBDs) for blocks containing the U.S. 200-Nautical Mile Limit line and the U.S.-Mexico Maritime and Continental Shelf Boundary line are available. These SOBDs are available from the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office and on BOEM's Web site at
All blocks being offered in the lease sale are shown on these leasing maps and OPDs. The available Federal acreage of each whole and partial block in this lease sale is shown in the document
For additional information, please call Mr. Lenny Coats, Chief of the Mapping and Automation Section, at (504) 731-1457.
The following whole and partial blocks are not offered for lease in this sale:
Whole and partial blocks that lie within the boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) in the East and West Flower Garden Banks and Stetson Bank. The following list identifies all blocks affected by the Sanctuary boundaries:
The following blocks whose lease status is currently under appeal:
Each lease is issued pursuant and subject to OCSLA, implementing regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and other applicable statutes and regulations in existence upon the effective date of the lease, as well as those applicable statutes enacted and regulations promulgated thereafter, except to the extent that the after-enacted statutes and regulations explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. Each lease is subject to amendments to the applicable statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to, OCSLA, that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. The lessee expressly bears the risk that such new or amended statutes and regulations (
BOEM will use Form BOEM-2005 (October 2011) to convey leases resulting from this sale. This lease form may be viewed on the BOEM Web site at
Initial periods are summarized in the following table:
(1) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths less than 400 meters issued as a result of this sale is 5 years. If the lessee spuds a well targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVD SS within the first 5 years of the lease, then the lessee may earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8-year extended initial period. The lessee will earn the 8-year extended initial period when the well is drilled to a target below 25,000 feet TVD SS, or the lessee may earn the 8-year extended initial period in cases where the well targets, but does not reach, a depth below 25,000 feet TVD SS due to mechanical or safety reasons, where sufficient evidence is provided.
In order to earn the 8-year extended initial period, the lessee is required to submit to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Gulf of Mexico Regional Supervisor for Production and Development, within 30 days after completion of the drilling operation, a letter providing the well number, spud date, information demonstrating a target below 25,000 feet TVD SS and whether that target was reached, and if applicable, any safety, mechanical, or other problems encountered that prevented the well from reaching a depth below 25,000 feet TVD SS. The BSEE Gulf of Mexico Regional Supervisor for Production and Development must concur in writing that the conditions have been met for the lessee to earn the 8-year extended initial period. The BSEE Gulf of Mexico Regional Supervisor for Production and Development will provide a written response within 30 days of receipt of the lessee's letter.
A lessee that has earned the 8-year extended initial period by spudding a well with a hydrocarbon target below 25,000 feet TVD SS during the first 5 years of the lease, confirmed by BSEE, will not be granted a suspension for that same period under the regulations at 30 CFR 250.175 because the lease is not at risk of expiring.
(2) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths ranging from 400 to less than 800 meters issued as a result of this sale is 5 years. The lessee will earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8-year extended initial period, if the lessee spuds a well within the first 5 years of the lease.
In order to earn the 8-year extended initial period, the lessee is required to submit to the appropriate BSEE District Manager, within 30 days after spudding a well, a letter providing the well
(3) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths ranging from 800 to less than 1,600 meters issued as a result of this sale will be 7 years. The lessee will earn an additional 3 years, resulting in a 10-year extended initial period, if the lessee spuds a well within the first 7 years of the lease.
In order to earn the 10-year extended initial period, the lessee is required to submit to the appropriate BSEE District Manager, within 30 days after spudding a well, a letter providing the well number and spud date, and requesting concurrence that the lessee has earned the 10-year extended initial period. The BSEE District Manager will review the request and make a written determination within 30 days of receipt of the request. The BSEE District Manager must concur in writing that the conditions have been met by the lessee to earn the 10-year extended initial period.
(4) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths 1,600 meters or deeper issued as a result of this sale will be 10 years.
BOEM will not accept a bonus bid unless it provides for a cash bonus in the amount equal to, or exceeding, the specified minimum bid of $25.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths less than 400 meters, and $100.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths 400 meters or deeper.
Annual rental rates are summarized in the following table:
Any lessee with a lease in less than 400 meters water depth who earns an 8-year extended initial period will pay an escalating rental rate as shown above. The rental rates after the fifth year for blocks in less than 400 meters water depth will become fixed and no longer escalate, if another well is spudded targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVD SS after the fifth year of the lease, and BSEE concurs that such a well has been spudded. In this case, the rental rate will become fixed at the rental rate in effect during the lease year in which the additional well was spudded.
The issuance of leases with royalty suspension volumes (RSVs) or other forms of royalty relief is authorized under existing BOEM regulations at 30 CFR part 560. The specific details relating to eligibility and implementation of the various royalty relief programs, including those involving the use of RSVs, are codified in BSEE regulations at 30 CFR part 203. In this sale, the only royalty relief program being offered, which involves the provision of RSVs, relates to the drilling of ultra-deep wells in water depths of less than 400 meters, as described below.
Leases issued as a result of this sale may be eligible for RSVs incentives on gas produced from ultra-deep wells pursuant to 30 CFR part 203. These regulations implement the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under this program, wells on leases in less than 400 meters water depth and completed to a drilling depth of 20,000 feet TVD SS or deeper receive a RSV of 35 billion cubic feet on the production of natural gas. This RSVs incentive is subject to applicable price thresholds set forth in the regulation at 30 CFR part 203.
One or more of the following stipulations may be applied to leases issued as a result of this sale. The detailed text of these stipulations is contained in the “Lease Stipulations” section of this Final NOS Package.
The following Information to Lessees (ITL) clauses provide detailed information on certain issues pertaining to this oil and gas lease sale. The detailed text of the following ITL clauses is contained in the “Information to Lessees” section of this Final NOS Package.
The maps pertaining to this lease sale may be found on the BOEM Web site at
The lease terms and economic conditions and the blocks to which these terms and conditions apply are shown on the map entitled “Final, Western Planning Area, Lease Sale 246, August 19, 2015, Lease Terms and Economic Conditions.”
The blocks to which one or more lease stipulations may apply are shown on the map entitled “Final, Western Planning Area, Lease Sale 246, August 19, 2015, Stipulations and Deferred Blocks Map.”
Instructions on how to submit a bid, secure payment of the advance bonus bid deposit (if applicable), and what information must be included with the bid are as follows:
For each block bid upon, a separate sealed bid shall be submitted in a sealed envelope (as described below) and must include the following:
• Total amount of the bid in whole dollars only;
• sale number;
• sale date;
• each bidder's exact name;
• each bidder's proportionate interest, stated as a percentage, using a maximum of five decimal places (
• typed name and title, and signature of each bidder's authorized officer;
• each bidder's qualification number;
• map name and number or OPD name and number;
• block number; and
• statement acknowledging that the bidder(s) understands that this bid legally binds the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including payment of one-fifth of the bonus bid amount on all apparent high bids.
The information required on the bid(s) is specified in the document “Bid Form” contained in the Final NOS Package. A blank bid form is provided in the Final NOS Package for convenience and may be copied and completed with the necessary information described above.
Each bid must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope labeled as follows:
• “Sealed Bid for Oil and Gas Lease Sale 246, not to be opened until 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, August 19, 2015;”
• map name and number or OPD name and number;
• block number for block bid upon; and
• the exact name and qualification number of the submitting bidder only.
The Final NOS Package includes a sample bid envelope for reference.
If bids are mailed, please address the envelope containing the sealed bid envelope(s) as follows:
Bidders mailing bid(s) are advised to call Mr. Chris Oos at (504) 736-2862, or Ms. Cindy Thibodeaux at (504) 736-2809, immediately after putting their bid(s) in the mail. If BOEM receives bids later than the Bid Submission Deadline, the BOEM Regional Director (RD) will return those bids unopened to bidders. Please see “Section XI. Delay of Sale” regarding BOEM's discretion to extend the Bid Submission Deadline in the case of an unexpected event (
Bidders that are not currently an OCS oil and gas lease record title holder or designated operator, or those that ever have defaulted on a one-fifth bonus bid deposit, by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) or otherwise, must guarantee (secure) the payment of the one-fifth bonus bid deposit prior to bid submission using one of the following four methods:
• Provide a third-party guarantee;
• amend an areawide development bond via bond rider;
• provide a letter of credit; or
• provide a lump sum payment in advance via EFT.
For more information on EFT procedures, see Section X of this document entitled “The Lease Sale.”
Prior to bidding, each bidder should file Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Representation Form BOEM-2032 (October 2011) and Equal Opportunity Compliance Report Certification Form BOEM-2033 (October 2011) with the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region Adjudication Section. This certification is required by 41 CFR part 60 and Executive Order No. 11246, issued September 24, 1965, as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, issued October 13, 1967. Both forms must be on file for the bidder(s) in the GOM Region Adjudication Section prior to the execution of any lease contract.
The Geophysical Data and Information Statement (GDIS) is composed of three parts:
(1) The “Statement” page includes the company representatives' information and lists of blocks bid on that used proprietary data and those blocks bid on that did not use proprietary data;
(2) the “Table” listing the required data about each proprietary survey used (see below); and
(3) the “Maps” being the live trace maps for each survey that are identified in the GDIS statement and table.
Every bidder submitting a bid on a block in WPA Sale 246, or participating as a joint bidder in such a bid, must submit at the time of bid submission all three parts of the GDIS. A bidder must submit the GDIS
The GDIS must be submitted in a separate and sealed envelope, and identify all proprietary data; reprocessed speculative data, and/or any Controlled Source Electromagnetic surveys, Amplitude Versus Offset, Gravity, or Magnetic data; or other information used as part of the decision to bid or participate in a bid on the block.
The GDIS statement must include the name, phone number, and full address of a contact person and an alternate who are
The GDIS statement must be submitted even if no proprietary geophysical data and information were used in bid preparation for the block.
The GDIS table should have columns that clearly state the sale number; the bidder company's name; the block area and block number bid on; the owner of the original data set (
The availability of reimbursement of production costs will be determined consistent with 30 CFR 551.13. The next column should state who reprocessed the data (
The GDIS maps are live trace maps (in .pdf and ArcGIS shape files) that should be submitted for each
Pursuant to 30 CFR 551.12 and 30 CFR 556.32, as a condition of the sale, the BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD requests that all bidders and joint bidders submit the proprietary data identified on their GDIS within 30 days after the lease sale (unless they are notified after the lease sale that BOEM has withdrawn the request). This request only pertains to proprietary data that is not commercially available. Commercially available data is not required to be submitted to BOEM, and reimbursement will not be provided if such data is submitted by a bidder. The BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD will notify bidders and joint bidders of any withdrawal of the request, for all or some of the proprietary data identified on the GDIS, within 15 days of the lease sale. Pursuant to 30 CFR part 551 and as a condition of this sale, all bidders required to submit data must ensure that the data is received by BOEM no later than the 30th day following the lease sale, or the next business day if the submission deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday. The data must be submitted to BOEM at the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Resource Studies, MS 881A, 1201 Elmwood Park Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70123-2304.
BOEM recommends that bidders mark the submission's external envelope as “Deliver Immediately to DASPU.” BOEM also recommends that the data be submitted in an internal envelope, or otherwise marked, with the following designation: “Proprietary Geophysical Data Submitted Pursuant to Lease Sale 246 and used during <Bidder Name's≥ evaluation of Block <Block Number≥.”
In the event a person supplies any type of data to BOEM, that person must meet the following requirements to qualify for reimbursement:
(1) Persons must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM), formerly known as the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). CCR usernames will not work in SAM. A new SAM User Account is needed to register or update an entity's records. The Web site for registering is
(2) Persons must be enrolled in the Department of Treasury's Internet Payment Platform (IPP) for electronic invoicing. The person must enroll in the IPP at
The GDIS Information Table must be submitted digitally, preferably as an Excel spreadsheet, on a CD or DVD along with the seismic data map(s). If bidders have any questions, please contact Ms. Dee Smith at (504) 736-2706, or Mr. John Johnson at (504) 736-2455.
Bidders should refer to Section X of this document, “The Lease Sale: Acceptance, Rejection, or Return of Bids,” regarding a bidder's failure to comply with the requirements of the Final NOS, including any failure to submit information as required in this Final NOS or Final NOS Package.
BOEM requests that bidders provide this information in the suggested format prior to or at the time of bid submission. The suggested format is included in the Final NOS Package. The form must not be enclosed inside the sealed bid envelope.
BOEM may require bidders to submit other documents in accordance with 30 CFR 556.46.
On May 18, 2015, BOEM published the most recent List of Restricted Joint Bidders in the
All signatories executing documents on behalf of bidder(s) must execute the same in conformance with the BOEM qualification records. Bidders are advised that BOEM considers the signed bid to be a legally binding obligation on the part of the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including payment of one-fifth of the bonus bid on all high bids. A statement to this effect must be included on each bid form (see the document “Bid Form” contained in the Final NOS Package).
BOEM warns bidders against violation of 18 U.S.C. 1860, prohibiting unlawful combination or intimidation of bidders.
Bids may be withdrawn only by written request delivered to BOEM prior to the Bid Submission Deadline. The withdrawal request must be on company letterhead and must contain the bidder's name, its BOEM qualification number, the map name/number, and the block number(s) of the bid(s) to be withdrawn. The withdrawal
The bonus bid amount must be stated in whole dollars. Minimum bonus bid calculations, including all rounding, for all blocks are shown in the document entitled “List of Blocks Available for Leasing,” which is included in this Final NOS Package. If the acreage of a block contains a decimal figure, then prior to calculating the minimum bonus bid, BOEM has rounded up to the next whole acre. The appropriate minimum rate per acre was then applied to the whole (rounded up) acreage. If this calculation resulted in a fractional dollar amount, the minimum bonus bid was rounded up to the next whole dollar amount. The bonus bid amount must be greater than or equal to the minimum bonus bid in whole dollars.
The Final NOS Package includes instructions, samples, and/or the preferred format for the following items. BOEM strongly encourages bidders to use these formats; should bidders use another format, they are responsible for including all the information specified for each item in this Final NOS Package.
Sealed bids received in response to the Final NOS will be opened at the place, date, and hour specified in the “DATE AND TIME” and “LOCATION” sections of this document. The opening of the bids is for the sole purpose of publicly announcing and recording the bids received; no bids will be accepted or rejected at that time.
Each bidder submitting an apparent high bid must submit a bonus bid deposit to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) equal to one-fifth of the bonus bid amount for each such bid. A copy of the notification of the high bidder's one-fifth bonus bid amount may be obtained at the EFT Area outside the Bid Reading Room on the day of the bid opening, or it may be obtained on the BOEM Web site at
BOEM requires bidders to use EFT procedures for payment of one-fifth bonus bid deposits for WPA Sale 246, following the detailed instructions contained on the ONRR Payment Information Web page at
The United States reserves the right to withdraw any block from this lease sale prior to issuance of a written acceptance of a bid for the block.
The United States reserves the right to reject any and all bids. No bid will be accepted, and no lease for any block will be awarded to any bidder, unless:
(1) The bidder has complied with all requirements of the Final NOS Package and applicable regulations;
(2) the bid submitted is the highest valid bid; and
(3) the amount of the bid has been determined to be adequate by the authorized officer.
Any bid submitted that does not conform to the requirements of the Final NOS and Final NOS Package, OCSLA, BOEM regulations or other applicable statute or regulation, may be rejected and returned to the bidder. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will review the results of the lease sale for antitrust issues prior to the acceptance of bids and issuance of leases. To ensure that the U.S. Government receives a fair return for the conveyance of leases from this sale, high bids will be evaluated in accordance with BOEM's bid adequacy procedures. A copy of current procedures, “Modifications to the Bid Adequacy Procedures,” published at 64 FR 37560 on July 12, 1999, can be obtained from the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office, or via the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region Web site at
BOEM published a notification in the
BOEM requires each bidder awarded a lease to:
(1) Execute all copies of the lease (Form BOEM-2005 [October 2011], as amended);
(2) pay by EFT the balance of the bonus bid amount and the first year's rental for each lease issued in accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR 218.155 and 556.47(f) (ONRR requests that only one transaction be used for payment of the four-fifths bonus bid amount and the first year's rental); and
(3) satisfy the bonding requirements of 30 CFR part 556, subpart I, as amended.
The BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD has the discretion to change any date, time, and/or location specified in the Final NOS Package in case of an event that the BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD deems may interfere with the carrying out of a fair and orderly lease sale process. Such events could include, but are not
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision for Proposed Western Planning Area (WPA) Lease Sale 246, which is analyzed in the
BOEM has prepared a Record of Decision for proposed oil and gas WPA Lease Sale 246, which is scheduled for August 19, 2015. The proposed lease sale is in the Gulf of Mexico's WPA off the states of Texas and Louisiana. Proposed WPA Lease Sale 246 is the fourth WPA lease sale scheduled in the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017. In making its decision, BOEM considered two alternatives to the proposed action, the potential impacts as presented in the WPA 246 and 248 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and all comments received throughout the National Environmental Policy Act process. The Western Planning Area 246 and 248 Supplemental EIS evaluated the environmental and socioeconomic impacts for proposed Western Planning Area Lease Sale 246.
In the WPA 246 and 248 Supplemental EIS, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) evaluated three alternatives that are summarized below:
All unleased whole and partial blocks in the WPA that BOEM will offer for leasing in proposed WPA Lease Sale 246 are listed in the document “List of Blocks Available for Leasing,” which is included in the Final Notice of Sale 246 Package. The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses nearly all of the WPA's 28.58 million acres. As of February 2015, approximately 21.9 million acres of the proposed WPA lease sale area were unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of this proposal is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas.
After careful consideration, BOEM has selected the proposed action, identified as BOEM's preferred alternative (Alternative A) in the WPA 246 and 248 Supplemental EIS. BOEM's selection of the preferred alternative meets the purpose and need for the proposed action, as identified in the WPA 246 and 248 Supplemental EIS, and will result in orderly resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments, while also ensuring that the public receives an equitable return for these resources.
This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1503) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Availability; Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed stream protection rule is available for public review and comment.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
You may review the proposed rule, the draft environmental impact statement, and the draft regulatory impact analysis online at
Robin Ferguson, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20240. Telephone: 202-208-2802. Email:
The DEIS evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed stream protection rule and its alternatives. Significant advances in scientific knowledge and mining and reclamation techniques have occurred in the more than 30 years that have elapsed since the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201
In accordance with 43 CFR 46.435(a) and 40 CFR 1503.1(a)(4), we invite the public to provide written comments on the DEIS during the 60-day comment period. Please see
Please include the Docket ID “OSM-2010-0021” at the beginning of all comments on the DEIS. Your comments should refer to a specific portion of the DEIS (citation to the chapter, section, page, paragraph, and sentence to which your comment applies would be helpful), be confined to issues pertinent to the DEIS, explain the reason for any recommended change or objection, and include supporting data when appropriate. Before including your address, phone number, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
You may review the proposed rule, the draft environmental impact statement, and the draft regulatory impact analysis online at the Web sites listed in
In addition, a limited number of CD copies of the DEIS are available upon request. You may obtain a CD by contacting the person identified in
If you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive future information on the EIS, please contact the person listed under
We will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule and the draft environmental impact statement in the following cities: Charleston, West Virginia; Denver, Colorado; Lexington, Kentucky; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Louis, Missouri. OSMRE representatives will provide information on the proposed rule at each hearing. A court reporter will be available at each hearing to record your comments if you wish to provide input in this fashion. The docket for this rulemaking will include a written summary of each hearing and the transcript provided by the court reporter.
We will announce arrangements, specific locations, dates, and times for each hearing in a
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.1.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to affirm the presiding administrative law judge's initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) terminating the above-captioned investigation based on a settlement agreement.
Cathy Chen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on December 30, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Pragmatus Mobile, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia (“Pragmatus”). 79 FR 78478 (Dec. 30, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 wireless devices, including mobile phones and tablets, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,466,795. The notice of investigation named ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan; ASUS Computer International, Inc. of Fremont, California; and ASUS Technology Pte. Ltd. of Singapore (collectively “ASUS”) as respondents. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to this investigation.
On May 13, 2015, Pragmatus and ASUS jointly filed a motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement. Pragmatus and ASUS filed public and confidential versions of the motion to terminate and the settlement agreement.
On May 14, 2015, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion to terminate. The ID stated that the settlement agreement fully resolves all claims that Pragmatus has asserted against ASUS in this investigation. The ALJ found that termination of this investigation is in the public interest.
On June 15, 2015, the Commission determined to review the ID because the public version of the settlement agreement did not comply with Commission Rules 210.21(b)(1) and 201.6. The Commission requested the parties to file a revised public version of their settlement agreement.
On June 29, 2015, the parties submitted a revised public version of their settlement agreement that complies with the Commission rules. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to terminate the investigation in its entirety.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 17, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: The DIRECTV Group, Inc., El Segundo, CA; Walt Disney Pictures, Burbank, CA; Dolby Laboratories Inc., San Francisco, CA; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Beverly Hills, CA; Netflix, Inc., Los Gatos, CA; Panasonic Corporation, Osaka, JAPAN; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Sony Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; Technicolor SA, Cedex, FRANCE; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Burbank, CA; LG Electronics Inc., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; DTS, Inc., Calabasas, CA; Universal Pictures, a division of Universal City Studios LLC, Universal City, CA; Mstar Semiconductor, Inc., ChuPei, HsinChu Hsein, TAIWAN; NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA; ARRI, Inc., Burbank, CA; Nanosys Inc., Milpitas, CA; MediaTek Inc., Hsinchu, TAIWAN; TP Vision Europe B.V., Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Amazon.com, Seattle, WA; Toshiba Lifestyle Products & Services Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; Realtek Semiconductor Corp., Hsinchu Hsein, TAIWAN; and Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA. The general area of UHD Alliance's planned activity is to create a framework to enable the global industries interested in premium next generation content related technologies, such as Ultra High Definition, High Dynamic Range, Wide Color Gamut, High Frame Rate and Next Gen Audio (“Premium Next Gen Content”) to (a) specify and develop requirements for the premium quality Premium Next Gen Content, related devices, distribution and other elements of a UHD Alliance-based ecosystem (“Specifications”); (b) promote the global development and adoption of Specifications and Specification-compliant products (
Notice is hereby given that, on June 19, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Levels Beyond, Inc., Denver, CO, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 31, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open Platform for NFV Project intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 17, 2014, Open Platform for NFV Project filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 2, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 23, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC), Hsinchu, TAIWAN; Renesas Electronics Corporation, Santa Clara, CA; Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, CA; Particle Measuring Systems, Boulder, CO; JSR Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; Seagate Technologies, LLC, Cupertino, CA; Invensas, San Jose, CA; ON Semiconductor, Phoenix, AZ; LSI Corporation, Milpitas, CA; and Silvaco, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and SEMATECH intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 22, 1988, SEMATECH filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 31, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 17, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 25, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 17, 2015, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: UHD Alliance, Inc., Fremont, CA. The nature and scope of UHD Alliance SDO's standards development activities are as follows: UHD Alliance SDO is organized and will be operated primarily to create a framework to enable the global industries interested in premium next generation content related technologies, such as Ultra High Definition, High Dynamic Range, Wide Color Gamut, High Frame Rate and Next Gen Audio (“Premium Next Gen Content”) to (a) specify and develop requirements for the premium quality Premium Next Gen Content, related devices, distribution and other elements of a UHD Alliance-based ecosystem (“Specifications”); (b) promote the global development and adoption of Specifications and Specification-compliant products (
Notice of registration.
Siegfried USA, LLC applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Siegfried USA, LLC registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated February 5, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried USA, LLC to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice with request for comments.
The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes to establish the 2016 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act and assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.
Interested persons may file written comments on or objections to this notice in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.11(c) and 1315.11(d). Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before August 17, 2015. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
The Administrator may hold a public hearing on one or more issues raised by the comments received in response to this notice. In the event the Administrator decides in his sole discretion to hold such a hearing, the Administrator will publish a notice of any such hearing in the
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-420N” on all correspondence, including any attachments. The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
John R. Scherbenske, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified and located as directed above will generally be made available in redacted form. If a comment contains so much personal identifying information or confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document is available at
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires the Attorney General to establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II and to establish the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. The Attorney General has delegated this function to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100.
The proposed year 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs represent those quantities
In determining the proposed 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs, the Administrator has taken into account the criteria that is required to be considered in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a), 21 CFR 1303.11 (aggregate production quotas for controlled substances), and 21 CFR 1315.11 (assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine). The Administrator estimates the aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for 2016 by considering the following factors: (1) Total net disposal of each class or chemical by all manufacturers and chemical importers during the current and two preceding years; (2) trends in the national rate of net disposal of the class or chemical; (3) total actual (or estimated) inventories of the class or chemical and of all substances manufactured from the class or chemical, and trends in inventory accumulation; (4) projected demand for each class or chemical as indicated by procurement and chemical import quotas requested in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.12, 1315.32, and 1315.34; and (5) other factors affecting the medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, lawful export requirements, and reserve stocks, as the Administrator finds relevant.
Other factors the Administrator considered in calculating the aggregate production quotas, but not the assessment of annual needs, include product development requirements of both bulk and finished dosage form manufacturers, and other pertinent information. In determining the proposed 2016 assessment of annual needs, the DEA used the calculation methodology previously described in the 2010 and 2011 assessments of annual needs (74 FR 60294, Nov. 20, 2009, and 75 FR 79407, Dec. 20, 2010, respectively).
The Administrator also specifically considered that inventory allowances granted to individual manufacturers may not always result in the availability of sufficient quantities to maintain an adequate reserve stock pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826(a), as intended.
The Administrator, therefore, proposes to establish the 2016 aggregate production quotas for the following basic classes of schedule I and II controlled substances and assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows:
The Administrator further proposes that the aggregate production quotas for all other basic classes of schedule I and II controlled substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 and 1308.12 remain at zero. In accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13 and 21 CFR 1315.13, upon consideration of the relevant factors, the Administrator may adjust the 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs as necessary.
Notice of registration.
Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of a certain basic class of controlled substance. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. registration as an importer of this controlled substance.
By notice dated March 20, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of nabilone (7379) a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the FDA approved drug product in finished dosage form for distribution to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Mallinckrodt, LLC applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Mallinckrodt, LLC registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated January 21, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Mallinckrodt, LLC to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacturer bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) for distribution and product development to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Navinta LLC applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Navinta LLC registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated February 11, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Navinta LLC to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:
The company plans to initially manufacture API quantities of the listed controlled substances for validation purposes and FDA approval, and then produce commercial size batches for distribution to dosage form manufacturers upon FDA approval.
Notice of registration.
Siegfried USA, LLC applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Siegfried USA, LLC registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried USA, LLC to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to bulk manufacture API's for distribution to its customer.
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in 80 FR 9750, on February 24, 2015, allowing for a 60 day comment period.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 17, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lashon Hilliard, Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 (202-514-6563). Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 15, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jennifer Bickford, Acting Assistant Deputy Chief, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, 1400 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005 (phone: 202-514-1263).
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Attorney General is required by statute to “assure that any property transferred to a State or local law enforcement agency . . . will serve to encourage further cooperation between the recipient State or local agency and Federal law enforcement agencies.” 21 U.S.C. 881(e)(3). The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) ensures such cooperation by requiring that all such “equitably shared” funds be used only for law enforcement purposes and not be distributed to other governmental agencies by the recipient law enforcement agencies. By requiring that law enforcement agencies that participate in the Equitable Sharing Program (Program) file an Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification (ESAC), AFMLS can readily ensure compliance with its statutory obligations.
The ESAC requires information regarding the receipt and expenditure of Program funds from the participating agency. Accordingly, it seeks information that is exclusively in the hands of the participating agency.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Records of Preshift and Onshift Inspections of Slope and Shaft Areas of Slope and Shaft Sinking Operations at Coal Mines.
All comments must be received on or before September 15, 2015.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
The sinking of slopes and shafts is a particularly hazardous operation where conditions change drastically in short periods of time. Explosive methane and other harmful gases can be expected to infiltrate the work environment at any time. The working environment is typically a confined area in close proximity to moving equipment. Accordingly, 30 CFR Section 77.1901 requires operators to conduct examinations of slope and shaft areas for hazardous conditions, including tests for methane and oxygen deficiency, within 90 minutes before each shift, once during each shift, and before and after blasting. The surface area surrounding each slope and shaft is also required to be inspected for hazards.
The standard also requires that a record be kept of the results of the inspections. The record includes a
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Records of Preshift and Onshift Inspections of Slope and Shaft Areas of Slope and Shaft Sinking Operations at Coal Mines. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to 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,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Records of Preshift and Onshift Inspections of Slope and Shaft Areas of Slope and Shaft Sinking Operations at Coal Mines. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 30 CFR part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before August 17, 2015.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) The diesel grader will be limited to a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour by physically blocking the higher gear ratios that provide for speeds exceeding 10 miles per hour.
(2) The miners that operate the grader will be trained to recognize the gear blocking device and its proper application and requirements.
(3) The miners that operate the grader will be trained to drop the grader blade in emergencies to provide additional stopping capability.
(4) Limiting the grader to low speeds, coupled with the availability of the grader blade for stopping in emergencies, will provide the appropriate stopping ability. The rear wheel brakes will be maintained in proper working condition at all times.
(5) The Getman diesel grader will meet all other applicable requirements of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and MSHA's regulations.
(6) This petition is limited to the Getman diesel grader serial number 6732.
(7) Within 60 days after this petition becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for their approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training consistent with the terms and conditions stated in the petition.
(1) The Army Corps of Engineers has documented that the existing groundwater table is only present below the proposed Pocahontas No. 9 Seam mine portals at the level of the Pocahontas No. 3 Seam mine void. This is due to extensive mining of the Pocahontas No. 3 Seam, which has fractured the overlying strata. The Pocahontas No. 3 Seam is ± 300 feet below the Pocahontas No. 9 Seam. Based upon the site-specific data provided, the petitioner proposes to seal the five up-dip mine entries with a concrete block seal and fill the remaining area between the mine seal and the surface with the most impervious and noncombustible material available. Entry No. 1 will be equipped with a “wet” seal that will extrude from the block seal outward to the edge of the Pocahontas No. 9 Seam mine bench and entries Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be constructed as “dry” seals. Although the possibility of impounding water in the mine void is unlikely because the refuse area will be up-dip of the abandoned mine and above the Pocahontas No. 3 Seam, a wet seal will be used as a preventive measure.
(2) To minimize the possibility of ignition and burning, in addition to placing the most impervious and noncombustible material within limits of the concrete seals and the surface, the most impervious and noncombustible material will be used to encapsulate the exposed coal seam along the existing highwall with a minimum of 4 feet of cover.
(3) Once the coal seam and mine entries are sealed and encapsulated, the placement of dry, screened refuse material from the underlying XMV Mine No. 42—Pocahontas No. 6 Seam mine will be used to backfill and eliminate the existing highwall.
The petitioner asserts that as indicated in the information and designs provided, the encapsulation of the entire coal seam, the location of the proposed refuse area up-dip of the underground mine void, and the absence of any groundwater discharge, the proposed plan limits the potential for burning of the coal seam or impounding water within the mine void and will provide no less than the same measure of protection or greater than that afforded by the standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Petitions for Modification of Mandatory Safety Standards.
All comments must be received on or before September 15, 2015.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. Section 811(c), provides that a mine operator or a representative of miners may petition the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to modify the application of a mandatory safety standard. A petition for modification may be granted if the Secretary determines (1) that an alternative method of achieving the results of the standard exists and that it will guarantee, at all times, no less than the same measure of protection for the miners affected as that afforded by the standard, or (2) that the application of
Under 30 CFR 44.9, mine operators must post a copy of each petition for modification concerning the mine on the mine's bulletin board and maintain the posting until a ruling on the petition becomes final. This applies only to mines for which there is no representative of miners.
Under 30 CFR 44.10, detailed guidance for filing a petition for modification is provided for the operator of the affected mine or any representative of the miners at that mine. The petition must be in writing, filed with the Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, and a copy of the petition served by the filing party (the mine operator or representative of miners) on the other party.
Under 30 CFR 44.11(a), the petition for modification must contain the petitioner's name and address; the mailing address and mine identification number of the mine or mines affected; the mandatory safety standard to which the petition is directed; a concise statement of the modification requested and whether the petitioner (1) proposes to establish an alternate method in lieu of the mandatory safety standard, or (2) alleges that application of the standard will result in diminution of safety to the miners affected, or (3) requests relief based on both grounds; a detailed statement of the facts that show the grounds upon which a modification is claimed or warranted; and, if the petitioner is a mine operator, the identity of any representative of miners at the affected mine.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Petitions for Modification of Mandatory Safety Standards. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to 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,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Petitions for Modification of Mandatory Safety Standards. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by August 17, 2015. Once NARA completes appraisal of the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Management Services (ACNR) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it has created or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
No agencies may destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after a thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or that the schedule has agency-wide applicability (in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency), provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction), and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (DAA-0029-2015-0001, 20 items, 10 temporary items). Records of the American Community Survey Office, including data processing records, custom tabulations and table packages, and records documenting the development of questionnaires through interviews with respondents. Proposed for permanent retention are unedited and edited master files, summary files, questionnaires, and formally issued reports and working papers.
2. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (DAA-0029-2015-0002, 3 items, 1 temporary item). Records of the Center for Statistical Research and Methodology relating to clearance of research papers for internet posting. Proposed for permanent retention are annual reports and research reports for statistics and computing.
3. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DAA-0361-2015-0002, 19 items 19 temporary items). Records of activities that use non-appropriated funds including organization, accounts, inventories, and personnel.
4. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0026, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to the appointment of agency transportation officers.
5. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DAA-0374-2014-0032, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to ratings for contracts and contractors.
6. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA-0560-2013-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track compliance with environmental management regulations.
7. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (DAA-0127-2014-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system containing vehicle maintenance and repair manuals.
8. Department of State, Office of the Chief of Protocol (DAA-0059-2014-0006, 3 items, 1 temporary item). Records of the Chief and Deputy Chiefs of Protocol relating to events, execution of ceremonies, and related travel. Proposed for permanent retention are correspondence and approval records for the planning of events, ceremonies, and travel, and paper program records prior to 2013.
9. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (DAA-0406-2013-0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Tolling agreements and program files.
10. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (DAA-0399-2014-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track and maintain incoming correspondence.
11. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (DAA-0408-2013-0007, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Equal employment opportunity records.
12. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Division of Consumer Education and Engagement (DAA-0587-2014-0006, 24 items, 19 temporary items). Records include administrative reports, research, and training materials. Proposed for permanent retention are final reports, decision memorandums, and publications.
13. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Agency-wide (DAA-0595-2015-0001, 5 items, 3 temporary items). Records include administrative files and other supporting records for operations and management. Proposed for permanent retention are correspondence, policy records, meeting records, final board decisions and actions, organization charts, and press releases.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold seventeen meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during August, 2015. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
See Supplementary Information section for meeting dates.
The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. See Supplementary Information for meeting room numbers.
Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room, 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
1.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Asian Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
2.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Anthropology and New World Archaeology for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
3.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American Literature for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
4.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Romance Literature and Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
5.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Asian Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
6.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of European History for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
7.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of European History for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
8.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of African and Middle Eastern Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
9.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Latin American Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
10.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Latin American Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
11.
This meeting will discuss applications for the Humanities Open Book grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
12.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Ethnomusicology and Anthropology for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
13.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Medieval and Renaissance Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
14.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American History for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
15.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American Studies for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
16.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Social Sciences and the History of Science for Fellowships for University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.
17.
This meeting will discuss applications for the Preservation and Access Education and Training grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) hereby gives notice that it
On May 27, 2008, notice of the Crow Butte License Renewal Application was published in the
The NRC Staff and Crow Butte appealed the Board's admission of the contentions.
On October 27, 2014, approximately six and a half years after the License Renewal Application was made available to the public, the NRC Staff notified the Board of the public availability of its Environmental Assessment.
On January 5, 2015, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Consolidated Intervenors moved to admit several new contentions that were based on the Environmental Assessment.
Starting on August 24, 2015, the Board will hold an evidentiary hearing under 10 CFR part 2, subpart L procedures to receive testimony and exhibits on the admitted contentions in this proceeding. The parties to this proceeding (Crow Butte, the NRC Staff, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Consolidated Intervenors) have previously filed written narrative testimony and exhibits they intend to offer on the merits of the nine admitted contentions.
The evidentiary hearing will concern the admitted contentions in this proceeding, Contentions A, C, D, F, 1, 6, 9, 12, and 14. These contentions generally challenge the adequacy of (1) the evaluation and protection of historical and cultural resources on the site, and (2) the agency's analysis of the project's impacts on surface water, groundwater, and the ecosystem of the surrounding area. Appendix A, which follows this Notice, contains the statements of the contentions.
The hearing will commence on Monday, August 24, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., MDT and continue daily through Friday, August 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., MDT, unless the parties conclude their cases earlier. The evidentiary hearing will take place at the: Crawford Community Center, 1005 1st Street, Crawford, Nebraska 69339.
The Board anticipates addressing the admitted contentions in the following order:
Members of the public and media are welcome to attend and observe the evidentiary hearing, which will involve technical, scientific, and legal questions and testimony. Participation in the hearing will be limited to the parties, their lawyers, and witnesses. Please be aware that security measures will be employed at the entrance to the facility, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. No signs, banners, posters, or other displays will be permitted in the facility.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.315(a), any person (other than a party or the representative of a party to this proceeding) may submit a written statement setting forth his or her position on matters of concern related to this proceeding, known as a limited appearance statement. Although these statements do not constitute testimony or evidence, and are not treated as statements made under oath, they nonetheless may assist the Board or the parties in their consideration of the issues in this proceeding. Anyone who is considering submitting a limited appearance statement, however, should be aware that the jurisdiction of this Board and the scope of this proceeding are limited to the Crow Butte License Renewal Application, and, more particularly, to the nine admitted contentions in Appendix A.
Written limited appearance statements may be submitted by August 28, 2015, and should be sent by mail, fax, or email both to the Office of the Secretary and the Chairman of this Licensing Board:
Documents relating to Crow Butte's License Renewal Application are available on the NRC Web site at
It is so
For The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Contention A: There is no evidence based science for the NRC Staff's conclusion that ISL mining has “no non radiological health impacts,” or that non radiological impacts for possible excursions or spills are “small.”
Contention C: The NRC Staff's characterization that the impact of surface waters from an accident is “minimal since there are no nearby surface water features,” does not accurately address the potential for environmental harm to the White River.
Contention D (merged with EA Contention 3 & 10): The NRC Staff incorrectly states there is no communication among the aquifers, when in fact, the Basal Chadron aquifer, where mining occurs, and the aquifer, which provides drinking water to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, communicate with each other, resulting in the possibility of contamination of the potable water. Based on this potential communication between the aquifers, the EA's environmental justice analysis, including analysis of cumulative effects, should be expanded to consider potential impacts on the aquifer which provides drinking water to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
Contention F: Failure to include recent research.
Contention 1 (Merged Contentions 1 & 2): Whether the cultural surveys performed and incorporated into the EA formed a sufficient basis on which to renew Crow Butte's permit.
Contention 6: The Final EA violates the National Environmental Policy Act in concluding that the short-term impacts from consumptive ground water use during aquifer restoration are MODERATE.
Contention 9: The Final EA violates 10 CFR 51.10, 51.70 and 51.71, and the National Environmental Policy Act and implementing regulations by failing to include the required discussion of ground water restoration mitigation measures.
Contention 12: The Final EA omits a discussion of the impact of tornadoes on the license renewal area, and inadequately discusses the potential impacts from land application of ISL mining wastewater.
Contention 14: The Final EA violates the National Environmental Policy Act in its failure to provide an analysis of the impacts on the project from earthquakes; especially as it concerns secondary porosity and adequate confinement. These failings violate 10 CFR 51.10, 51.70 and 51.71, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and implementing regulations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The proposed amendment modifies the technical specifications to define support systems needed in the first 48 hours after a unit shutdown when steam generators are not available for heat removal. The proposed change is required to support dual unit operation of WBN (a licensing decision for WBN, Unit 2 is currently expected to be made in the fall of 2015).
Submit comments by August 17, 2015. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 15, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jeanne Dion, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1349, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0170 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0170 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 NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority, for operation of WBN, Unit 1, located in Rhea County, Tennessee.
The proposed amendment modifies the technical specifications to define support systems needed in the first 48 hours after a unit shutdown when steam generators are not available for heat removal. The proposed change is required to support dual unit operation of WBN (a licensing decision for WBN Unit 2 is currently expected to be made in the fall of 2015). The proposed amendment also requests changes consistent with TSTF-273-A, Revision 2, to provide clarifications related to the requirements of the SFDP.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The likelihood of a malfunction of any systems, structures or components (SSCs) supported by containment cooling system (CCS) and essential raw cooling water (ERCW) is not significantly increased by adding new technical specification (TS) for ERCW and CCS that require alternate CCS and ERCW system alignments during the first 48 hours after shut down of a unit when the steam generators are not available for heat removal. CCS and ERCW provide the means for transferring residual and decay heat to the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System for process and operating heat from safety related components during a transient or accident, as well as during normal operation. Although the proposed change includes a design change to allow two ERCW pumps to be powered from one diesel generator (DG), the additional ERCW pump is only aligned to the DG on a non-accident unit during a design basis event on the other unit, and does not result in overloading the DG due to the reduced loading on the non-accident DG. The CCS and ERCW are not initiators of any analyzed accident. All equipment supported by CCS and ERCW has been evaluated to demonstrate that their performance and operation remains as described in the FSAR with no increase in probability of failure or malfunction.
The SSCs credited to mitigate the consequences of postulated design basis accidents remain capable of performing their design basis function. The change in CCS and ERCW system alignments has been evaluated to ensure the RHR System remains capable of removing normal operating and post-accident heat. Additionally, all the CCS and ERCW supported equipment, credited in the accident analysis to mitigate an accident, has
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed TS changes add explanatory text to the programmatic description of the Safety Function Determination Program (SFDP) in TS 5.7.2.18 to clarify the requirements that consideration does not have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of function. The Bases for LCO 3.0.6 is revised to provide clarification of the “appropriate LCO for loss of function,” and that consideration does not have to be made for a loss of power in determining loss of function. The changes are editorial and administrative in nature, and therefore do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. No physical or operational changes are made to the plant. The proposed changes do not change how the plant would mitigate an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant operation, change the design function of any SSC, or change the mode of operation of any SSC. There are no new equipment failure modes or malfunctions created as the affected SSCs continue to operate in the same manner as previously evaluated and have been evaluated to perform their safety functions when in the alternate alignments as assumed in the accident analysis. Additionally, accident initiators remain as described in the FSAR and no new accident initiators are postulated as a result of the alternate CCS and ERCW alignments.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes [to TS 5.7.2.18] are editorial and administrative in nature and do not result in a change in the manner in which the plant operates. The loss of function of any specific component will continue to be addressed in its specific TS LCO, and plant configuration will be governed by the required actions of those LCOs. The proposed changes are clarifications that do not degrade the availability or capability of safety related equipment, and therefore do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes, and the changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change continues to ensure that the cooling capability of RHR during normal operation and during the mitigation of a design basis event remains within the evaluated equipment limits and capabilities assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change does not result in any changes to plant equipment functions, including setpoints and actuations. The proposed change does not alter existing limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings, or safety limits specified in the Technical Specifications. The proposed change to add a new TS for ERCW and CCS assures the ability of these systems to support post-accident residual heat removal.
Therefore, since there is no adverse impact of this change on the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant safety analysis, there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety of the plant.
The proposed changes to TS 5.7.2.18 are clarifications and are editorial and administrative in nature. No changes are made to the LCOs for plant equipment, the time required for the TS Required Actions to be completed, or the out of service time for the components involved. The proposed changes do not affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety analysis limit. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined, nor is there any adverse effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards Consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated June 17, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for combined license; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing the UniStar Nuclear Energy Combined License Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3. This document is being withdrawn because UniStar requested withdrawal of its application.
The effective date of the withdrawal of UniStar's combined license application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 is July 17, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0250 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: 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.
Surinder Arora, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1421, email:
By letter dated July 13, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071980292), as supplemented by letters, dated March 14, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No(s). ML080990114 and ML080780459) and May 15, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML081410279), UniStar Nuclear (UniStar), submitted an application to the NRC for a combined license (COL) for a single unit of the U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR) in accordance with the requirements contained in part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” of Title 10 of the
The notices of receipt and availability of the UniStar's COL application were previously published in the
By letter dated February 27, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15062A050), UniStar requested that the NRC temporarily suspend review of its COL application for CCNPP3 until further notice. The NRC granted the requested suspension. By its recent letter dated June 8, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15160A570), UniStar requested withdrawal of its CCNPP3 COL application, including the Safeguards/Security part of the application. Pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 2, the Commission grants UniStar its request to withdraw the CCNPP3 COL application.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft revision to regulatory issue summary; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on a draft revision 1 to a regulatory issue summary (RIS). Revision 1 to the RIS would inform addressees of concerns identified during recent license amendment reviews. This draft revision to a RIS is addressed to applicants for, and holders of, nuclear power reactor licenses, construction permits, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses, and applicants for standard design certifications. This draft revision to a RIS would inform addressees of concerns identified during recent reviews of anticipated operational occurrences safety analyses of updated final safety analysis reports. Revision 1 to RIS 2005-29 will supersede in its entirety RIS 2005-29.
Submit comments by September 15, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Alexandra Popova, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-2876, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0167 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0167 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 NRC is revising RIS 2005-29 (ML15014A469) to inform addressees of concerns identified during recent license amendment reviews. Specifically, licensing bases, as documented in final safety analysis reports (FSARs), updated FSARs (UFSARs), or design control documents (DCDs), failed to demonstrate that anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs, Condition II events) would not progress to more serious events (Condition III or IV events). The NRC determined that, as a result of these problems, these licensees were not in compliance with Part 50, Appendix A of Title 10 of the
The NRC issues RISs to communicate with stakeholders on a broad range of matters. This may include providing
The NRC requests public comments on the NRC-proposed revisions to the current RIS. The NRC staff will make a final determination regarding issuance of a revised RIS after it considers any public comments received in response to this request.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is issuing this notice to cancel the August 20, 2015, public meeting scheduled to be held in Room 5A06A, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC. The original
Madeline Gonzalez, 202-606-2838, or email
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 9, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 8, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service hereby provides notice that it has filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators to the competitive product list.
Caroline Brownlie, 202-268-3010.
On July 10, 2015, the United States Postal Service® filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 8, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 8, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to modify its fees for physical connectivity. A physical port is utilized by a Member or non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently maintains a presence in two third-party data centers: (i) The primary data center where the Exchange's business is primarily conducted on a daily basis, and (ii) a secondary data center, which is predominantly maintained for business continuity purposes. The Exchange currently assesses the following physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a monthly basis: $1,000 per physical port that connects to the System
The Exchange now proposes to amend its physical connectivity fees to align the Exchange's fees with its affiliates.
The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its Fee Schedule immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as its fees for physical connectivity are reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives. If a particular exchange charges excessive
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is also an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as the Exchange believes that the increased fees obtained will enable it to cover its increased infrastructure costs associated with establishing physical ports to connect to the Exchange's Systems. The additional revenue from the increased fees will also enable the Exchange to continue to maintain and improve its market technology and services. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for 1 gigabyte circuit of $2,000 per month and for 10 gigabyte circuit of $4,000 per month are reasonable in that they are less than analogous fees charged by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), which are $2,500 per month for 1 gigabyte connectivity and range from $10,000-$15,000 per month for 10 gigabyte circuits.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members and non-Members. Members and non-Members will continue to choose whether they want more than one physical port and choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs. All Exchange Members that voluntarily select various service options will be charged the same amount for the same services. As is true of all physical connectivity, all Members and non-Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation with regard to the fees charged for the service.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity, including port fee access, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition. The proposal to increase the fees for physical connectivity would bring the fees charged by the Exchange closer to similar fees charged for physical connectivity by other exchanges.
In addition, the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as the fees are uniform for all Members and non-Members. The Exchange notes that Members and non-Members also have the ability to obtain access to these services without the need for an independent physical port connection, such as through alternative means of financial extranets and service bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered by Members and non-Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange submitted a proposed rule change with the Commission, for July 6, 2015 effectiveness, to better align certain Exchange rules and system functionality with that currently offered by its affiliate, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”).
The Exchange proposes to delete fee codes AA, AM, MT and related footnotes 12 and 13.
The Exchange now proposes to delete fee code AA. As discussed above, EDGX has filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to replace MidPoint Match Orders with MidPoint Peg Orders as of July 6, 2015. Therefore, fee code AA will no longer be necessary as of that date. The Exchange notes that buy and sell MidPoint Peg Orders that inadvertently match against each other and share the same MPID would now yield either fee codes EA or ER, which are currently applied to internalized trades.
The Exchange proposes to delete fee code AM and current footnote 12 as they would be no longer necessary due to the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing. Going forward, an order with a Non-Displayed instruction that adds liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO and receives price improvement would be eligible to yield proposed fee code HI, which is discussed in detail below and also charges no fee nor provides a rebate in securities priced above or below $1.00. An order with a Non-Displayed instruction that adds liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO and does not receive price improvement would be eligible to yield existing fee code HA, which is yielded on orders with a Non-Displayed instruction that add liquidity.
In the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing, the Exchange decommissioned the MidPoint Match Order and replaced it with the MidPoint Peg Order. The Exchange also replaced the Hide Not Slide instruction with Display-Price Sliding. As a result of these changes, fee code MT and footnote 13 are no longer necessary as the MidPoint Match Order and Hide Not Slide instruction would no longer be available. As a result of deleting fee code MT, orders that remove liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO will now be charged EDGX's standard removal rate of $0.00290 per share regardless of the difference between the NBB and NBO.
Currently, fee code MM is applied to orders that add liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO using: (i) A MidPoint Match Order; (ii) an order with a Hide Not Slide instruction; or (iii) an order with a Non-Displayed instruction. Under footnote 11, an order with a Non-Displayed instruction will receive fee code MM where it receives price improvement relative to its limit price and it executes against the following orders that receive fee code MT: A MidPoint Match Order, an order with a Hide Not Slide instruction and Post Only instruction when the difference between the NBB and NBO is $0.01, or an order with a Non-Displayed and Post Only instruction. Orders yielding fee code MM are charged a fee of $0.0012 per share in securities priced at $1.00 or above and receive a rebate of $0.00003 per share in securities priced below $1.00.
As discussed above, in the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing the Exchange decommissioned the MidPoint Match Order and replaced it with the MidPoint Peg Order as well as replaced the Hide Not Slide instruction with Display-Price Sliding. As a result of these changes, fee code MM is to be amended to remove references to MidPoint Match Orders and the Hide Not Slide instruction. The Exchange also proposes to amend the description of the of fee code MM to state that fee code MM will be applied to Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity using a MidPoint Peg Order. Footnote 11 is proposed to be deleted as those conditions would no longer be necessary to receive fee code MM. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to replace the fee of $0.00120 per share for orders yielding fee code MM in securities priced at or above $1.00 with a rebate of $0.00150 per share. Orders yielding fee code MM in securities priced below $1.00 would continue to receive a rebate of $0.00003 per share.
In the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing discussed above, the Exchange decommissioned the MidPoint Match Order and replaced it with the MidPoint Peg Order as well as replaced the Hide Not Slide instruction with Display-Price Sliding. As a result of these changes, fee code MM is being amended to reflect that the MidPoint Match Order and the Hide Not Slide instruction would no longer be available. Going forward, orders with a Non-Displayed instruction that add liquidity and receive price improvement will be eligible to yield proposed fee code HI discussed below. In addition, an order with a Display-Price Sliding instruction that receives price improvement, which may include an execution at the midpoint of the NBBO, would be eligible to yield proposed fee code VI discussed below.
The Exchange proposes to add new fee code HI and revised footnote 11. Proposed fee code HI will be yielded to orders with a Non-Displayed instruction that add liquidity and receive price improvement, as described below. Such orders that yield fee code HI will pay no fee nor receive a rebate for executions in securities price at or above $1.00 as well as in securities priced below $1.00. Footnote 11 would be appended to fee code HI and would state that fee code HI will not be available to the Reserve Quantity of an order or to orders with a Discretionary Range instruction. Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction that add liquidity that previously received fee code MM will
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new fee code VI, which would be yielded on Displayed orders that are subject to price sliding that add liquidity and receive price improvement, as described below. Such orders that yield fee code VI will pay no fee nor receive a rebate for executions in securities price at or above $1.00 as well as in securities priced below $1.00.
As part of the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing, under Rule 11.10(a)(4)(D) the Exchange will execute the incoming order to sell (buy) against a resting order with a Non-Displayed instruction or an order subject to Display-Price Sliding at one-half minimum price variation less (more) than the price of an order displayed on the EDGX Book. In such case, an order with a Non-Displayed instruction or an order subject to a Display-Price Sliding instruction resting on the EDGX Book would receive price improvement relative to its limit price. Because such resting orders will receive price improvement, the Exchange proposes to execute the orders yielding fee codes HI or VI without providing a rebate or charging a fee. The Exchange believes that price improvement received for executions of orders with a Non-Displayed instruction or subject to Display-Price Sliding (rather than price improvement and a liquidity rebate) is appropriate because the price improvement received will offset the change in the fee structure for such orders. The Exchange notes that BZX also offers fee codes HI and VI on the same terms and for the same rates.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule on July 6, 2015.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of section 6 of the Act,
The proposed fee changes are necessary due to the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing, which is designed to provide consistent functionality between the Exchange and BZX, thereby reducing complexity and streamlining duplicative functionality, resulting in simpler technology implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on BZX. Likewise, the proposed fee changes will streamline its pricing for executions that occur at the midpoint of the NBBO and provide a consistent pricing scheme between the Exchange and BZX, also reducing complexity for Members of the Exchange that are also participants on BZX. The proposed rule changes do not propose to implement new or unique pricing that is not currently available on BZX. As such, the proposed rule change would provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities.
Specifically, the Exchange believes it is equitable and reasonable to delete fee codes AA, AM, and MT as well as current footnotes 11, 12, and 13, as the functionality necessary to yield these fee codes will be decommissioned or modified as a result of the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing. As explained above, functionality that is to be retained by the Exchange will be captured under existing fee codes or proposed fee codes HI and VI. For the same reasons, the Exchange also believes it is equitable and reasonable to amend the description of fee code MM to reflect the functionality changes included in the EDGX BZX Harmonization Filing. Furthermore, the Exchange believes it is equitable and reasonable to replace its fee of $0.00120 per share for securities priced above $1.00 with a rebate of $0.00150 per share. The Exchange believes that providing a rebate to MidPoint Peg Orders that add liquidity is a reasonable means by which to incentive Members to provide liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO. In addition, the Exchange believes that by encouraging the use of MidPoint Peg Orders, Members seeking price improvement would be more motivated to direct their orders to EDGX because they would have a heightened expectation of the availability of liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO.
Because orders that yield fee codes HI or VI will receive price improvement, the Exchange proposes to execute the orders without providing either a liquidity rebate or charging a fee. The Exchange believes that price improvement received for executions of orders with a Non-Displayed instruction or subject to Display-Price Sliding (rather than price improvement and a liquidity rebate) is appropriate because the price improvement received will offset the change in the fee structure for such orders. The Exchange also believes that proposed fee code VI and HI as well as proposed footnote 11, are equitable and reasonable because they are identical to like named fee codes HI and VI offered by BZX which are offered on the same terms and for the same rate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposal will streamline its pricing for executions that occur at the midpoint of the NBBO and provide a consistent pricing scheme between the Exchange and BZX, thereby reducing complexity for Members of the Exchange that are also participants on BZX. The Exchange believes its streamlined pricing for executions at the midpoint of the NBBO will increase competition amongst the Exchange and its competitors for price improving liquidity. The Exchange believes that providing a rebate to MidPoint Peg Orders that add liquidity under fee code MM will increase competition for liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO. Thus, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among national securities exchanges.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend various options rules to reflect the recent renumbering of Rule 1080.08 as Rule 1080.07, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the filing is to correct various references to Rule 1080.08, which was recently renumbered as Rule 1080.07.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000(b)(14), which defines the term “professional” as any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). It further provides that a professional will be treated in the same manner as an off-floor broker-dealer for purposes of Rules 1014(g) (except with respect to all-or-none orders, which will be treated like customer orders, except that orders submitted pursuant to Rule 1080(n) for the beneficial account(s) of professionals with an all-or-none designation will be treated in the same manner as off-floor broker-dealer orders), 1033(e), 1064.02 (except professional orders will be considered customer orders subject to facilitation), 1080(n) and 1080.08 as well as Options Floor Procedure Advices B-6, B-11
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1047(f)(ii), which currently provides that after the opening, the Exchange shall reject Market Orders, as defined in Rule 1066(a) (including Complex Orders, as defined in Rule 1080.08, and shall notify Participants of the reason for such rejection. The
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1066(f)(7) and (8), which defines various types of multi-leg orders, including Complex Orders and DNA Orders, both of which are defined in Rule 1080.07(a). Accordingly, Rule 1066(f)(7) and (8) are being corrected to properly refer to Rule 1080.07(a) rather than to Rule 1080.08(a).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080.07 itself, which contains several references to Rule 1080.08, which are incorrect. Each of the following provisions in Rule 1080 are proposed to be changed to refer to the same subsection in Rule 1080.07: Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A), Rule 1080(n)(i)(C), Rule 1080(n)(ii)(A)(9), Rule 1080.07(a)(i), Rule 1080.07(e)(i)(B)(1), Rule 1080.07(e)(vi)(B), Rule 1080.07(f)(iii)(C)(2), and Rule 1080.07(f)(iii)(C)(4).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal merely corrects rule references.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective July 1, 2015.
On May 11, 2015, the Exchange launched an updated version of the Floor Broker Workstation (“FBW”), (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a waiver of FBW2 fees for each FBW login a TPH has for the months of July 2015 through September 2015 because it encourages users to use and become familiar with the updated FBW2 login IDs while waiting for certain features to be implemented on FBW2. Additionally, the Exchange notes the proposed rule change provides users additional time to become familiar with and fully acclimated to the new FBW functionality. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate the waiver for the first month for a new login ID currently beginning July 1, 2015, because the Exchange is also providing for additional waivers of FBW2 logins as described above and wants to encourage users to begin transitioning to FBW2 logins prior to the upcoming discontinuation of FBW logins. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all users of FBW2.
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, because it applies to all Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange believes this proposal will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposal only affects trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to modify its fees for physical connectivity. A physical port is utilized by a Member or non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently maintains a presence in two third-party data centers: (i) The primary data center where the Exchange's business is primarily conducted on a daily basis, and (ii) a secondary data center, which is predominantly maintained for business continuity purposes. The Exchange currently assesses the following physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a monthly basis: $1,000 per physical port that connects to the System
The Exchange now proposes to amend its physical connectivity fees to align the Exchange's fees with its affiliates.
The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its Fee Schedule immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as its fees for physical connectivity are reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for connectivity, affected Members and non-Members may opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, if the Exchange charges excessive fees, it would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is also an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as the Exchange believes that the increased fees obtained will enable it to cover its increased infrastructure costs associated with establishing physical ports to connect to the Exchange's Systems. The additional revenue from the increased fees will also enable the Exchange to continue to maintain and improve its market technology and services. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for 1 gigabyte circuit of $2,000 per month and for 10 gigabyte circuit of $4,000 per month are reasonable in that they are less than analogous fees charged by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), which are $2,500 per month for 1 gigabyte connectivity and range from $10,000—$15,000 per month for 10 gigabyte circuits.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all Members and non-Members. Members and non-Members will continue to choose whether they want more than one physical port and choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs. All Exchange Members that voluntarily select various service options will be charged the same amount for the same services. As is true of all physical connectivity, all Members and non-Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation with regard to the fees charged for the service.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity, including port fee access, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition. The proposal to increase the fees for physical connectivity would bring the fees charged by the Exchange closer to similar fees charged for physical connectivity by other exchanges.
In addition, the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as the fees are uniform for all Members and non-Members. The Exchange notes that Members and non-Members also have the ability to obtain access to these services without the need for an independent physical port connection, such as through alternative means of financial extranets and service bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered by Members and non-Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order approving the substitution of certain securities pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).
Horace Mann Life Insurance Company (“Horace Mann”), and Horace Mann Life Insurance Company Separate Account and Horace Mann Life Insurance Company Qualified Group Annuity Separate Account (collectively, the “Separate Accounts,” and together with Horace Mann, the “Applicants”).
The Applicants seek an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the substitution of shares issued by certain investment portfolios (the “Existing Portfolios”) of registered investment companies with shares of certain investment portfolios (the “Replacement Portfolios”) of registered investment companies, under certain variable annuity contracts (the “Contracts”), each funded through the Separate Accounts.
Filing Date: The application was filed on July 25, 2014, and amended on January 14, 2015, and May 27, 2015.
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 August 6, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the 1940 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: Elizabeth E. Arthur, Esq., Maureen Bolinger, Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, One Horace Mann Plaza, Springfield, Illinois 62715.
Michael S. Didiuk, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6839, or Holly L. Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (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 an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Horace Mann is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of Illinois. Horace Mann is engaged in the sale of individual and group life insurance and annuity contracts on a non-participating basis. Horace Mann is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Horace Mann Educators Corporation, a publicly-held insurance holding company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Horace Mann established the Horace Mann Life Insurance Company Separate Account on October 9, 1965, under Illinois law, and established the Horace Mann Life Insurance Company Qualified Group Annuity Separate Account on October 16, 2006, under Illinois law.
2. Each of the Separate Accounts meets the definition of “separate account” as defined in Section 2(a)(37) of the 1940 Act. The Separate Accounts are registered with the Commission under the 1940 Act as unit investment trusts. The assets of the Separate Accounts support the Contracts, and interests in the Separate Accounts offered through such Contracts have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”) on Form N-4. The application sets forth the registration statement file numbers for the Contracts and the Separate Accounts. Horace Mann is the legal owner of the assets in the Separate Accounts. The assets of the Separate Accounts may not be chargeable with liabilities arising out of any other business of Horace Mann.
3. The Contracts are issued either as individual or group contracts, with group contract participants acquiring certain ownership rights as described in the group contract or plan documents. Contract owners and participants in group contracts (each a “Contract owner”) may allocate some or all of their Contract value to one or more subaccounts available as investment options under their respective Contract. Each subaccount corresponds to a portfolio of an underlying registered open-end management investment company in which the Separate Account invests. A Contract owner may also invest some or all of his/her Contract value to a fixed account investment option, which is supported by assets of Horace Mann's general account.
4. The Applicants state that under the Contracts, Horace Mann reserves the right to substitute shares of one portfolio for shares of another portfolio if: (i) Shares of a registered open-end management investment company are no longer available for investment by the Separate Account; or (ii) Horace Mann determines that further investments in a registered open-end management investment company are inappropriate in view of the purposes and objectives of a Contract.
5. The Applicants propose the substitution of shares of the Existing Portfolios with shares of the Replacement Portfolios under the Contracts, each funded through the Separate Accounts. The Separate Accounts are segmented into subaccounts, and certain of these subaccounts invest in the Existing Portfolios. Each subaccount's income, gains, and losses, whether or not realized, are credited to or charged against the amounts allocated to that
6. Applicants propose, as set forth below, to substitute shares of the Replacement Portfolios for shares of the Existing Portfolios (“Substitutions”):
7. The Applicants state that the proposed Substitutions involve substituting a Replacement Portfolio for an Existing Portfolio with very similar—and at times, substantially identical—investment objectives, investment strategies, and principal risks and therefore the expectations of Contract owners will continue to be met after the proposed Substitutions. The Applicants state that the performance for the Replacement Portfolios is at least comparable to that of the Existing Portfolios. Additional information for each Existing Portfolio and the corresponding Replacement Portfolio, including investment objectives, principal investment strategies, principal risks, and performance can be found in the application.
8. Applicants represent that Contract owners with Contract value allocated to the subaccounts of the Existing Portfolios will have the same or lower total net annual operating expenses (
Horace Mann represents that it will solicit approval for proposed Substitutions #37, #38 and #39 from the respective Contract owners owning interests in the applicable subaccount.
Further, Applicants represent that each Replacement Portfolio has a combined management and 12b-1 fee that is less than or equal to that of the Existing Portfolio, except for the following Substitution:
Horace Mann represents that it will solicit approval with respect to the Substitution involving the Wilshire 5000 Index
9. The Applicants state that the Substitutions proposed are part of an overall business goal of Horace Mann to improve the administrative efficiency and cost effectiveness, as well as the attractiveness to investors, of its Contracts. Horace Mann asserts that it has determined that a more streamlined array of investment options, concentrated in fewer fund families, would permit Horace Mann to lower its costs of administering the Contracts, increase its operational and administrative efficiencies, and create a more manageable investment process for Contract owners.
10. The Applicants represent that Contract owners will also be notified of this Application by means of a prospectus supplement or other communication (“Pre-Substitution Notice”) for each of the Contracts. The Pre-Substitution Notice will notify Contract owners of Horace Mann's intent to implement the Substitutions; will notify Contract owners that Horace Mann has filed this Application to obtain the necessary approval from the Commission to effect the Substitutions; and will set forth the anticipated Substitution Date. In addition, the Pre-Substitution Notice will: (a) Advise Contract owners that Contract values attributable to investments in the Existing Portfolios will be transferred to the Replacement Portfolios, without any charge that would otherwise apply (including sales charges or surrender charges) and without being subject to any limitations on transfers, on the Substitution Date; (b) state that, from May 1, 2015, through the date 30 days after the Substitutions, Contract owners may make one transfer of Contract value from the subaccounts investing in the Existing Portfolios (before the Substitution Date) or the Replacement Portfolios (after the Substitution Date) to any other available investment option under the Contract without any charge that would otherwise apply (including sales charges or surrender charges) and without imposing any transfer limitations; and (c) inform Contract owners that, except as described in the market timing/short-term trading provisions of the relevant prospectus, Horace Mann will not exercise any right it may have under the Contracts to impose additional restrictions on transfers between the subaccounts under the Contracts, including any limitation on the number of transfers permitted, for a period beginning on May 1, 2015, through the date 30 days following the Substitution Date. Applicant further states that at least 30 days before the Substitution Date all affected Contract owners will have received the most recent prospectus for each applicable Replacement Portfolio. Finally, within five (5) business days following the Substitution Date, Contract owners affected by the Substitution will receive a written confirmation that the Substitutions were carried out as previously notified. This confirmation will restate the information set forth in the Pre-Substitution Notice and will include the before and after account values.
11. Each proposed Substitution will take place at relative net asset value determined on the Substitution Date pursuant to Section 22 of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, with no change in the amount of any Contract
12. The proposed Substitution will be effected on the Substitution Date by having the Separate Accounts redeem shares of the Existing Portfolios for cash.
In the event that a Replacement Portfolio or its investment adviser declines to accept, on behalf of the Replacement Portfolio, securities redeemed in-kind by an Existing Portfolio, such Existing Portfolio will instead provide cash equal to the value of the declined securities so that the Contract owner's contract values will not be adversely affected or diluted.
13. Horace Mann will pay all expenses incurred in connection with the Substitutions, including legal, accounting, transactional, and other fees and expenses, including brokerage commissions. Contract owners will not incur any fees or charges as a result of the Substitutions, nor will their rights or Horace Mann's obligations under the Contracts be altered in any way, and the Substitutions will not change Contract owners' insurance benefits under the Contracts. The Substitutions will not cause the contract fees and charges currently being paid by Contract owners to be greater after the Substitution than before the Substitution.
14. The Applicants represent that Horace Mann will take further steps to ensure that those Contract owners for whom the total annual operating expense ratio of the Replacement Portfolio was appreciably higher than that of the Existing Portfolio do not incur higher expenses for a period of two years after the Substitution. More specifically, for two years following the Substitution Date, Horace Mann will reimburse those who were Contract owners on the Substitution Date and who, as a result of a Substitution, had Contract value allocated to a subaccount investing in a Replacement Portfolio such that the Replacement Portfolio's net annual operating expenses (taking into account any fee waivers and expense reimbursements) for such period will not exceed, on an annualized basis, the net annual operating expenses (taking into account any fee waivers and expense reimbursements) of the corresponding Existing Portfolio as of the Existing Portfolio's most recent fiscal year preceding the Substitution Date. Any adjustments will be made at least on a quarterly basis.
1. Applicants request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the proposed Substitutions. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act prohibits any depositor or trustee of a unit investment trust that invests exclusively in the securities of a single issuer from substituting the securities of another issuer without the approval of the Commission. Section 26(c) provides that such approval shall be granted by order of the Commission if the evidence establishes that the substitution is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes of the 1940 Act.
2. The Applicants submit that the Substitutions meet the standards set forth in Section 26(c) and that, if implemented, the Substitutions would not raise any of the concerns that Congress intended to address when the 1940 Act was amended to include this provision. As described in the application, each Replacement Portfolio and its corresponding Existing Portfolio have similar, and in some cases substantially similar or identical, investment objectives and strategies. The application also states that, except for three Substitutions noted in the application, the Existing Portfolios will have the same or lower total net annual operating expenses after the proposed Substitutions as before the proposed Substitutions. The application states further that the Existing Portfolios and the Replacement Portfolios have similar, and in many cases substantially similar, investment policies and risks. Applicants believe that, to the extent that differences in risks and strategies do exist, these differences do not introduce Contract owners to materially greater risks than before the Substitution.
3. Applicants also maintain that the ultimate effect of the Substitutions would be to continue to provide Contract owners with a wide array of investment options and managers, while at the same time increasing administrative efficiencies of the Contracts and streamlining and simplifying the investment line-up available to Contract owners under the affected Contracts.
4. Applicants state that the Contracts and the Contract prospectuses disclose that Horace Mann has reserved the right under the Contracts to substitute shares of another underlying registered open-end management investment company for one of the current underlying registered open-end management investment companies offered as an investment option under the Contracts.
5. Applicants also assert that the proposed Substitutions are not of the type that Section 26(c) was designed to prevent because they will not result in costly forced redemption, nor will they affect other aspects of the Contracts. In the current situation, Contract owners are contractually provided investment discretion during the accumulation phase of the Contracts to allocate and reallocate their Contract value among the investment options available under the Contracts.
6. The proposed Substitutions will offer Contract owners the opportunity to transfer amounts out of the affected subaccounts without any cost or other penalty (other than those necessary to implement policies and procedures designed to detect and deter disruptive transfer and other “market timing” activity) that may otherwise have been imposed for a period beginning on May 1, 2015, and ending no earlier than 30 days after the Substitution. Applicants posit that this reduces the likelihood of being invested in an undesired underlying registered open-end management investment company, with the discretion remaining with the Contract owners.
7. Applicants state that the proposed Substitutions are also unlike the type of substitution that Section 26(c) was designed to prevent in that the Substitutions have no impact on other aspects of the Contracts. Specifically, the proposed Substitutions will not affect the type of benefits offered by Horace Mann under the Contracts, or numerous other rights and privileges associated with the Contracts.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Substitutions will not be effected unless the Applicants determine that: (a) The Contracts allow the substitution of shares of registered open-end investment companies in the manner contemplated by the application; (b) the Substitutions can be consummated as described in the application under applicable insurance laws; and (c) any regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction where the Contracts are qualified for sale have been complied with to the extent necessary to complete the Substitutions.
2. The Applicants or their affiliates will pay all expenses and transaction costs of the Substitutions, including legal and accounting expenses, any applicable brokerage expenses and other fees and expenses. No fees or charges will be assessed to the affected Contract owners to effect the Substitutions.
3. The Substitutions will be effected at the relative net asset values of the respective shares in conformity with Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder without the imposition of any transfer or similar charges by Applicants. The Substitutions will be effected without change in the amount or value of any Contracts held by affected Contract owners.
4. The Substitutions will in no way alter the tax treatment of affected Contract owners in connection with their Contracts, and no tax liability will arise for Contract owners as a result of the Substitutions.
5. The rights or obligations of the Applicants under the Contracts of affected Contract owners will not be altered in any way. The Substitutions will not adversely affect any riders under the Contracts.
6. Affected Contract owners will be permitted to make at least one transfer of Contract value from the subaccount investing in the Existing Portfolio (before the Substitution Date) or the Replacement Portfolio (after the Substitution Date) to any other available investment option under the Contract without charge for a period beginning at least 30 days before the Substitution Date through at least 30 days following the Substitution Date. Except as described in any market timing/short-term trading provisions of the relevant prospectus, Horace Mann will not exercise any right it may have under the Contracts to impose restrictions on transfers between the subaccounts under the Contracts, including limitations on the future number of transfers, for a period beginning at least 30 days before the Substitution Date through at least 30 days following the Substitution Date.
7. All affected Contract owners will be notified, at least 30 days before the Substitution Date about: (a) The intended substitution of Existing Portfolios with the Replacement Portfolios; (b) the intended Substitution Date; and (c) information with respect to transfers as set forth in Condition 6 above. In addition, the Applicants will also deliver to all affected Contract owners, at least 30 days before the Substitution Date, a prospectus for each applicable Replacement Portfolio.
8. Applicants will deliver to each affected Contract owner within five (5) business days of the Substitution Date a written confirmation which will include: (a) A confirmation that the Substitutions were carried out as previously notified; (b) a restatement of the information set forth in the Pre-Substitution Notice; and (c) before and after account values.
9. For two years following the Substitution Date, Horace Mann will reimburse those who were Contract owners on the Substitution Date and who, as a result of a Substitution, had Contract value allocated to a subaccount investing in a Replacement Portfolio such that the Replacement Portfolio's net annual operating expenses (taking into account any fee waivers and expense reimbursements) for such period will not exceed, on an annualized basis, the net annual operating expenses (taking into account any fee waivers and expense reimbursements) of the corresponding Existing Portfolio as of the Existing Portfolio's most recent fiscal year preceding the Substitution Date. Any adjustments will be made at least on a quarterly basis. In addition, for a period of at least two years following the Substitution Date, the Applicants will not increase the Contract fees and charges—including asset based charges such as mortality and expense risk charges deducted from the subaccounts—that would otherwise be assessed under the terms of Contracts that are in force on the Substitution Date.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On March 24, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled “Enhancing Our Market Equity Structure,” Mary Jo White, Chair of the Commission, requested that the equity exchanges conduct a comprehensive review of their order types and how they operate in practice and, as part of this review, consider appropriate rule changes to help clarify the nature of their order types and how they interact with each other.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13 by re-grouping and re-numbering existing order types and order modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 13 to revise the definitions of certain order types and modifiers in both substantive and non-substantive ways and to add text stating that, unless otherwise specified in either Rules 13, 70 (applicable to Exchange Floor brokers), or 104 (applicable to Exchange Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”)), orders and modifiers listed in Rule 13 are available for all Exchange member organizations. The Exchange represents that these revisions are not intended to reflect changes to the functionality of any order type or modifier, but rather to clarify Rule 13 to make it easier to navigate.
Under the proposal, Rule 13 would be reorganized into six categories: (1) Primary Order Types; (2) Time in Force Modifiers; (3) Auction-Only Orders; (4) Orders with Instructions Not to Display All or a Portion of the Order; (5) Orders with Instructions Not to Route; and (6) Additional Order Instructions and Modifiers. Currently, Rule 13 lists order types and modifiers alphabetically and does not categorize order types and modifiers based on characteristic or function.
Proposed section (a) of Rule 13 would set forth two primary order types—Market Orders and Limit Orders—and specify which orders are eligible for automatic executions. The Exchange proposes to delete the current definition of “Auto Ex Order” and proposes that all orders entered electronically will be eligible for automatic execution. Interest represented manually by a floor broker, however, would not be eligible for automatic execution.
The Exchange is not changing the definition of “Market Order” and would replace the current term “Display Book” with the proposed term “Exchange systems.”
Proposed section (b) of Rule 13 would set forth three Time in Force modifiers for orders: (1) Day; (2) Good til Cancelled (“GTC”) or Open; and (3) Immediate or Cancel (“IOC”). For Day modifiers, the Exchange proposes to allow only Limit Orders to be designated as Day orders. Currently, any order could be designated as a Day order. For the GTC or Open modifier, the Exchange is proposing to allow only Limit Orders to be designated with the GTC or Open modifier. Currently, any order could be a GTC or Open order.
With respect to IOC modifiers, the Exchange currently has three different modifiers: (1) Regulation NMS-compliant IOC; (2) NYSE IOC; and (3) IOC-MTS (minimum trade size). The Exchange is proposing to make non-substantive changes to the definitions of all three IOC modifiers.
Proposed section (c) of Rule 13 would set forth five Auction-Only Orders: (1) Closing Offset (“CO”) Orders; (2) Limit-on-Close (“LOC”) Orders; (3) Limit-on-Open (“LOO”) Orders; (4) Market-on Close (“MOC”) Orders; and (5) Market-on-Open (“MOO”) Orders. The Exchange is proposing to make non-substantive changes to these definitions.
Proposed section (d) of Rule 13 contains orders that are partially or fully undisplayed. There are two types of non-displayable orders: (1) Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders (“MPL Orders”) and (2) Reserve Orders. The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the definition of MPL Orders.
With respect to Reserve Orders, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the definition. The Exchange also proposes to add new rule text to state that a Minimum Display Reserve Order, which is a Limit Order that has a portion of the interest displayed when the order is or becomes the Exchange best bid or offer (“Exchange BBO”) and a portion not displayed (the reserve interest), would participate in both automatic and manual executions. The Exchange also proposes to add new rule text to state that a Non-Displayed Reserve Order, which is a Limit Order that is not displayed, would not participate in manual executions. The Exchange represents that these changes would reflect how those orders currently operate on the Exchange.
Proposed section (e) of Rule 13 would set forth order modifiers and order types that would not be routed: (1) The Add Liquidity Only (“ALO”) modifier; (2) Do Not Ship (“DNS”) orders; and (3) Intermarket Sweep (“ISO”) orders. For the ALO modifier, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes and to update cross references. The Exchange also proposes to add new rule text to specify that Limit Orders with the ALO modifier may participate in re-openings, but that the ALO designation would be ignored. This proposed change would expand the text of current Rule 13, which states that Limit Orders with the ALO modifier may participate in the Exchange's open or close, but that the ALO designation would be ignored. The Exchange is also proposing to make non-substantive changes to the DNS order and ISO definitions.
Proposed section (f) of Rule 13 would include the Exchange's other order instructions and modifiers: (1) Do Not Reduce (“DNR”) modifier; (2) Do Not Increase (“DNI”) modifier; (3) Pegging interest; (4) Retail modifier; (5) Self-Trade Prevention (“STP”) modifier; (6) Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” instruction; and (7) Stop order. The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the DNR and DNI modifiers.
With respect to Pegging interest, the Exchange proposes to specify that Pegging interest must be a Floor broker agency interest file (“e-Quote”) or a discretionary e-Quote (“d-Quote”) and proposes to delete the reference to the term “Primary Pegging Interest” in proposed Rule 13(f)(3)(B) because the Exchange represents that it only has one form of Pegging interest.
The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the Retail modifier, STP modifier, and the Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” instruction definitions. With respect to the STP modifier, the Exchange proposes to add rule text specifying that the STP modifier is not available for DMM interest, and with respect to Stop orders, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes and to replace the term “Exchange's automated order routing system” with “Exchange systems.”
The Exchange proposes to move the definition of “Routing Broker” to Rule 17(c) because the Exchange states that Rule 17(c) governs the operations of Routing Brokers.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of Not Held orders and relocate that definition to Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 13 because the Exchange states that Supplementary material .20 of Rule 13 reflects the obligations that members have in handling customer orders and Not Held instructions are instructions from a customer to a member or member organization regarding the handling of an order.
The Exchange proposes several amendments to Rule 70, which governs the execution of Exchange Floor Broker interest. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70(a)(i) to (1) delete current rule text indicating that Floor Brokers can only enter e-Quotes at or outside the Exchange BBO because, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange explains that Floor brokers may use e-Quotes to enter non-displayed orders, such as Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes or MPL Orders, priced between the Exchange BBO, and (2) add rule text stating that e-Quotes would not include unelected Stop Orders, Market Orders, ISOs, GTC modifiers, DNR modifiers, or DNI modifiers. Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add text to Rule 70.25(a)(ii) explaining that discretionary instructions may include instructions to participate in the Exchange's opening or closing transaction only. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c) to clarify that certain functionality set forth in the Rule is no longer available. Specifically, Rule 70.25(c)(ii) currently provides that a Floor broker may designate a maximum size of contra-side volume with which it is willing to trade using discretionary pricing instructions. Because this functionality is not available, the Exchange proposes to delete references to the maximum discretionary size parameter from Rules 70.25(c)(ii) and (c)(v). Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c)(iv) to clarify that the circumstances under which the Exchange would consider interest displayed by other market centers at the price at which a d-Quote may trade are not limited to determining when a d-Quote's minimum or maximum size range is met. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the clause “when determining if the d-Quote's minimum and/or maximum size range is met.” The Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive changes to Rules 70(a)(i) and 70(b)(i) by replacing the term “Display Book” with the term “Exchange systems,” and in Rule 70(f), the Exchange proposes to update cross references.
The Exchange proposes several amendments to amend Rule 72, which governs the priority of bids and offers and allocation of executions on the Exchange. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(i) to (1) replace the term “reserve interest” with the term “non-displayable interest” so that the rule sets forth that all non-displayable interest, which includes certain types of reserve interest and MPL Orders, trades on parity in accordance with the order allocation provisions of Rule 72 and (2) change the phrase “the displayed bid (offer)” to “displayable bids (offers)” and change the phrase “displayed volume” to “displayable volume” to specify that an automatically executing order will trade first with displayable bids (offers) and, if there is insufficient displayable volume to fill the order, will trade next with non-displayable interest. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(x) to add MPL Orders to the orders identified as being eligible to trade at price points between the Exchange BBO and delete a cross reference to Rule 13.
The Exchange proposes two amendments to Rule 104, which governs the dealings and responsibilities of DMMs. First, the Exchange proposes to add text to Rule 104(b)(ii) explaining that the Exchange's systems will prevent incoming DMM interest from trading with resting DMM interest. Specifically, proposed Rule 104(b)(ii) would now provide that if an incoming DMM interest would trade with resting DMM interest only, the incoming DMM interest would be cancelled, and if the incoming DMM interest would trade with interest other than DMM interest,
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000, which governs automatic executions, by adding cross references to other Exchange rules applicable to automatic executions in Rule 1000(a).
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange represents that it continually assesses its rules governing order types
The Exchange's proposal would restructure and reorganize Rule 13 so that order types with similar functionality are grouped together by subsection. The Commission also notes that the proposal contains several revisions to the Exchange's current rule text to clarify the descriptions of how certain orders, modifiers, and the “not held” instruction function and to specify which member organizations can and cannot enter certain order types. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change should provide greater specificity, clarity, and transparency with respect to the order type and modifier functionalities available on the Exchange, as well as the Exchange's methodology for handling certain order types, when compared to the existing rule text today. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2 to 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 2 in the
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70 to: (1) Delete current rule text in Rule 70(a)(i) indicating that Floor Brokers can only enter e-Quotes at or outside the Exchange BBO; (2) add text to Rule 70(a)(i) stating that e-Quotes shall not include unelected Stop orders, Market Orders, ISOs, GTC modifiers, DNR modifiers, or DNI modifiers; (3) add text to Rule 70.25(a)(ii) explaining that discretionary instructions may include instructions to participate in the Exchange's opening or closing transaction only; (4) make non-substantive changes to Rules 70(a)(i) and 70(b)(i) by replacing the term “Display Book” with the term “Exchange systems;” and (5) update cross references in Rule 70(f).
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(i) to: (1) Set forth that all non-displayable interest, which includes certain types of reserve interest and MPL Orders, trades on parity; and (2) to change the phrase “the displayed bid (offer)” to “displayable bids (offers)” and change the phrase “displayed volume” to “displayable volume.” The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(x) to add MPL Orders to the orders identified as being eligible to trade at price points between the Exchange BBO and delete a cross reference to Rule 13.
The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rule 104(b)(ii) explaining that the Exchange's systems will prevent incoming DMM interest from trading with resting DMM interest. Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add new Rule 104(b)(vi) to specify that DMMs may not enter the following orders and modifiers: (1) Market Orders; (2) GTC modifiers; (3) MOO orders; (4) CO orders; (5) MOC orders; (6) LOC orders; (7) DNR modifiers; (8) DNI modifiers; (9) Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” instructions; and (10) Stop orders.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000(a) to provide cross references to other Exchange rules applicable to automatic executions.
The Commission believes that the revisions proposed in Amendment No. 2 do not raise any novel regulatory issues. The Commission further believes that the proposed revisions to the rule text set forth in Amendment No. 2 do not represent any significant changes to the current functionality of the Exchange's order types and modifiers. Rather, these proposed rule text changes primarily help clarify and better explain how the Exchange's order types and modifiers currently operate and interact. For instance, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to add text at the beginning of Rule 13 stating that, unless otherwise specified in Rules 13, 70, or 104, orders and modifiers are available for all member organizations, coupled with the proposed addition of subparagraph (b)(vi) to Rule 104 that specifically enumerates which orders and modifiers a DMM may not enter into the Exchange's systems, should help member organizations better understand which orders and modifiers they can and cannot enter into the Exchange's systems. Therefore, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes 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 on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .06 to Rule 915 (Criteria for Underlying Securities) 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” or “comprehensive surveillance agreement”) is not required.
Currently, the Exchange allows for the listing and trading of options on ETFs. Commentary .06 to Rule 915 provides the listings standards for options on ETFs, such as ETFs based on international or global indexes.
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 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
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, to account for proposed Commentary .06(b)(i) to Rule 915, the Exchange proposes to re-number current Commentary .06(b)(i)-(v) as proposed Commentary .06(b)(ii)(A)-(E), and to make clear that each of the proposed newly numbered paragraphs apply to the series of Exchange-Traded Fund Shares that do not meet the criteria in proposed Commentary .06(b)(i) to Rule 915.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
In particular, the proposed rule change 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 Exchange also believes that enabling the listing and trading of options on ETFs pursuant to this new listing standard will benefit investors by providing them with valuable risk management tools. The Exchange notes that its proposal does not replace the need for a comprehensive surveillance agreement as provided in the current rule. The provisions of the current rule, including the need for a CSSA, remain materially unchanged 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, proposed Commentary .06(b)(i) to Rule 915 adds an additional listing mechanism for certain qualifying options on ETFs to be listed on the Exchange in a manner that is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
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.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
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
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes amend fee code MT, which routes to EDGX using the ICMT, IOCM, ROCO or ROUC routing strategy and removes liquidity against MidPoint Match Orders on EDGX by: (i) Revising the description of the orders eligible to yield fee code MT; and (ii) increasing the fee for orders yielding fee code MT.
The Exchange proposes to amend the description of fee code MT in two ways. First, the Exchange proposes to replace references to MidPoint Match Orders with MidPoint Peg Orders. This change is in response to a proposed rule change filed with the Commission by EDGX to align certain EDGX functionality with BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”).
Second, the Exchange proposes to remove references to the ROCO and ROUC routing strategies
As a result of these two proposed changes, the description of fee code MT will be amended to reflect that it will be appended to orders that are that routed to EDGX using the ICMT or IOCM routing strategy and remove liquidity against MidPoint Peg Orders resting on EDGX.
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently assesses a fee of $0.00120 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code MT. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase this fee to $0.00290 per share. The proposed change would enable the Exchange to pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders to EDGX when it does not qualify for a reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to EDGX's proposed July 6, 2015 fee change where EDGX has announced that it will delete fee code MT, under which orders that remove liquidity against MidPoint Match Orders were charged a fee of $0.00120 per share.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule on July 6, 2015.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the description of fee code MT represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because it updates the description of fee code MT to reflect the scenarios under which fee code MT will be appended to an order. The proposed changes are in response to a proposed rule change filed by EDGX with the Commission to replace MidPoint Match Orders on EDGX with the MidPoint Peg Order type.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fee for Members' orders that yield fee code MT from $0.00120 per share to $0.00290 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to EDGX through BATS Trading. As of July 6, 2015, EDGX will delete its fee to remove liquidity against MidPoint Match Orders of $0.00120 per share, thereby charging orders that remove liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO its standard removal rate of $0.00290 per share.
These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor EDGA's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of $0.00290 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code MT would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to EDGX. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members. Lastly, the Exchange does not believe the updated description of fee code MT imposes any burden on competition as it is not designed to have a competitive impact. Rather, it is intended to update the description of fee code MT to reflect the scenarios under which an order would be eligible to yield fee code MT as a result of the proposed rule and fee changes proposed by EDGX discussed herein.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to add a pricing tier applicable to orders of ETP Holders for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities that are eligible to be routed away from the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to implement the changes on July 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add a pricing tier applicable to orders of ETP Holders for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities that are eligible to be routed away from the Exchange (“Routable Orders”).
The Exchange proposes a new pricing tier called Routable Retail Order Tier pursuant to which ETP Holders would receive a credit of $0.0032 per share for their Routable and non-Routable Orders in Tape A and Tape C Securities that provide liquidity on the Exchange, and a credit of $0.0030 per share for their Routable and non-Routable Orders in Tape B Securities that provide liquidity on the Exchange, if such ETP Holders, including Market Makers, (1) provide liquidity of 0.20% or more of U.S. consolidated average daily volume (“U.S. CADV”) during the billing month across all Tapes, (2) maintain a ratio during the billing month across all Tapes of executed Routable Orders that provide liquidity to total executed provide liquidity of 55% or more, and (3) execute an average daily volume (“ADV”) of Retail Orders
For example, if U.S. CADV during the month is 6.45 billion shares, the ETP Holder would need to provide liquidity of at least 12.9 million shares to satisfy the first threshold (
In connection with the adoption of the Routable Retail Order Tier, the Exchange proposes to revise the Tape B Step Up Tier, Tape C Step Up Tier and Tape C Step Up Tier 2.
Currently, ETP Holders and Market Makers, that, on a daily basis, measured monthly, directly execute providing volume in Tape B Securities during a billing month (“Tape B Adding ADV”) that is equal to at least 0.275% of the U.S. Tape B Consolidated Average Daily Volume (“Tape B CADV”) for the billing month over the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's May 2013 Tape B Adding ADV taken as a percentage of Tape B CADV (“Tape B Baseline % CADV”) receive a credit of $0.0004 per share for orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange in Tape B Securities, which is in addition to the ETP Holder's Tiered or Basic Rate credit(s). The Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule that ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Retail Order Tier would not be eligible to qualify for the Tape B Step Up Tier. The Exchange believes that the credit of $0.0030 per share is sufficient that an ETP Holder that qualifies for the Routable Retail Order Tier should not also receive the increased credits applicable to the Tape B Step Up Tier. Similar to Retail Order Tier ETP Holders, Cross-Asset Tier ETP Holders
Additionally, ETP Holders and Market Makers, that, on a daily basis, measured monthly, directly execute providing volume in Tape C Securities during the billing month (“Tape C Adding ADV”) that is at least the greater of (a) the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's January 2012 Tape C Adding ADV (“Tape C Baseline ADV”) plus 0.10% of US Tape C CADV3 for the billing month or (b) the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's Tape C Baseline ADV plus 20%, subject to the ETP Holders' and Market Makers' total providing liquidity in Tape A, Tape B, and Tape C Securities increasing in an amount no less than 0.03% of US CADV over their January 2012 providing liquidity receive a lower fee of $0.0029 per share for orders that take liquidity from the Book in Tape C Securities. The Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule that ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Retail Order Tier would not be eligible to qualify for the Tape C Step Up Tier. The Exchange believes that the credit of $0.0032 per share is sufficient that an ETP Holder that qualifies for the Routable Retail Order Tier should not also receive the reduced fee applicable to the Tape C Step Up Tier. Similar to Retail Order Tier ETP Holders, Routable Order Tier ETP Holders and Market Makers, who are currently ineligible to qualify for the Tape C Step Up Tier, the Exchange proposes to exclude Routable Retail Order Tier ETP Holders from also qualifying for the Tape C Step Up Tier.
Finally, ETP Holders and Market Makers, that, on a daily basis, measured monthly, directly execute Tape C Adding ADV during the billing month that is at least 2 million shares greater than the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's Tape C Adding ADV during Q2 2012, subject to the ETP Holder's or Market Maker's combined providing ADV in Tape A, Tape B, and Tape C Securities during the billing month as a percentage of CADV3 being no less than during Q2 2012 receive a credit of $0.0002 per share, which is in addition to the ETP Holder's Tiered or Basic Rate credit(s). The Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule that ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Retail Order Tier would not be eligible to qualify for the Tape C Step Up Tier 2. The Exchange believes that the credit
The Exchange believes that the proposal would create an added incentive for ETP Holders to bring additional order flow to a public market.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable because the proposed Routable Retail Order Tier would contribute to incentivizing ETP Holders to submit additional orders on the Exchange that are eligible to be routed away from the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed fee change would increase the liquidity available on the Exchange because, if a Routable Order were routed and returned unexecuted, the order would be available for execution on the Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange believes that Routable Orders add to the quality of the Exchange's market because they may provide liquidity on the Exchange of a longer duration. The Routable Retail Order Tier therefore would support the quality of price discovery and promote market transparency, thereby benefiting all market participants. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the rate proposed for the Routable Retail Order Tier is reasonable because it takes into account the amount of Routable Orders that an ETP Holder would be required to execute on the Exchange during a month. The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Routable Retail Order Tier pricing would apply to executions of Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities, and the Exchange notes that these credits are available on other tiers (
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed Routable Retail Order Tier is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all ETP Holders have the ability to designate their orders as Routable Orders. Additionally, the proposed credit of $0.0032 per share in Tape A and Tape C Securities, and $0.0030 per share in Tape B Securities, for Routable Orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange would be available to all ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Retail Order Tier. The proposed thresholds are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are based on objective criteria and the same criteria would be applicable to all ETP Holders.
The Exchange believes that prohibiting Routable Retail Order Tier ETP Holders from qualifying for the Tape B Step Up Tier is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Retail Order Tier would already receive a higher credit of $0.0030 before the Tape B Step Up Credit, which is higher than other tiers with the Tape B Step Up credit. For example, Tier 1 ETP Holders that qualify for Tape B Step Up Tier would receive a Tier 1 credit of $0.0023 plus a Tape B Step Up credit of $0.0004 for a total credit of $0.0027, compared with the standalone Routable Retail Order Tier credit of $0.0030. The Exchange notes that Retail Order ETP Holders, Cross-Asset Tier ETP Holders and Market Makers currently do not qualify for Tape B Step Up Tier credit.
The Exchange further believes that prohibiting Routable Retail Order Tier ETP Holders from qualifying for the Tape C Step Up Tier is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Retail Order Tier would already receive a higher credit of $0.0032 before the Tape C Step Up Credit, which is higher than other tiers that can qualify for the Tape C Step Up credit. For example, Tier 1 ETP Holders that qualify for Tape C Step Up Tier would receive a Tier 1 credit of $0.0030 for orders that provide liquidity, plus a lower Tape C Step Up fee of $0.0029 for orders that take liquidity from the Book in Tape C Securities, compared with the standalone Routable Retail Order Tier credit of $0.0032 for orders that provide liquidity and a fee of $0.0030 share for orders that take liquidity from the Book in Tape C Securities. The Exchange notes that Retail Order ETP Holders, Routable Order Tier ETP Holders and Market Makers currently do not qualify for Tape C Step Up Tier credit.
Finally, the Exchange believes that prohibiting Routable Retail Order Tier ETP Holders from qualifying for the Tape C Step Up Tier 2 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because ETP Holders that qualify for the Routable Retail Order Tier would already receive a higher credit of $0.0032 before the Tape C Step Up 2 Credit, which is higher than other tiers with the Tape C Step Up 2 credit. For example, Tier 1 ETP Holders that qualify for Tape C Step Up 2 Tier would receive a Tier 1 credit of $0.0030 plus a Tape C Step Up 2 credit of $0.0002 for a total credit of $0.0032, which is comparable to the standalone Routable Retail Order Tier credit of $0.0032. The Exchange notes that Retail Order ETP Holders, Routable Order Tier ETP Holders and Market Makers currently do not qualify for Tape C Step Up Tier 2 credit.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes a competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes 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 on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 5.3(g) (Criteria for Underlying Securities) 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” or “comprehensive surveillance agreement”) is not required.
Currently, the Exchange allows for the listing and trading of options on ETFs. Rule 5.3(g) provides the listings standards for options on ETFs, such as ETFs based on international or global indexes.
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 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 so 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 a 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 Rule 5.3(g)(1)(C) (regarding Commodity Pool Units) to become Rule 5.3(g)(2)(B)(v). In addition, to account for proposed Rule 5.3(g)(2)(A), the Exchange proposes to re-number paragraphs (g)(2)(A)-(D) as paragraphs (g)(2)(B)(i)-(iv), and to make clear that each of the proposed newly numbered paragraphs (
The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)
In particular, the proposed rule change 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 Exchange also believes that enabling the listing and trading of options on ETFs pursuant to this new listing standard will benefit investors by providing them with valuable risk management tools. The Exchange notes that its proposal does not replace the need for a comprehensive surveillance agreement as provided in the current rule. The provisions of the current rule, including the need for a CSSA, remain materially unchanged 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, proposed Rule 5.3(g)(2)(A) adds an additional listing mechanism for certain qualifying options on ETFs to be listed on the Exchange in a manner that is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
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.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
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
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at section II, entitled “Multiply Listed Options Fees,”
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on July 1, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to: (1) Increase the maximum QCC rebate that will be paid by the Exchange in a given month; and (2) increase the per member organization Monthly Strategy Cap applicable to dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategies.
Today, the Exchange pays rebates on QCC Orders based on the following five tier rebate schedule:
The Exchange will continue to pay rebates on QCC Orders as described above. The Exchange proposes to amend the QCC Rebate Schedule to increase the maximum QCC Rebate of $375,000 to $450,000 per month. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to its pricing for QCC Orders will enable the Exchange to attract additional QCC Orders.
Today, the Exchange applies certain strategy caps
Despite increasing the cap, the Exchange believes that offering members and member organizations the opportunity to continue to cap transaction fees will benefit Phlx members and the Phlx market by encouraging members to transact greater liquidity.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the maximum amount of the QCC Rebate the Exchange would pay a market participant in a given month from $375,000 to $450,000 because the Exchange believes it will attract additional QCC Orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the maximum amount of the QCC Rebate the Exchange would pay a market participant in a given month from $375,000 to $450,000 because all qualifying market participants are entitled to obtain this rebate if they transact a qualifying number of QCC Orders. All market participants are eligible to transact QCC Orders.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Monthly Strategy Cap from $60,000 to $65,000 is reasonable because, despite the increase to the cap, the Exchange will continue to offer members an opportunity to lower their fees related to the execution of strategy transactions. For example, when a member incurs transaction fees in the amount of $65,000 in a given month related to strategy executions, the member will not pay for additional strategy executions for the remainder of that month as a result of the fee cap.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Monthly Strategy Cap from $60,000 to $65,000 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would continue to offer members the opportunity to cap their floor equity options transaction in Multiply Listed Options fees for all strategies. Customers are excluded because they are not assessed a floor Options Transaction Charge.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to continue to apply strategy fee caps to orders originating from the Exchange floor is reasonable because certain members pay floor brokers to execute trades on the Exchange floor, thereby incurring costs related to this business model. The Exchange believes that offering fee caps to members executing floor transactions would defray brokerage costs associated with executing strategy transactions and continue to incentivize members to utilize the floor for certain executions.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the maximum QCC Rebate does not impose a burden on competition. The Exchange's proposal should encourage market participants to transact a greater number of QCC Orders in order to obtain QCC Rebates. All market participants are eligible to transact QCC Orders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to the Monthly Strategy Cap will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes apply uniformly to all members that incur transaction charges, except Firms.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 24, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled “Enhancing Our Market Equity Structure,” Mary Jo White, Chair of the Commission, requested that the equity exchanges conduct a comprehensive review of their order types and how they operate in practice and, as part of this review, consider appropriate rule changes to help clarify the nature of their order types and how they interact with each other.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13—Equities by re-grouping and re-numbering existing order types and order modifiers. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 13—Equities to revise the definitions of certain order types and modifiers in both substantive and non-substantive ways and to add text stating that “[u]nless otherwise specified in [Rule 13—Equities], Rule 70 (for Floor brokers), or Rule 104 (for [Exchange Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”)], orders and modifiers are available for all member organizations.” The Exchange represents that these revisions are not intended to reflect changes to the functionality of any order type or modifier, but rather to clarify Rule 13—Equities to make it easier to navigate.
Under the proposal, Rule 13—Equities would be reorganized into six categories: (1) Primary Order Types; (2) Time in Force Modifiers; (3) Auction-Only Orders; (4) Orders with Instructions Not to Display All or a Portion of the Order; (5) Orders with Instructions Not to Route; and (6) Additional Order Instructions and Modifiers. Currently, Rule 13—Equities lists order types and modifiers alphabetically and does not categorize order types and modifiers based on characteristic or function.
Proposed section (a) of Rule 13—Equities would set forth two primary order types—Market Orders and Limit Orders—and specify which orders are eligible for automatic executions. The Exchange proposes to delete the current definition of “Auto Ex Order” and proposes that all orders entered electronically will be eligible for automatic execution. Interest represented manually by a floor broker, however, would not be eligible for automatic execution.
The Exchange is not changing the definition of “Market Order” and would replace the current term “Display Book” with the proposed term “Exchange systems.”
Proposed section (b) of Rule 13—Equities would set forth three Time in Force modifiers for orders: (1) Day; (2) Good til Cancelled (“GTC”) or Open; and (3) Immediate or Cancel (“IOC”). For Day modifiers, the Exchange proposes to allow only Limit Orders to be designated as Day orders. Currently, any order could be designated as a Day order. For the GTC or Open modifier, the Exchange is proposing to allow only Limit Orders to be designated with the GTC or Open modifier. Currently, any order could be a GTC or Open order.
With respect to IOC modifiers, the Exchange currently has three different modifiers: (1) Regulation NMS-compliant IOC; (2) Exchange IOC; and (3) IOC-MTS (minimum trade size). The Exchange is proposing to make non-substantive changes to the definitions of all three IOC modifiers.
Proposed section (c) of Rule 13—Equities would set forth five Auction-Only Orders: (1) Closing Offset (“CO”) Orders; (2) Limit-on-Close (“LOC”) Orders; (3) Limit-on-Open (“LOO”) Orders; (4) Market-on Close (“MOC”) Orders; and (5) Market-on-Open (“MOO”) Orders. The Exchange is
Proposed section (d) of Rule 13—Equities contains orders that are partially or fully undisplayed. There are two types of non-displayable orders: (1) Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Orders (“MPL Orders”) and (2) Reserve Orders. The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the definition of MPL Orders.
With respect to Reserve Orders, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the definition. The Exchange also proposes to add new rule text to state that a Minimum Display Reserve Order, which is a Limit Order that has a portion of the interest displayed when the order is or becomes the Exchange best bid or offer (“Exchange BBO”) and a portion not displayed (the reserve interest), would participate in both automatic and manual executions. The Exchange also proposes to add new rule text to state that a Non-Displayed Reserve Order, which is a Limit Order that is not displayed, would not participate in manual executions. The Exchange represents that these changes would reflect how those orders currently operate on the Exchange.
Proposed section (e) of Rule 13—Equities would set forth order modifiers and order types that would not be routed: (1) The Add Liquidity Only (“ALO”) modifier; (2) Do Not Ship (“DNS”) orders; and (3) Intermarket Sweep (“ISO”) orders. For the ALO modifier, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes and to update cross references. The Exchange also proposes to add new rule text to specify that Limit Orders with the ALO modifier may participate in re-openings, but that the ALO designation would be ignored. This proposed change would expand the text of current Rule 13—Equities, which states that Limit Orders with the ALO modifier may participate in the Exchange's open or close, but that the ALO designation would be ignored. The Exchange is also proposing to make non-substantive changes to the DNS order and ISO definitions.
Proposed section (f) of Rule 13—Equities would include the Exchange's other order instructions and modifiers: (1) Do Not Reduce (“DNR”) modifier; (2) Do Not Increase (“DNI”) modifier; (3) Pegging interest; (4) Retail modifier; (5) Self-Trade Prevention (“STP”) modifier; (6) Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” instruction; and (7) Stop order. The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the DNR and DNI modifiers.
With respect to Pegging interest, the Exchange proposes to specify that Pegging interest must be a Floor broker agency interest file (“e-Quote”) or a discretionary e-Quote (“d-Quote”) and proposes to delete the reference to the term “Primary Pegging Interest” in proposed Rule 13(f)(3)(B) because the Exchange represents that it only has one form of Pegging interest.
The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to the Retail modifier, STP modifier, and the Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” instruction definitions. With respect to the STP modifier, the Exchange proposes to add rule text specifying that the STP modifier is not available for DMM interest, and with respect to Stop orders, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes and to replace the term “Exchange's automated order routing system” with “Exchange systems.”
The Exchange proposes to move the definition of “Routing Broker” to Rule 17(c)—Equities because the Exchange states that Rule 17(c)—Equities governs the operations of Routing Brokers.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the definition of Not Held orders and relocate that definition to Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 13—Equities because the Exchange states that Supplementary material .20 of Rule 13—Equities reflects the obligations that members have in handling customer orders and Not Held instructions are instructions from a customer to a member or member organization regarding the handling of an order.
The Exchange proposes several amendments to Rule 70—Equities, which governs the execution of Exchange Floor Broker interest. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70(a)(i)—Equities to (1) delete current rule text indicating that Floor Brokers can only enter e-Quotes at or outside the Exchange BBO because, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange explains that Floor brokers may use e-Quotes to enter non-displayed orders, such as Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes or MPL Orders, priced between the Exchange BBO, and (2) add rule text stating that e-Quotes would not include unelected Stop Orders, Market Orders, ISOs, GTC modifiers, DNR modifiers, or DNI modifiers. Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add text to Rule 70.25(a)(ii)—Equities explaining that discretionary instructions may include instructions to participate in the Exchange's opening or closing transaction only. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c)—Equities to clarify that certain functionality set forth in the Rule is no longer available. Specifically, Rule 70.25(c)(ii)—Equities currently provides that a Floor broker may designate a maximum size of contra-side volume with which it is willing to trade using discretionary pricing instructions. Because this functionality is not available, the Exchange proposes to delete references to the maximum discretionary size parameter from Rules 70.25(c)(ii)—Equities and 70.25(c)(v)—Equities. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c)(iv)—Equities to clarify that the circumstances under which the Exchange would consider interest displayed by other market centers at the price at which a d-Quote may trade are not limited to determining when a d-Quote's minimum or maximum size range is met. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the clause “when determining if the d-Quote's minimum and/or maximum size range is met.” The Exchange also proposes to make non-substantive changes to Rules 70(a)(i)—Equities and 70(b)(i)—Equities by replacing the term “Display Book” with the term “Exchange systems,” and
The Exchange proposes several amendments to amend Rule 72—Equities, which governs the priority of bids and offers and allocation of executions on the Exchange. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(i)—Equities to (1) replace the term “reserve interest” with the term “non-displayable interest” so that the rule sets forth that all non-displayable interest, which includes certain types of reserve interest and MPL Orders, trades on parity in accordance with the order allocation provisions of Rule 72—Equities and (2) change the phrase “the displayed bid (offer)” to “displayable bids (offers)” and change the phrase “displayed volume” to “displayable volume” to specify that an automatically executing order will trade first with displayable bids (offers) and, if there is insufficient displayable volume to fill the order, will trade next with non-displayable interest. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(x)—Equities to add MPL Orders to the orders identified as being eligible to trade at price points between the Exchange BBO and delete a cross reference to Rule 13—Equities.
The Exchange proposes two amendments to Rule 104—Equities, which governs the dealings and responsibilities of DMMs. First, the Exchange proposes to add text to Rule 104(b)(ii)—Equities explaining that the Exchange's systems will prevent incoming DMM interest from trading with resting DMM interest. Specifically, proposed Rule 104(b)(ii)—Equities would now provide that if an incoming DMM interest would trade with resting DMM interest only, the incoming DMM interest would be cancelled, and if the incoming DMM interest would trade with interest other than DMM interest, the resting DMM interest would be cancelled. Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add new Rule 104(b)(vi)—Equities to specify that DMMs may not enter the following orders and modifiers: (1) Market Orders; (2) GTC modifiers; (3) MOO orders; (4) CO orders; (5) MOC orders; (6) LOC orders; (7) DNR modifiers; (8) DNI modifiers; (9) Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” instructions; and (10) Stop orders.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 501(d)(2)—Equities relating to the list of order types that are not accepted for trading in UTP Securities. The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to update the name references to order types, and the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to Good `til Cross (GTX) orders because the Exchange represents that it no longer accepts GTX Order Instructions.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000—Equities, which governs automatic executions, by adding cross references to other Exchange rules applicable to automatic executions in Rule 1000(a)—Equities.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange represents that it continually assesses its rules governing order types
The Exchange's proposal would restructure and reorganize Rule 13—Equities so that order types with similar functionality are grouped together by subsection. The Commission also notes that the proposal contains several revisions to the Exchange's current rule text to clarify the descriptions of how certain orders, modifiers, and the “not held” instruction function and to specify which member organizations can and cannot enter certain order types. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change should provide greater specificity, clarity, and transparency with respect to the order type and modifier functionalities available on the Exchange, as well as the Exchange's methodology for handling certain order types, when compared to the existing rule text today. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2 to 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 2 in the
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 70—Equities to: (1) Delete current rule text in Rule 70(a)(i)—Equities indicating that Floor Brokers can only enter e-Quotes at or outside the Exchange BBO; (2) add text to Rule 70(a)(i) stating that e-Quotes shall not include unelected Stop orders, Market Orders, ISOs, GTC modifiers, DNR modifiers, or DNI modifiers; (3) add text to Rule 70.25(a)(ii) explaining that discretionary instructions may include instructions to participate in the Exchange's opening or closing transaction only; (4) make non-substantive changes to Rules 70(a)(i)—Equities and 70(b)(i)—Equities by replacing the term “Display Book” with the term “Exchange systems;” and (5) update cross references in Rule 70(f)—Equities.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(i) to: (1) Set forth that all non-displayable interest, which includes certain types of reserve interest and MPL Orders, trades on parity; and (2) to change the phrase “the displayed bid (offer)” to “displayable bids (offers)” and change the phrase “displayed volume” to “displayable volume.” The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 72(c)(x) to add MPL Orders to the orders identified as being eligible to trade at price points between the Exchange BBO and delete a cross reference to Rule 13—Equities.
The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rule 104(b)(ii)—Equities explaining that the Exchange's systems will prevent incoming DMM interest from trading with resting DMM interest. Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to add new Rule 104(b)(vi)—Equities to specify that DMMs may not enter the following orders and modifiers: (1) Market Orders; (2) GTC modifiers; (3) MOO orders; (4) CO orders; (5) MOC orders; (6) LOC orders; (7) DNR modifiers; (8) DNI modifiers; (9) Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” instructions; and (10) Stop orders.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000(a)—Equities to provide cross references to other Exchange rules applicable to automatic executions.
The Commission believes that the revisions proposed in Amendment No. 2 do not raise any novel regulatory issues. The Commission further believes that the proposed revisions to the rule text set forth in Amendment No. 2 do not represent any significant changes to the current functionality of the Exchange's order types and modifiers. Rather, these proposed rule text changes primarily help clarify and better explain how the Exchange's order types and modifiers currently operate and interact. For instance, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to add text at the beginning of Rule 13—Equities stating that, unless otherwise specified in other Exchange rules, orders and modifiers are available for all member organizations, coupled with the proposed addition of subparagraph (b)(vi) to Rule 104—Equities that specifically enumerates which orders and modifiers a DMM may not enter into the Exchange's systems, should help member organizations better understand which orders and modifiers they can and cannot enter into the Exchange's systems. Therefore, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 8, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY, which sets forth prescriptive requirements for Specialists to have information barriers, and NYSE MKT Rule 927.5NY(f), which sets forth a principles-based, information barrier requirement for e-Specialists. NYSE MKT Rule 3(j), which requires that every Exchange member establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by such member or associated persons, would remain in effect and would continue to apply to both Specialists and e-Specialists.
Under NYSE MKT Rule 3(j), the misuse of material, non-public information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any related securities or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that issuer;
(b) trading in a security or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities; or
(c) disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material, non-public information.
The Exchange notes that under this proposed rule change an ATP Holder could structure its options Specialists, e-Specialists, or Market Makers, as applicable, with the firm's equities and customer-facing businesses; provided, that any such structuring be done in a manner reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information.
Deleting NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY will remove the requirement for specified, prescriptive information barriers as well as the pre-approval of any information barriers used by Specialists. Deleting NYSE MKT Rule 927.5NY(f) will remove the explicit information barrier requirement for e-Specialists. However, the Exchange notes, as is the case today with Market Makers, that information barriers of new entrants, including new Specialists, would be subject to review as part of a new firm application.
The Exchange also represents that Specialists and e-Specialists do not have different or greater access to nonpublic information than other market participants on the Exchange, and differ from other types of Exchange Market Makers only because of heightened obligations and allocation guarantees.
The Exchange also proposes to make a conforming amendment to remove references to NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY from NYSE MKT Rule 927.6NY.
The Commission received one comment letter in support of the proposal.
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange proposes to delete NYSE MKT Rule 927.3NY, which sets forth prescriptive requirements for Specialists to have information barriers, and NYSE MKT Rule 927.5NY(f), which sets forth a principles-based, information barrier requirement for e-Specialists. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it continues to require firms to maintain policies and procedures, consistent with NYSE MKT Rule 3(j) and Section 15(g) of the Act,
The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that Specialists and e-Specialists do not have informational advantages compared to other Exchange market participants.
Finally, the Commission notes that the policies and procedures required by NYSE MKT Rule 3(j) are subject to oversight by the Exchange and review by FINRA,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and an extension of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, Email address:
Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-966-2830, Email address:
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than September 15, 2015. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1.
2.
3.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than August 17, 2015. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance package by writing to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 6, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2192 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4025, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Mr. Mack Frost, Planning and Environmental Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, 400 North 8th Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219; telephone: (804) 775-3352; email:
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
23 U.S.C 139(
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
This document announces a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that certain 2006-2010 BMW M3 passenger cars (PCs) that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles originally manufactured for sale in the United States that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS (the U.S. certified version of the 2006-2010 BMW M3 PC), and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
This decision became effective on July 13, 2015.
For further information contact George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified as required under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
US Specs, of Havre de Grace, Maryland (Registered Importer 03-321), petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2006-2010 BMW M3 PCs are eligible for importation into the United States. NHTSA published a notice of the petition on December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76598) to afford an opportunity for public comment. The reader is referred to that notice for a thorough description of the petition.
On January 28, 2013, J.K. Technologies, LLC (JK), another Registered Importer, submitted comments on the petition. In its comments, JK expressed the belief that the petition contained several omissions and errors.
On May 20, 2013, US Specs responded, in part, to JK's comments by submitting to NHTSA a revised listing of parts associated with FMVSS No. 208 compliance.
On October 21, 2013, NHTSA informed US Specs by letter that the parts listing it submitted appeared to only partially address the comments made by JK. The agency offered US Specs the opportunity to further address JK's comments.
On December 2, 2013 US Specs submitted further comments and parts information to NHTSA.
A summary of JK's comments, US Specs' responses, and the conclusions that NHTSA has reached with regard to the issues raised by those parties is set forth below.
JK commented that the software alterations necessary to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 114
US Specs responded: “Each vehicle will need to be inspected on a case-by-case basis to see that they contain US parts. The US parts will be installed if not already so equipped. The Digital Motor Electronics and Car Access System control unit will be replaced and programmed as necessary.”
JK also commented that US Specs did not include in its description of modifications needed to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 208
US Specs responded by submitting additional parts lists and diagrams and by stating: “Each vehicle will need to be inspected on a case-by-case basis to see if they contain the US-model parts. The US-model parts will be installed if a vehicle is not already so equipped. The Digital Motor Electronics and Car Access System control units will also be replaced and reprogrammed as necessary.”
JK also commented that in order for the vehicle to be conformed to FMVSS No. 301
US Specs responded by stating that BMW uses many of the same components for multiple vehicles worldwide. US Specs further stated that each vehicle will need to be inspected on a case by case basis to see if it contains the US-model parts and that US-model parts will be installed on vehicles not already so equipped. US Specs also provided additional parts lists and diagrams.
After reviewing the petition, JK's comments and US Specs' responses to those comments, NHTSA has concluded that the vehicles covered by the petition are capable of being readily altered to comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, in light of JK's comments and consistent with recent decisions that the agency has made in granting several import eligibility petitions for late-model vehicles (See Docket Numbers: NHTSA-2013-0107, NHTSA-2013-0108, and NHTSA-2014-0004), NHTSA has decided that an RI who imports or modifies the subject vehicles must include a detailed description of all modifications it makes to achieve conformity with applicable FMVSS in each statement of conformity with supporting documents (referred to as a “conformity package”) it submits to NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592.6(d).
With regard to FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA has decided that each conformity package must also include a detailed description of the occupant protection system in place on the vehicle at the time it was delivered to the RI, and a similarly detailed description of the occupant protection system in place after the vehicle is altered, including photographs of all labeling required by FMVSS No. 208. The description must also include parts assembly diagrams.
Should an RI decide to alter the vehicles to conform to FMVSS No. 138,
In addition to the information specified above, each conformity package must include information showing how the RI verified that the changes it made in loading or reprograming vehicle software to achieve conformity with each individual FMVSS did not cause the vehicle to fall out of compliance with any other applicable FMVSS.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that MY 2006-2010 BMW M3 passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS are substantially similar to 2006-2010 BMW M3 PCs manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States, and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. VSP-571 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to vehicles admissible under this notice of final decision.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2013 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ passenger cars built from August 12, 2012 through January 14, 2013 do not fully comply with paragraph S3.1.4.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102
For further information on this decision contact Amina Fisher, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5307, facsimile (202) 366-7002.
I.
Ford submitted its petition on March 21, 2013. On February 11, 2014, Ford submitted a petition supplement to clarify how the specific vehicles affected do not fully comply with FMVSS No. 102 and FMVSS No. 114.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on March 3, 2014, in the
II.
III.
IV.
S3.1.4.1 Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift position sequence includes a park position, identification of shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist:
(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted; . . .
Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 114 specifically states:
S5.2.1 Except as specified in S5.2.3, the starting system required by S5.1 must prevent key removal when tested according to the procedures in S6, unless the transmission or gear selection control is locked in “park” or becomes locked in “park” as a direct result of key removal.
V.
1. The vehicle design is self-remedying. The affected vehicles are
2. While in Factory Mode, affected vehicles clearly display the message “Factory Mode Contact Dealer” in either the message center or instrument cluster. Additionally, the “Factory Mode Contact Dealer” message does not obscure any regulatory malfunction indicator lamps, or (non-mandated) cautionary warnings.
3. The dealership's Pre-Delivery Inspection instructions require dealerships to change the vehicle into Customer Mode, prior to delivery, which ensures the condition will be remedied before delivery to the customer. Ford is not aware of any of the subject vehicles being delivered to customers in Factory Mode.
4. All other requirements of FMVSS No. 102 and FMVSS No. 114 are fully satisfied.
5. Ford is not aware of any owner complaints, accidents, or injuries attributed to this condition.
Ford has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so that all future vehicles will comply with FMVSS Nos. 102 and 114.
In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
With regards to the FMVSS No. 114 noncompliance Ford stated that while in Factory Mode the mechanical key may be removed from the ignition lock cylinder when the transmission shift lever is in a position other than “park” if the engine is not running and the CAN network has entered a hibernation mode after approximately 15 seconds of total vehicle electrical inactivity. When a consumer turns their vehicle off they are likely to remove the mechanical key from the cylinder prior to the vehicle reaching 15 seconds of total electrical inactivity. Removing the key prior to these 15 seconds would prevent the vehicle from experiencing a condition noncompliant to FMVSS No. 114 as it would require the transmission control to be shifted to “park” before key removal.
Ford stated that dealerships have Pre-Delivery Inspection instructions which require them to change vehicles from Transport Mode to Customer Mode.
Lastly, Ford states that the vehicle is designed to be self-remedying and will automatically switch from Factory Mode to the fully compliant Transport Mode after 60 key cycles. If a consumer were to receive a vehicle in Factory Mode and decided to ignore the warning message, their vehicle would automatically switch to a fully compliant mode after the required number of key cycles.
We believe that drivers of the affected vehicles will be sufficiently alerted by the message on the instrument cluster which reads “Factory Mode—Contact Dealer”. Furthermore, if they choose to ignore this message, the vehicle is designed to be self-remedying after 60 ignition key cycles. Considering the unique conditions involved with these noncompliances, and Ford's statement about the lack of associated complaints, accidents or injuries related to the affected vehicles, Ford's noncompliance is considered inconsequential.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the 4,727 vehicles that Ford no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction for delivery or introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Piedmont Railway LLC (Piedmont),
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
According to Piedmont, it will replace the existing rail carrier, Piedmont and Northern Railway, LLC, a subsidiary of Patriot Rail Company LLC., and will be the sole provider of common carrier rail service on the 13-mile line pursuant to the “change in operators” provision of section 1150.31(a)(3).
Piedmont certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in Piedmont becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. Piedmont states that there are no agreements applicable to the line imposing any interchange commitments.
Piedmont intends to consummate this transaction on or about August 1, 2015. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35936, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, John D. Heffner, Strasburger & Price, LLP, 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC (IPH), and its wholly owned subsidiary, Permian Basin Railways (PBR) (collectively, applicants) have jointly filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Piedmont Railway LLC (Piedmont), upon Piedmont's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The parties intend to consummate the proposed transaction on August 1, 2015.
Applicants currently control 13 Class III rail carriers, operating in 10 states. For a complete list of these rail carriers, and the states in which they operate, see applicants' notice of exemption filed on July 1, 2015. The notice is available on the Board's Web site at “
Applicants certify that: (1) The rail lines to be operated by Piedmont do not connect with any other railroads operated by the carriers in the applicants' corporate family; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the rail lines to be operated by Piedmont with any other railroad in applicants' corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under §§ 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35937, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on John D. Heffner, Strasburger & Price, LLP, 1025 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury.
Notice.
This document provides notice that, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5326(a), the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
This Notice is effective on July 17, 2015.
All questions about the Order must be addressed to the FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767-2825 (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. EST).
The Geographic Targeting Order is published as an attachment to this notice.
The Director of FinCEN may issue an order that imposes certain additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements on one or more domestic financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or businesses in a geographic area.
For purposes of this Order, a “Covered Business” means a check casher, as defined under 31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(2), that maintains a location (including a branch or agent location) in one of the following counties in the State of Florida: Miami-Dade County or Broward County (the “Covered Geographic Area”).
For purposes of this Order, a “Covered Transaction” means any transaction in which a Covered Business cashes a Federal tax refund check in excess of $1,000 within the Covered Geographic Area. A Federal tax refund check includes (i) a U.S. Treasury check used to pay a tax refund, or (ii) a check issued by a third party in connection with an anticipated Federal tax refund (
If a Covered Business engages in a Covered Transaction, the Covered Business must obtain at the time of the Covered Transaction and record the following identifying information about the customer conducting the transaction:
(i) A copy of the customer's valid government-issued identification, which must evidence nationality or residence, include a photograph of the customer, and be issued in the same name as that of the original payee of the check;
(ii) a clear digital photograph of the customer taken at the time of the Covered Transaction that matches the photograph depicted on the identification provided by the customer;
(iii) the customer's phone number; and
(iv) a clear original thumbprint of the customer that is recorded on the check.
A Covered Business must: (i) Retain all records relating to compliance with this Order for a period of five years from the last day that this Order is effective (including any renewals of this Order); (ii) store such records in a manner accessible within a reasonable period of time; and (iii) make such records available to FinCEN or any other appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agency, upon request.
All terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meaning set forth in Chapter X of Title 31 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations.
The terms of this Order are effective beginning on August 3, 2015 and ending on January 30, 2016 (except as otherwise provided in Section II(C) above).
Nothing in this Order modifies or otherwise affects any provision of the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act to the extent not expressly stated herein.
A Covered Business must supervise, and is responsible for, compliance by each of its officers, directors, and employees with the terms of this Order. A Covered Business must transmit the Order to its Chief Executive Officer or other similarly acting manager.
A Covered Business and any of its officers, directors, employees, or agents may be liable, without limitation, for civil and/or criminal penalties for violating any of the terms of this Order.
Any judicial determination that any provision of this Order is invalid does not affect the validity of any other provision of this Order, and each other provision must thereafter remain in full force and effect. A copy of this Order carries the full force and effect of an original signed Order.
The collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act contained in this Order has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and assigned OMB Control Number 1506-0056.
All questions about the Order must be addressed to the FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767-2825 (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. EST).
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, FinCEN invites comment on a proposed renewal, without change, to information collections found in regulations requiring futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, banks, savings associations, credit unions, certain non-federally regulated banks, mutual funds, and broker-dealers, to develop and implement customer identification programs reasonably designed to prevent those financial institutions from being used to facilitate money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before September 15, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183, Attention: Customer Identification Program Comments. Comments also may be submitted by electronic mail to the following Internet address:
FinCEN Resource Center at 1-800-767-2825 or 1-703-905-3591 (not a toll free number) and select option 3 for regulatory questions. Email inquiries can be sent to
Section 5318(l) of the BSA authorizes FinCEN to issue regulations prescribing customer identification programs for financial institutions. The regulations must require that, at a minimum, financial institutions implement reasonable procedures for (1) verifying the identity of any person seeking to open an account, to the extent reasonable and practicable; (2) maintaining records of the information used to verify the person's identity, including name, address, and other identifying information; and (3) determining whether the person appears on any lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to the financial institution by any government agency. The regulations are to take into consideration the various types of accounts maintained by various types of financial institutions, the various methods of opening accounts, and the various types of identifying information available. Regulations implementing section 5318(l) are found at 31 CFR 1020.220, 1023.220, 1026.220, and 1024.220.
1.
2.
3.
4.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Records required to be retained under the BSA must be retained for five years. Generally, information collected pursuant to the BSA is confidential but may be shared as provided by law with regulatory and law enforcement authorities.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments regarding the renewal without change of the Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments (“CMIR”).
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, FinCEN invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the CMIR. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Public Law 10 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments should be received on or before September 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to: Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183-0039,
FinCEN Resource Center at 1-800-767-2825 or 1-703-905-3591 (not a toll free number) and select option 3 for regulatory questions. Email inquiries can be sent to
A copy of the form may also be obtained from the FinCEN Web site at
Pursuant to the BSA, the requirement of 31 U.S.C. 5316(a) has been implemented through regulations promulgated at 31 CFR 1010.340 and through the instructions for the CMIR as follows:
(1) Each person who physically transports, mails, or ships, or causes to be physically transported, mailed, or shipped currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 at one time from the United States to any place outside the United States or into the United States from any place outside the United States, and
(2) Each person who receives in the United States currency or other monetary instruments in an aggregate amount exceeding $10,000 at one time which have been transported, mailed, or shipped to the person from any place outside the United States. A transfer of funds through normal banking procedures, which does not involve the physical transportation of currency or monetary instruments, is not required to be reported on the CMIR.
Information collected on the CMIR is made available, in accordance with strict safeguards, to appropriate criminal law enforcement and regulatory personnel in the official performance of their duties. The information collected is of use in investigations involving international and domestic money laundering, tax evasion, fraud, and other financial crimes.
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. Records required to be retained under the BSA must be retained for five years. Generally, information collected pursuant to the BSA is confidential, but may be shared as provided by law with regulatory and law enforcement authorities.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite comment on a proposed renewal, without change, to information collections found in existing regulations requiring dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, to develop and implement written anti-money laundering programs reasonably designed to prevent financial institutions from being used to facilitate money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. This request for comments is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before September 15, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183, Attention: Anti-Money Laundering Program Comments. Comments also may be submitted by electronic mail to the following Internet address:
FinCEN Resource Center at 1-800-767-2825 or 1-703-905-3591 (not a toll free number) and select option 3 for regulatory questions. Email inquiries can be sent to
Regulations implementing section 5318(h)(1) of the Act are found in part at 31 CFR 1027.210. In general, the regulations require financial institutions, as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) and 31 CFR 1010.100 to establish, document, and maintain anti-money laundering programs as an aid in protecting and securing the U.S. financial system.
1.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget 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.
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the “States Where Licensed for Surety.”
Written comments should be received on or before September 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies should be directed to Melvin Saunders, Supervisor, Surety Bond Section, 3700 East West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (202) 874-5283.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on July 14, 2015.
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 a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning “Collateral Security Resolution” and “Collateral Pledge and Security Agreement.”
Written comments should be received on or before September 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for further information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Mark Stromer, Bank Policy and Oversight Division, Room 314, 401 14th Street SW., Liberty Center Building, Washington, DC 20227, 202-874-7018, or
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of charter renewal.
The charter for the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (FACI) has been renewed for a two-year period beginning July 8, 2015.
Brett D. Hewitt, Policy Advisor to the Federal Insurance Office, Room 1410, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-5892 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Notice is hereby given under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) that the FACI has been renewed for an additional two years beginning July 8, 2015. Additionally, the FACI's membership has been expanded from 21 members to up to 25 members. The purpose of the FACI is to present advice and recommendations to the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in performing its duties and authorities. The advice and recommendations may cover specific or general insurance topics, processes, studies, and/or reports. The duties of the FACI shall be solely advisory and shall extend only to the submission of advice and recommendations, which shall be non-binding, to FIO. The FACI meets on a periodic basis, and its membership is balanced to include a cross-section of representative views of state and non-government persons having an interest in the duties and authorities of FIO.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its energy conservation standards for small three-phase commercial air-cooled air conditioners (single package only) and heat pumps (single package and split system) less than 65,000 Btu/h; water-source heat pumps; and commercial oil-fired storage water heaters. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, DOE must assess whether the uniform national standards for these covered equipment need to be updated each time the corresponding industry standard—the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1)—is amended, which most recently occurred on October 9, 2013. Under EPCA, DOE may only adopt more stringent standards if there is clear and convincing evidence showing that more stringent amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant additional amount of energy. The levels DOE is adopting are the same as the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. DOE has determined that the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels for the equipment types listed above are more stringent than existing Federal energy conservation standards and will result in economic and energy savings compared existing energy conservation standards. Furthermore, DOE has concluded that clear and convincing evidence does not exist that would justify more-stringent standard levels than the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for any of the equipment classes. DOE has also determined that the standards for small three-phase commercial air-cooled air conditioners (split system) do not need to be amended. DOE is also updating the current Federal test procedure for commercial warm-air furnaces to incorporate by reference the most current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.47,
The effective date of this rule is September 15, 2015. Compliance with the amended standards established for water-source heat pumps and commercial oil-fired storage water heaters in this final rule is required on and after October 9, 2015. Compliance with the amended standards established for small three-phase commercial air-cooled air conditioners (single package only) and heat pumps (single package and split system) less than 65,000 Btu/h in this final rule is required on and after January 1, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2015.
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
This final rule incorporates by reference the following industry standards into part 431:
• ANSI Z21.47-2012, “
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2012 can be obtained from
• ASHRAE Standard 103-2007, “Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,” sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, and 11.3.7, approved on June 27, 2007.
Copies of ASHRAE Standard 103-2007 can be obtained from
These standards are described in section IX.N.
Title III, Part C
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 8, 2015, in the
In determining the scope of the rulemaking, DOE is statutorily required to ascertain whether the revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have become more stringent, thereby ensuring that any new amended national standard would not result in prohibited “backsliding.” For those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set more-stringent efficiency levels
This final rule applies to three classes of small three-phase air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, three classes of water-source heat pumps, and one class of commercial oil-fired storage water heaters, which satisfy all applicable requirements of EPCA and will result in energy savings where models exist below the revised efficiency levels. DOE has concluded that, based on the information presented and its analyses, there is not clear and convincing evidence justifying adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels for this equipment.
It is noted that DOE's current regulations for have a single equipment class for small, three-phase commercial air-cooled air conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h, which covers both split-system and single-package models. Although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 did not amend standard levels for the split-system models within that equipment class, it did so for the single-package models. Given this split, in this final rule, DOE is once again separating these two types of equipment into separate equipment classes. However, following the evaluation of amended standards for split-system models under the six-year-lookback provision at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE has concluded that there is not clear and convincing evidence that would justify adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels for small three-phase split-system air-cooled air conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h, where the efficiency level in ASHRAE 90.1-2013 is the same as the current Federal energy conservation standards.
Thus, in accordance with the criteria discussed elsewhere in this document, DOE is amending the energy conservation standards for three classes of small three-phase air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, three classes of water-source heat pumps, and one class of commercial oil-fired storage water heaters by adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, as shown in Table I.1. Pursuant to EPCA, the amended standards apply to all equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date two years after the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (
In addition, DOE is adopting amendments to its test procedures for commercial warm-air furnaces, which manufacturers will be required to use to certify compliance with energy conservation standards mandated under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A) and (4)(B)) and 10 CFR parts 429 and 431. Specifically, these amendments, which were proposed in the January 2015 NOPR, update the citations and incorporations by reference in DOE's regulations to the most recent version of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.47,
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for small three-phase air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, water-source heat pumps, and commercial oil-fired storage water heaters.
Title III, Part C
EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs), packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks.
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy efficiency benefits, the U.S. Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for each type of equipment listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,
AEMTCA also modified EPCA to specify that any amendment to the design requirements with respect to the ASHRAE equipment would trigger DOE review of the potential energy savings under U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). Additionally, AEMTCA amended EPCA to require that if DOE proposes an amended standard for ASHRAE equipment at levels more stringent than
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of the products likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from 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 standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
EPCA also requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs of the ASHRAE equipment during a representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and(4))
Additionally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that at least once every seven years, DOE must conduct an evaluation of the test procedures for all covered equipment and either amend test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish notice in the
On October 9, 2013 ASHRAE officially released and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. This action triggered DOE's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined previously.
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that such standard would likely result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure.
Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as ASHRAE equipment, has two or more subcategories, DOE often specifies more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and which justifies a higher or lower standard. In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE generally considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE includes an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. DOE plans to follow a similar process in the context of this rulemaking.
As noted previously, ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on October 9, 2013 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013). The ASHRAE standard addresses efficiency levels for many types of commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), and water-heating equipment covered by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 revised its efficiency levels for certain commercial equipment, but for the remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in place the preexisting levels (
On April 11, 2014, DOE published a notice of data availability (April 2014 NODA) in the
In addition, DOE presented a discussion in the April 2014 NODA of the changes found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013.
Following the NODA, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the
In addition, DOE's NOPR also proposed adopting amended test procedures for commercial warm-air furnaces.
This final rule specifies the compliance dates for amended energy conservation standards as shown in Table I.1. In addition, compliance with the amended test procedure for commercial warm-air furnaces is required on or after July 11, 2016.
In response to its request for comment on the January 2015 NOPR, DOE received eight comments from manufacturers, trade associations, utilities, and energy efficiency advocates. Commenters included: Lennox International Inc.; Goodman Global, Inc.; California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs); a group including Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (jointly referred to as the Advocates); the Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); United Technologies (UTC)—Carrier; Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA); and a group of 12 associations led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (jointly referred to as the Associations). As discussed previously, these comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking and may be reviewed as described in the
As discussed previously, before beginning an analysis of the potential economic impacts and energy savings that would result from adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 or more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE first sought to determine whether or not the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels actually represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal standard levels. DOE discussed each equipment class for which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency level differs from the current Federal standard level, along with DOE's preliminary conclusion as to the action DOE is taking with respect to that equipment in the January 2015 NOPR.
In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for small three-phase air-cooled air conditioners (single package only) and heat pumps (single package and split system) less than 65,000 Btu/h; water-source heat pumps; and commercial oil-fired storage water heaters. 80 FR 1171, 1224-1227 (Jan. 8, 2015). Several commenters expressed support for DOE's proposal to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2013 for small three-phase commercial air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h (
On the other hand, the Advocates, NEEA, and the CA IOUs commented that DOE should adopt higher standards than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2013 for water-source heat pumps between 17,000 and 65,000 Btu/h. (Advocates, No. 39 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 40 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 41 at p. 2) The Advocates and CA IOUs noted that for that equipment class, efficiency level 2 is cost effective at both 3 and 7 percent discount rates, while efficiency level 3, which would save additional energy, would not result in a net cost to consumers. (Advocates, No. 39 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 40 at p. 2) NEEA noted that the energy savings available supported a more in depth analysis of the economic justification and energy analysis for this equipment class (NEEA, No. 41 at p. 2)
In response to the submitted comments, DOE maintains its position of adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2013 for all equipment in
EPCA requires the Secretary to amend the DOE test procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment to the latest version of those generally accepted industry testing procedures or the rating procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced by ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines by rule published in the
In the January 2015 NOPR, in keeping with EPCA's mandate to incorporate the latest version of the applicable industry test procedure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), DOE proposed to update its commercial warm air furnace test procedure by incorporating by reference ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Z21.47-2012,
DOE is also required to review the test procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment at least once every seven years. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) In addition to the updates to the referenced standards discussed previously, In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE also proposed to update the citations and incorporations by reference in DOE's regulations for commercial warm-air furnaces to the most recent version of ASHRAE 103,
In response to the NOPR, Lennox International agreed with DOE's proposal to incorporate the latest versions of ANSI Z21.47 and ASHRAE 103 by reference as the applicable test procedure for commercial warm-air furnaces. (Lennox International Inc., No. 36 at p. 2) DOE adopts these updates in this final rule.
DOE is aware that some commercial furnaces are designed for make-up air heating (
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with respect to small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h. A separate subsection addresses each analysis. In overview, DOE used a spreadsheet to calculate the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback periods (PBPs) of potential energy conservation standards. DOE used another spreadsheet to provide shipments projections and then calculate national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards.
To begin its review of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels, DOE developed information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity included both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market assessment for this rulemaking include equipment classes, manufacturers, quantities, and types of equipment sold and offered for sale. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. For additional detail, see chapter 2 of the final rule technical support document (TSD).
The Federal energy conservation standards for air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps are differentiated based on the cooling capacity (
In order to obtain the information needed for the market assessment for this rulemaking, DOE consulted a variety of sources, including manufacturer literature, manufacturer Web sites, and the AHRI-certified directory.
DOE researched various trade groups representing manufacturers, distributors, and installers of the various types of equipment being analyzed in this rulemaking. AHRI is one of the largest trade associations for manufacturers of space heating, cooling, and water heating equipment, representing more than 90 percent of the residential and commercial air conditioning, space heating, water heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment manufactured in the United States.
The Heating, Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) is a trade association that represents over 450 wholesale heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) companies, plus over 300 manufacturing associates and nearly 140 manufacturing representatives. HARDI estimates that 80 percent of the revenue of HVACR systems goes through its members.
The Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) is another trade association whose members include over 4,000 contractors and 60,000 professionals in the indoor environment and energy service community. According to their Web site, ACCA provides contractors with technical, legal, and market resources, helping to promote good practices and to keep buildings safe, clean, and affordable.
DOE reviewed data for air-cooled commercial air conditioners and heat pumps currently on the market by examining the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance. DOE identified 23 parent companies (comprising 61 manufacturers) of small three-phase air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, which are listed in chapter 2 of the final rule TSD. Of these manufacturers, five were identified as small businesses based upon number of employees and the employee thresholds set by the Small Business Administration. More details on this analysis can be found below in section IX.B.
DOE reviewed the AHRI database to characterize the efficiency and performance of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h models currently on the market. The full results of this market characterization are found in chapter 2 of the final rule TSD. For split-system air conditioners, the average SEER value was 13.9, and 120 models (0.1 percent of the total models) have SEER ratings below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 level of 13.0 SEER. For single-package air conditioners, the average SEER value was 14.3, and 1,450 models (45 percent of the total models) have SEER ratings below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 level of 14.0 SEER.
For single-package heat pumps, the average SEER value is 14.0. Of the models identified by DOE, 653 models (54 percent of the total models) have SEER ratings below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 level of 14.0 SEER. The average HSPF value for this equipment class is 7.9. Of the models identified by DOE, 632 models (52 percent of the total models) have HSPF ratings below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels of 8.0. For split-system
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between an increase in energy efficiency and the increase in cost (manufacturer selling price (MSP)) of a piece of equipment DOE is evaluating for potential amended energy conservation standards. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. The engineering analysis identifies representative baseline equipment, which is the starting point for analyzing possible energy efficiency improvements. For covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE sets the baseline for analysis at the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, because by statute, DOE cannot adopt any level below the revised ASHRAE level. The engineering analysis then identifies higher efficiency levels and the incremental increase in product cost associated with achieving the higher efficiency levels. After identifying the baseline models and cost of achieving increased efficiency, DOE estimates the additional costs to the commercial consumer through an analysis of contractor costs and markups and uses that information in the downstream analyses to examine the costs and benefits associated with increased equipment efficiency.
DOE typically structures its engineering analysis around one of three methodologies: (1) The design-option approach, which calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which calculates the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and/or (3) the reverse-engineering or cost-assessment approach, which involves a “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed bill of materials derived from teardowns of the equipment being analyzed. A supplementary method called a catalog teardown uses published manufacturer catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the major physical differences between a piece of equipment that has been physically disassembled and another piece of similar equipment for which catalog data are available to determine the cost of the latter equipment. Deciding which methodology to use for the engineering analysis depends on the equipment, the design options under study, and any historical data upon which DOE may draw.
As explained in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE used a combination of the efficiency-level and the cost-assessment approach for this analysis. 80 FR 1171, 1187-1188 (Jan. 8, 2015). DOE used the efficiency-level approach to identify incremental improvements in efficiency for each equipment class and the cost-assessment approach to develop a cost for each efficiency level. The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering analysis were representative of three-phase central air conditioners and heat pumps currently produced by manufacturers at the time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data reported in the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance to select representative efficiency levels.
DOE generated a bill of materials (BOM) for each representative product that it disassembled. DOE did this for multiple manufacturers' products that span a range of efficiency levels for the equipment classes that are analyzed in this rulemaking. The BOMs describe the manufacture of the equipment in detail, listing all parts and including all manufacturing steps required to make each part and to assemble the unit. DOE also conducted catalog teardowns to supplement the information obtained directly from physical teardowns. Subsequently, DOE developed a cost model that calculates manufacturer production cost (MPC) for each unit, based on the detailed BOM data. Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD describes DOE's cost model in greater detail. The calculated costs were plotted as a function of the equipment efficiency levels (based on rated efficiency) to create cost-efficiency curves. DOE notes that the costs at some efficiency levels were interpolated or extrapolated based on the available physical and catalog teardown data.
DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for a representative capacity of three tons, which it decided well represents the range of capacities on the market for commercial three-phase products. Because other capacity levels had similar designs and efficiency levels, cost-efficiency curves were not developed for any other capacities. Instead, DOE was able to utilize the cost-efficiency curve for the representative capacity and apply it to all three-phase products.
DOE based the cost-efficiency relationship for three-phase central air conditioners and heat pumps on reverse engineering conducted for the June 2011 direct final rule (DFR) for single-phase central air conditioners and heat pumps. 76 FR 37408. DOE researched manufacturer literature and noticed that most model numbers between single-phase products and three-phase equipment were interchangeable, with only a single-digit difference in the model number for the supply voltage. Although three-phase equipment contains three-phase compressors instead of single-phase compressors, DOE did not notice any inconsistency in energy efficiency ratings between single-phase products and three-phase equipment. To supplement the 2011 DFR data (29 physical teardowns and 12 catalog teardowns), DOE completed one physical teardown and seven catalog teardowns of three-phase equipment. This approach allowed DOE to provide an estimate of equipment prices at different efficiencies and spanned a range of technologies currently on the market that are used to achieve the increased efficiency levels.
DOE selected baseline efficiency levels as reference points for each equipment class, against which it measured changes resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE defined the baseline efficiency levels as reference points to compare the technology, energy savings, and cost of equipment with higher energy efficiency levels. Typically, units at the baseline efficiency level just meet Federal energy conservation standards and provide basic consumer utility. However, EPCA requires that DOE must adopt either the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels or more-stringent levels. Therefore, because the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels were the lowest levels that DOE could adopt, DOE used those levels as the reference points against which more-stringent levels were evaluated.
Table V.3 shows the current baseline and ASHRAE efficiency levels for each equipment class of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h.
DOE analyzed several efficiency levels and obtained incremental cost data for the four equipment classes under consideration. Table V.44 presents the efficiency levels examined for each equipment class. As part of the engineering analyses, DOE considered up to six efficiency levels beyond the baseline for each equipment class. DOE derived the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) level from the market maximum in the AHRI Certified Directory,
The final efficiency levels for each equipment class are presented below in Table V.4. For additional details on the efficiency levels selected for analysis, see chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
The results of the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency curves based on results from the cost models for analyzed units. DOE's calculated MPCs for small commercial air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h are shown in Table V.5 through Table V.8, and further details on the calculation of these curves can be found in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD. DOE used the cost-efficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an input for the life-cycle cost and payback period analyses.
DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the full MPC to account for corporate non-production costs and profit. The resulting manufacturer selling price (MSP) is the price at which the manufacturer can recover all production and nonproduction costs and earn a profit. To meet new or amended energy conservation standards, manufacturers often introduce design changes to their equipment lines that result in increased manufacturer production costs. Depending on the competitive environment for these particular types of equipment, some or all of the increased production costs may be passed from manufacturers to retailers and eventually to commercial consumers in the form of higher purchase prices. As production costs increase, manufacturers typically incur additional overhead. The MSP should be high enough to recover the full cost of the equipment (
For small commercial air-cooled air-conditioners and heat pumps, DOE used a manufacturer markup of 1.3, as developed for the 2011 direct final rule for single-phase central air conditioners and heat pumps. 76 FR 37408 (June 27, 2011). This markup was calculated using U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports for publicly-owned heating and cooling companies, as well as feedback from manufacturer interviews. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for more details about the methodology DOE used to determine the manufacturing markup.
Manufacturers of commercial HVAC products typically pay for freight (shipping) to the first step in the distribution chain. Freight is not a manufacturing cost, but because it is a substantial cost incurred by the manufacturer, DOE accounts for shipping costs separately from other non-production costs that comprise the manufacturer markup. DOE calculated the MSP for small commercial air-cooled air-conditioners and heat pumps by multiplying the MPC at each efficiency level (determined from the cost model) by the manufacturer markup and adding shipping costs for equipment at the given efficiency level. More specifically, DOE calculated shipping costs at each efficiency level based on a typical 53-foot straight-frame trailer with a storage volume of 4,240 cubic feet. DOE examined the sizes of small commercial air-cooled air-conditioners and heat pumps and determined the number of units that
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to convert the estimates of manufacturer selling price derived in the engineering analysis to commercial consumer prices. (“Commercial consumer” refers to purchasers of the equipment being regulated.) DOE calculates overall baseline and incremental markups based on the equipment markups at each step in the distribution chain. The incremental markup relates the change in the manufacturer sales price of higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase) to the change in the commercial consumer price.
In the 2014 NOPR for Central Unitary Air Conditioners (CUAC), which includes equipment similar to but larger than that in this rulemaking, DOE determined that there are three types of distribution channels to describe how the equipment passes from the manufacturer to the commercial consumer. 79 FR 58948, 58975 (Sept. 30, 2014). In the new construction market, the manufacturer sells the equipment to a wholesaler. The wholesaler sells the equipment to a mechanical contractor, who sells it to a general contractor, who in turn sells the equipment to the commercial consumer or end user as part of the building. In the replacement market, the manufacturer sells to a wholesaler, who sells to a mechanical contractor, who in turn sells the equipment to the commercial consumer or end user. In the third distribution channel, used in both the new construction and replacement markets, the manufacturer sells the equipment directly to the customer through a national account.
In the analysis for this Final Rule and in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE used two of the three distribution channels described above to determine the markups. Given the small cooling capacities of air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE did not use the national accounts distribution chain in the markups analysis. National accounts are composed of large commercial consumers of HVAC equipment that negotiate equipment prices directly with the manufacturers, such as national retail chains. The end market consumers of three-ton central air conditioners and heat pumps are small offices and small retailers and do not fit the profile of large national chains. 80 FR 1171, 1191 (Jan. 8, 2015).
In the 2014 CUAC NOPR, based on information that equipment manufacturers provided, commercial consumers were estimated to purchase 50 percent of the covered equipment through small mechanical contractors, 32.5 percent through large mechanical contractors, and the remaining 17.5 percent through national accounts. 79 FR 58948, 58976 (Sept. 30, 2014). For this analysis, DOE removed the national accounts distribution channel and recalculated the size of the small and large mechanical contractor distribution channels assuming they make up the entire market. Therefore, the small mechanical distribution chain accounts for 61 percent of equipment purchases (
In this Final Rule and in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE used the markups from the 2014 CUAC NOPR, for which DOE utilized updated versions of: (1) The Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International
Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD provides further detail on the estimation of markups.
The energy use analysis provides estimates of the annual energy consumption of small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacities less than 65,000 btu/h at the considered efficiency levels. DOE uses these values in the LCC and PBP analyses and in the NIA.
The cooling unit energy consumption (UEC) by equipment type and efficiency level came from the national impact analysis associated with the 2011 direct final rule (DFR) for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. (EERE-2011-BT-STD-0011-0011). Specifically, DOE used the UECs for single-phase equipment installed in commercial buildings. The UECs for split system and single package equipment were similar in the 2011 analysis for lower efficiency levels, but at higher efficiency levels, the only UEC s available were for split-system equipment. DOE assumed that the similarities at lower levels could be expected to hold at higher efficiency levels; therefore, DOE used the UECs for split equipment for all equipment classes in this final rule, including split system and single package.
In order to assess variability in the cooling UEC by region and building type, DOE used a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report
DOE reviewed the results of the simulations for the 2011 DFR and determined that the heating loads for these small commercial applications are extremely low (less than 500 kwh/year). As a result, DOE did not include any energy savings in the analysis for this Final Rule due to the increase in HSPF for this equipment. Chapter 4 of the final rule TSD provides further detail on energy use analysis.
The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects of potential amended energy conservation standards on commercial consumers of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 btu/h by determining how a potential amended standard affects their operating expenses (usually decreased) and their total installed costs (usually increased).
The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the equipment, consisting of equipment and installation costs plus operating costs (
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimate of the base-case efficiency level. For split-system air conditioners, for which ASHRAE did not increase efficiency levels, the base-case estimate reflects the market in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, including the market for equipment that exceeds the current energy conservation standards. For single-package air conditioners, split-system heat pumps, and single-package heat pumps, the base-case estimate reflects the market in the case where the ASHRAE 90.1-2013 level becomes the Federal minimum, and the LCC calculates the LCC savings likely to result from higher efficiency levels compared with the ASHRAE base-case.
DOE conducted an LCC and PBP analysis for small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 btu/h using a computer spreadsheet model. When combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially-available software program), the LCC and PBP model generates a Monte Carlo simulation to perform the analyses by incorporating uncertainty and variability considerations in certain of the key parameters as discussed below. Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the total installed cost and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense. The following sections contain brief discussions of the inputs and key assumptions of DOE's LCC and PBP analysis. They are also described in detail in chapter 6 of the final rule TSD.
In the LCC and PBP analysis, the equipment costs faced by purchasers of small air-cooled air conditioning and heat pump equipment are derived from the MSPs estimated in the engineering analysis, the overall markups estimated in the markups analysis, and sales tax.
To develop an equipment price trend for the final rule, DOE derived an inflation-adjusted index of the producer price index (PPI) for “unitary air-conditioners, except air source heat pumps” from 1978 to 2013, which is the PPI series most relevant to small air-cooled air-conditioning equipment. The PPI index for heat pumps covered too short a time period to provide a useful picture of pricing trends, so the air-conditioner time series was used for both air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE expects this to be a reasonably accurate assessment for heat pumps because heat pumps are produced by the same manufacturers as air-conditioners and contain most of the same components. Although the overall PPI index shows a long-term declining trend, data for the last decade have shown a flat-to-slightly-rising trend. Given the uncertainty as to which of the trends will prevail in coming years, DOE chose to apply a constant price trend (at 2014 levels) for the final rule. See chapter 6 of the final rule TSD for more information on the price trends.
DOE derived national average installation costs for small air-cooled air conditioning and heat pump equipment from data provided in RS Means 2013.
Based on these data, DOE concluded that data for 3-ton rooftop air conditioners would be sufficiently representative of the installation costs for air conditioners less than 65,000 btu/h. For heat pumps, DOE used the installation costs for 3-ton air-source heat pumps.
DOE also varied installation cost as a function of equipment weight. Because weight tends to increase with equipment efficiency, installation cost increased with equipment efficiency. The weight of the equipment in each class and efficiency level was determined through the engineering analysis.
The calculation of annual per-unit energy consumption by each class of the subject small air-cooled air conditioning and heating equipment at each considered efficiency level is based on the energy use analysis as described above in section V.D and in chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.
DOE used average and marginal electricity prices by Census Division based on tariffs from a representative sample of electric utilities. This approach calculates energy expenses based on actual commercial building average and marginal electricity prices that customers are paying.
The average electricity price multiplied by the baseline electricity consumption for each equipment class defines the baseline LCC. For each efficiency level, the operating cost savings are calculated by multiplying the electricity consumption savings (relative to the baseline) by the marginal consumption price.
For this final rule, DOE updated the tariff-based prices to 2014 dollars and projected future electricity prices using trends in average commercial electricity price from
For further discussion of electricity prices, see chapter 6 of the final rule TSD.
Maintenance costs are costs to the commercial consumer of ensuring continued operation of the equipment (
Repair costs are costs to the commercial consumer associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed. DOE utilized RS Means
Equipment lifetime is the age at which the subject small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h are retired from service. DOE based equipment lifetime on a retirement function in the form of a Weibull probability distribution. DOE used the inputs from the 2011 DFR technical support document for central air conditioners and heat pumps, which represented a mean lifetime of 19.01 years for air conditioners and 16.24 years for heat pumps, and used the same values for units in both residential and commercial applications. (EERE-2011-BT-STD-0011-0012) Given the similarity of such equipment types, DOE believes the lifetime for single-phase equipment is a reasonable approximation of the lifetime for similar three-phase equipment.
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to estimate their present value. The cost of capital commonly is used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. DOE uses the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to calculate the equity capital component, and financial data sources to calculate the cost of debt financing.
DOE derived the discount rates by estimating the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) of companies that purchase air-cooled air-conditioning equipment. More details regarding DOE's estimates of commercial consumer discount rates are provided in chapter 6 of the final rule TSD.
For the LCC analysis, DOE analyzes the considered efficiency levels relative to a base case (
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all commercial consumers as if each were to purchase new equipment in the year that compliance with amended standards is required. Generally, covered equipment to which a new or amended energy conservation standard applies must comply with the standard if such equipment is manufactured or imported on or after a specified date. EPCA states that compliance with any such standards shall be required on or after a date which is two or three years (depending on equipment size) after the compliance date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE/IES standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) Given the equipment size at issue here, DOE has applied the two-year implementation period to determine the compliance date of any energy conservation standard equal to the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 proposed by this rulemaking. Thus, the compliance date of this final rule for small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after January 1, 2017, which is two years after the date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013.
Economic justification is not required for DOE to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2013, as DOE is statutorily required to, at a minimum, adopt those levels. Therefore, DOE did not perform an LCC analysis on the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels, and for purposes of the LCC analysis, DOE used 2020 as the first year of compliance with amended standards.
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the commercial consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
Similar to the LCC, the inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of the equipment to the commercial consumer for each efficiency level and
The national impact analysis (NIA) evaluates the effects of a considered energy conservation standard from a national perspective rather than from the consumer perspective represented by the LCC. This analysis assesses the net present value (NPV) (future amounts discounted to the present) and the national energy savings (NES) of total commercial consumer costs and savings, which are expected to result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels. For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE calculated the NPV and NES for adopting more-stringent standards than the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013.
The NES refers to cumulative energy savings from 2017 through 2046 for the three equipment classes triggered by ASHRAE; however when evaluating more-stringent standards, energy savings do not begin accruing until the later compliance date of 2020. DOE calculated new energy savings in each year relative to a base case, defined as DOE adoption of the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. DOE also calculated energy savings from adopting efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 compared to the EPCA base case (
For split-system air conditioners, the NES refers to cumulative energy savings from 2019 through 2048 for all standards cases. DOE calculated new energy savings in each year relative to a base case, defined as the current Federal standards, which are equivalent to the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013.
The NPV refers to cumulative monetary savings. DOE calculated net monetary savings in each year relative to the base case (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013) as the difference between total operating cost savings and increases in total installed cost. Cumulative savings are the sum of the annual NPV over the specified period. DOE accounted for operating cost savings until past 2100, when the equipment installed in the 30th year after the compliance date of the amended standards should be retired.
The NES and NPV are a function of the total number of units in use and their efficiencies. Both the NES and NPV depend on annual shipments and equipment lifetime. Both calculations start by using the shipments estimate and the quantity of units in service derived from the shipments model.
With regard to estimating the NES, because more-efficient air conditioners and heat pumps are expected to gradually replace less-efficient ones, the energy per unit of capacity used by the air conditioners and heat pumps in service gradually decreases in the standards case relative to the base case. DOE calculated the NES by subtracting energy use under a standards-case scenario from energy use in a base-case scenario.
Unit energy savings for each equipment class are taken from the LCC spreadsheet for each efficiency level and weighted based on market efficiency distributions. To estimate the total energy savings for each efficiency level, DOE first calculated the national site energy consumption (
DOE considered whether a rebound effect is applicable in its NES analysis. A rebound effect occurs when an increase in equipment efficiency leads to an increased demand for its service. The NEMS model assumes a certain elasticity factor to account for an increased demand for service due to the increase in cooling (or heating) efficiency.
DOE does not expect either of these instances to occur because the annual energy use for this equipment is very low; therefore, the energy cost savings from more-efficient equipment would likely not be high enough to induce a commercial consumer to increase the use of the equipment, either in a previously-cooled space or another previously-uncooled space. Therefore, DOE did not assume a rebound effect in the January 2015 NOPR analysis. DOE sought input from interested parties on whether there will be a rebound effect for improvements in the efficiency of small commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, but did not receive any comment. As a result, DOE has maintained its assumption in this final rule.
To estimate NPV, DOE calculated the net impact as the difference between net operating cost savings (including electricity cost savings and increased repair costs) and increases in total installed costs (including customer prices). DOE calculated the NPV of each considered standard level over the life of the equipment using the following three steps. First, DOE determined the difference between the equipment costs under the standard-level case and the base case in order to obtain the net equipment cost increase resulting from the higher standard level. As noted in
To make the analysis more transparent to all interested parties, DOE used a commercially-available spreadsheet tool to calculate the energy savings and the national economic costs and savings from potential amended standards. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet.
Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES spreadsheet does not use distributions for inputs or outputs, but relies on national average first costs and energy costs developed from the LCC spreadsheet. DOE used the NES spreadsheet to perform calculations of energy savings and NPV using the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the LCC analysis. DOE projected the energy savings, energy cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of benefits for equipment sold in each small commercial air-cooled air conditioner and heat pump class from 2017 through 2046. The projections provided annual and cumulative values for all four output parameters described previously.
Equipment shipments are an important element in the estimate of the future impact of a potential energy conservation standard. DOE developed shipment projections for small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h and, in turn, calculated equipment stock over the course of the analysis period by assuming a Weibull distribution with an average 19-year equipment life for air conditioners and a 16-year life for heat pumps. (See section V.E.7 for more information on lifetime.) DOE used the shipments projection and the equipment stock to determine the NES. The shipments portion of the spreadsheet model projects small commercial air-cooled air conditioner and heat pump shipments through 2046.
DOE relied on 1999 shipment estimates along with trends from the U.S. Census and
Because the Census data end in 2010, DOE cannot use those data to determine whether shipments continue to decline past 2010. Therefore, DOE reviewed AHRI's monthly shipments data for the broader category of central air conditioners and heat pumps to determine more recent trends.
Table V.10 shows the projected shipments for the different equipment classes of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h for selected years from 2017 to 2046, as well as the cumulative shipments. As equipment purchase price and repair costs increase with efficiency, DOE recognizes that higher first costs and repair costs can result in a drop in shipments. However, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE had no basis for estimating the elasticity of shipments for small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h as a function of first costs, repair costs, or operating costs. In addition, because air-cooled air conditioners are likely the lowest-cost option for air conditioning small office and retail applications, DOE tentatively concluded in the NOPR that it is unlikely that shipments would change as a result of higher first costs and repair costs. Therefore, DOE presumed that the shipments projection would not change with higher standard levels. 80 FR 1171, 1196 (Jan. 8, 2015).
DOE sought input on this assumption. In response, Lennox International commented that more stringent efficiency levels increase equipment costs and reduce demand, citing the decline in residential central air conditioner shipments when SEER requirements were raised from 10 to 13.
DOE acknowledges Lennox's concerns. However, DOE does not have data available to estimate the price elasticity for this equipment. Furthermore, DOE does not believe that the commercial market would necessarily respond in a similar manner to an increased standard as would the residential market. Given that even without a drop in shipments, none of the efficiency levels in the NOPR were determined to be economically justified, DOE has not revised its shipments estimates for the final rule.
Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD provides additional details on the shipments projections.
DOE developed base-case efficiency distributions based on model availability in the AHRI Certified Directory. DOE bundled the efficiency levels into “efficiency ranges” and determined the percentage of models within each range. DOE applied the percentages of models within each efficiency range to the total unit shipments for a given equipment class to estimate the distribution of shipments within the base case.
In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE estimated a base-case efficiency trend of an increase of approximately 1 SEER every 35 years, based on the EER trend from 2012 to 2035 found in the Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR).
In addition, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the market shares by efficiency level for the year that compliance would be required with amended standards (
The stock of small commercial air-cooled air conditioner and heat pump equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h is the total number of units in each equipment class purchased or shipped from previous years that have survived until
The national annual energy consumption is the product of the annual unit energy consumption and the number of units of each vintage in the stock, summed over all vintages. This approach accounts for differences in unit energy consumption from year to year. In determining national annual energy consumption, DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors derived from the
In response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in the
In accordance with the OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis, DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on private capital in the U.S. economy. DOE used this discount rate to approximate the opportunity cost of capital in the private sector, because recent OMB analysis has found the average rate of return on capital to be near this rate. DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture the potential effects of standards on private consumption (
Table V.12 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model along with a brief description of the data sources. The results of DOE's NES and NPV analysis are summarized in section VIII.B.1.b and described in detail in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD.
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with respect to water-source heat pumps. A separate subsection addresses each analysis. In overview, DOE used a spreadsheet to calculate the LCC and PBPs of potential energy conservation standards. DOE used another spreadsheet to provide shipments projections and then calculate national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards.
To begin its review of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels, DOE developed information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity included both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market assessment for this rulemaking include
As proposed in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE is adopting the following definition for water-source heat pumps, adapted from the ASHRAE Handbook
EPCA and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 both divide water-source heat pumps into three categories based on the following cooling capacity ranges: (1) <17,000 Btu/h; (2) ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h; and (3) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE 90.1-2013 revised the nomenclature for these equipment classes to refer to “water-to-air, water-loop.” In this document, DOE is revising the nomenclature for these equipment classes (but not the broader category) to match that used by ASHRAE. Specifically, DOE revises Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 and Tables 1 and 2 to 10 CFR 431.97 to refer to “water-source (water-to-air, water-loop)” heat pumps rather than simply “water-source” heat pumps. Throughout this final rule, any reference to water-source heat pump equipment classes should be considered as referring to water-to-air, water-loop heat pumps.
In order to obtain the information needed for the market assessment for this rulemaking, DOE consulted a variety of sources, including manufacturer literature, manufacturer Web sites, and the AHRI certified directory.
DOE identified the same trade groups relevant to water-source heat pumps as to those listed in section V.A.2.a for small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, namely AHRI, HARDI, and ACCA. DOE used data available from AHRI in its analysis, as described in the next section.
DOE reviewed data for water-source (water-to-air, water-loop) heat pumps currently on the market by examining the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance. DOE identified 18 parent companies (comprising 21 manufacturers) of water-source (water-to-air, water-loop) heat pumps, which are listed in chapter 2 of the final rule TSD. Of these manufacturers, seven were identified as small businesses based upon number of employees and the employee thresholds set by the Small Business Administration. More details on this analysis can be found below in section IX.B.
DOE reviewed the AHRI database to characterize the efficiency and performance of water-source (water-to-air, water-loop) heat pump models currently on the market. The full results of this market characterization are found in chapter 2 of the final rule TSD. For water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, the average EER was 13.8, and the average coefficient of performance (COP) was 4.7. Of the models identified by DOE, 34 (six percent of the total models) have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels, and 30 (five percent of the total models) have COPs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels. For water-source heat pumps greater than or equal to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h, the average EER was 15.2, and the average COP was 4.9. Of the models identified by DOE, 72 (two percent of the total models) have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels, and 133 (four percent of the total models) have COPs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels. For water-source heat pumps greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h, the average EER was 14.7, and the average COP was 4.8. Of the models identified by DOE, five (one percent of the total models) have EERs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels, and two (0.5 percent of the total models) have COPs rated below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels.
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between an increase in energy efficiency and the increase in cost (manufacturer selling price (MSP)) of a piece of equipment DOE is evaluating for potential amended energy conservation standards. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. The engineering analysis identifies representative baseline equipment, which is the starting point for analyzing possible energy efficiency improvements. For covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE sets the baseline for analysis at the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, because by statute, DOE cannot adopt any level below the revised ASHRAE level. The engineering analysis then identifies higher efficiency levels and the incremental increase in product cost associated with achieving the higher efficiency levels. After identifying the baseline models and cost of achieving increased efficiency, DOE estimates the additional costs to the commercial consumer through an analysis of contractor costs and markups, and uses that information in the downstream analyses to examine the costs and benefits associated with increased equipment efficiency.
DOE typically structures its engineering analysis around one of three methodologies: (1) The design-option approach, which calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which calculates the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and/or (3) the reverse-engineering or cost-assessment approach, which involves a “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessment based on a detailed bill of materials derived from teardowns of the equipment being analyzed. A supplementary method called a catalog teardown uses published manufacturer catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the major physical differences between a piece of equipment that has been physically
As discussed in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE used a combination of the efficiency-level approach and the cost-assessment approach. 80 FR 1171, 1200 (Jan. 8, 2015). DOE used the efficiency-level approach to identify incremental improvements in efficiency for each equipment class and the cost-assessment approach to develop a cost for each efficiency level. The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering analysis were representative of commercial water-source heat pumps currently produced by manufacturers at the time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data reported in the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance to select representative efficiency levels. This directory reported EER, COP, heating and cooling capacities, and other data for all three application types (water-loop, ground-water, ground-loop) for all AHRI-certified units. After identifying representative efficiency levels, DOE used a catalog teardown or “virtual teardown” approach to estimate equipment costs at each level. DOE obtained general descriptions of key water-source heat pump components in product literature and used data collected for dozens of HVAC products to characterize the components' design details. This approach was used instead of the physical teardown approach due to time constraints.
In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE noted the drawbacks to using a catalog teardown approach. 80 FR 1171, 1200 (Jan. 8, 2015). However, DOE tentatively concluded the approach provided a reasonable approximation of all cost increases associated with efficiency increases. DOE did not receive any comments that rejected this conclusion, and therefore, adopts it in this Final Rule.
After selecting efficiency levels for each capacity class, as described in the sections that follow, DOE selected products for the catalog teardown analysis that corresponded to the representative efficiencies and cooling capacities. The engineering analysis included data for over 60 water-source heat pumps. DOE calculated the MPC for products spanning the full range of efficiencies from the baseline to the max-tech level for each analyzed equipment class. In some cases, catalog data providing sufficient information for cost analysis were not available at each efficiency level under consideration. Hence, DOE calculated the costs for some of the efficiency levels based on the cost/efficiency trends observed for other efficiency levels for which such catalog data were available. The engineering analysis is described in more detail in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
DOE selected baseline efficiency levels as reference points for each equipment class, against which it measured changes resulting from potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE defined the baseline efficiency levels as reference points to compare the technology, energy savings, and cost of equipment with higher energy efficiency levels. Typically, units at the baseline efficiency level just meet Federal energy conservation standards and provide basic consumer utility. However, EPCA requires that DOE must adopt either the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels or more-stringent levels. Therefore, because the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels were the lowest levels that DOE could adopt, DOE used those levels as the reference points against which more-stringent levels could be evaluated. Table VI.1 shows the current baseline and ASHRAE efficiency levels for each water-source heat pump equipment class. In Table VI.2 below, the ASHRAE levels are designated “0” and more-stringent levels are designated 1, 2, and so on.
DOE developed and considered potential increased energy efficiency levels for each equipment class. These more-stringent efficiency levels are representative of efficiency levels along the technology paths that manufacturers of residential heating products commonly use to maintain cost-effective designs while increasing energy efficiency. DOE developed more-stringent energy efficiency levels for each of the equipment classes, based on a review of AHRI's Directory of Certified Product Performance, manufacturer catalogs, and other publicly-available literature. The efficiency levels selected for analysis for each water-source heat pump equipment class are shown in Table VI.2. Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD shows additional details on the efficiency levels selected for analysis.
The results of the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency curves based on results from the cost models for analyzed units. DOE's calculated MPCs for the three analyzed classes of water-source heat pumps are shown in Table VI.3. DOE used the cost-efficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an input for the life-cycle cost and PBP analysis. Further details regarding MPCs for water-source heat pumps may be found in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
As discussed in detail in section V.B.4.a, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the full MPC to account for corporate non-production costs and profit. The resulting manufacturer selling price (MSP) is the price at which the manufacturer can recover all production and nonproduction costs and earn a profit. Because water-source heat pumps and commercial air-cooled equipment are sold by similar heating and cooling product manufacturers, DOE used the same manufacturer markup of 1.3 that was developed for small commercial air-cooled air-conditioners and heat pumps, as described in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
Manufacturers of commercial HVAC equipment typically pay for freight (shipping) to the first step in the distribution chain. Freight is not a manufacturing cost, but because it is a substantial cost incurred by the manufacturer, DOE accounts for shipping costs separately from other non-production costs that comprise the manufacturer markup. DOE calculated the MSP for water-source heat pumps by multiplying the MPC at each efficiency level (determined from the cost model) by the manufacturer markup and adding shipping costs. Shipping costs for water-source heat pumps were calculated similarly to those for small commercial air-cooled air-conditioners and heat pumps described in section V.B.4.b. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for more details about DOE's shipping cost assumptions and the shipping costs per unit for each water-source heat pump product class.
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to convert the estimates of manufacturer selling price derived in the engineering analysis to commercial consumer prices.
For water-source heat pumps, DOE used the same markups that DOE developed for small commercial air-cooled air-conditioners and heat pumps, as discussed in section V.C. DOE understands that all the types of equipment move through the same distribution channels and that, therefore, using the same markups is reasonable. In addition, DOE's development of markups within those channels is at the broader equipment category level, in this case heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment. As with small commercial air-cooled equipment, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE did not use national accounts in its markups analysis for water-source heat pumps, because DOE does not believe that the commercial consumers of water-source heat pump
Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides further detail on the estimation of markups.
The energy use analysis provides estimates of the annual energy consumption of water-source heat pumps at the considered efficiency levels. DOE uses these values in the LCC and PBP analyses and in the NIA.
The cooling unit energy consumption (UEC) by equipment type and efficiency level used in the January 2015 NOPR came from Appendix D of the 2000 Screening Analysis for EPACT-Covered Commercial HVAC and Water-Heating Equipment. (EERE-2006-STD-0098-0015). 80 FR 1171, 1202. Where identical efficiency levels were available, DOE used the UEC directly from the screening analysis. For additional efficiency levels, DOE scaled the UECs based on the ratio of EER, as was done in the original analysis. DOE also adjusted the cooling energy use from the 2000 Screening Analysis using factors from the NEMS commercial demand module that account for improvements in building shell characteristics and changes in internal load as a function of region and building activity.
In response to the January 2015 NOPR, NEEA commented that DOE should revise its energy analysis for water-source heat pumps by factoring in the oversizing of equipment, which leads to additional energy use. In addition, NEEA also noted that in the field, FLEOH does not scale proportionally with EER at higher EER levels, instead decreasing at a higher rate as a result of better part load performance. (NEEA, No. 41 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that the original 2000 Screening Analysis sized equipment based on design-day peak load and did not explicitly account for oversizing, and as such may be a conservative estimate of energy usage. However, the uncertainty in the energy use analysis that was cited in the January 2015 NOPR extends well beyond the sizing factors. 80 FR 1171, 1225−1226 (Jan. 8, 2015). For example, DOE has no data on distribution by building type or field data to corroborate UEC estimates or simulations results. Furthermore, DOE has no data with which to modify the scaling of UEC with EER. While altering its assumptions on sizing and UEC scaling could impact the analytical results, it would not change DOE's fundamental determination that there is too much uncertainty in the energy use and other analyses to justify a standard level more stringent than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2013. Therefore, given the lack of available data and lack of potential impact on the policy decision, DOE has not modified the cooling side energy use for the final rule.
In the January 2015 NOPR, to characterize the heating-side performance, DOE analyzed CBECS 2003 data to develop a national-average annual energy use per square foot for buildings that use heat pumps. 80 FR 1171, 1202 (Jan. 8, 2015). DOE assumed that the average COP of the commercial unitary heat pump (CUHP) was 2.9.
Because equipment energy use is a function of efficiency, DOE assumed that the annual heating energy consumption of a unit scales proportionally with its heating COP efficiency level. Finally, to determine the COPs of units with given EERs, DOE correlated COP to EER based on the AHRI Certified Equipment Database.
In order to create variability in the cooling and heating UECs by region and building type, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE used a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report
The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects of potential amended energy conservation standards on commercial consumers of water-source heat pumps by determining how a potential amended standard affects their operating expenses (usually decreased) and their total installed costs (usually increased).
The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the equipment, consisting of equipment and installation costs plus operating costs (
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimate of the base-case efficiency level. For water-source
DOE conducted an LCC and PBP analysis for water-source heat pumps using a computer spreadsheet model. When combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially-available software program), the LCC and PBP model generates a Monte Carlo simulation to perform the analyses by incorporating uncertainty and variability considerations in certain of the key parameters as discussed below. Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the total installed cost and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense. The following sections contain brief discussions of comments on the inputs and key assumptions of DOE's LCC and PBP analysis and explain how DOE took these comments into consideration. They are also described in detail in chapter 6 of the final rule TSD.
In the LCC and PBP analysis, the equipment costs faced by purchasers of water-source heat pumps are derived from the MSPs estimated in the engineering analysis, the overall markups estimated in the markups analysis, and sales tax.
To develop an equipment price trend, DOE derived an inflation-adjusted index of the PPI for “all other miscellaneous refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment” from 1990-2013, which is the PPI series most relevant to water-source heat pumps. Although the inflation-adjusted index shows a declining trend from 1990 to 2004, data since 2008 have shown a flat-to-slightly rising trend. Given the uncertainty as to which of the trends will prevail in coming years, DOE chose to apply a constant price trend (at 2013 levels) for each efficiency level in each equipment class for the final rule. See chapter 6 of the final rule TSD for more information on the price trends.
DOE derived installation costs for water-source heat pump equipment from current RS Means data (2013).
Based on these data, DOE concluded that data for 1-ton, 3-ton, and 7.5-ton water-source heat pumps would be sufficiently representative of the installation costs for of water-source heat pumps with capacities of less than 17,000 btu/h, greater than or equal to 17,000 and less than 65,000 btu/h, and greater than or equal to 65,000 and less than 135,000 btu/h, respectively.
DOE also varied installation cost as a function of equipment weight. Because weight tends to increase with equipment efficiency, installation cost increased with equipment efficiency. The weight of the equipment in each class and efficiency level was determined through the engineering analysis.
The calculation of annual per-unit energy consumption by each class of the subject water-source heat pumps at each considered efficiency level based on the energy use analysis is described above in section VI.D and in chapter 4 of the final rule TSD.
DOE used the same average and marginal electricity prices and electricity price trends as discussed in the methodology for small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps (see section V.E.4). These data were developed for the broader commercial air-conditioning category and, thus, are also relevant to water-source heat pumps.
Maintenance costs are costs to the commercial consumer of ensuring continued operation of the equipment (
Repair costs are costs to the commercial consumer associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed. As with maintenance costs, RS Means does not provide repair costs for water-source heat pumps. Therefore, DOE assumed the repair costs for water-source heat pumps would be similar to air-source units and utilized RS Means
Equipment lifetime is the age at which the subject water-source heat pumps are retired from service. In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE based equipment lifetime on a retirement function in the form of a Weibull probability distribution, with a mean of 19 years. 80 FR 1171, 1204 (Jan. 8, 2015). Because a function specific to water-source heat pumps was not available, DOE used the function for air-cooled air conditioners presented in the 2011 DFR (EERE-2011-BT-STD-0011-0012), as it is for similar equipment and represented the desired mean lifetime of 19 years. In the NOPR, DOE requested data and information that would help it develop a retirement function specific to water-source heat pumps. DOE did not receive any comments, and as such retained the same Weibull distribution in the final rule.
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are discounted to estimate their present value. The cost of capital commonly is used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) to the firm of equity and debt financing. DOE uses the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to calculate the equity capital component, and financial data sources to calculate the cost of debt financing.
DOE derived the discount rates by estimating the cost of capital of companies that purchase water-source heat pump equipment. More details regarding DOE's estimates of commercial consumer discount rates are provided in chapter 6 of the final rule TSD.
For the LCC analysis, DOE analyzes the considered efficiency levels relative to a base case (
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all commercial consumers as if each were to purchase new equipment in the year that compliance with amended standards is required. Generally, covered equipment to which a new or amended energy conservation standard applies must comply with the standard if such equipment is manufactured or imported on or after a specified date. In this final rule, DOE has evaluated whether more-stringent efficiency levels than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 would be technologically feasible, economically justified, and result in a significant additional amount of energy savings and has declined to implement more stringent efficiency levels. EPCA states that compliance with any such standards shall be required on or after a date which is two or three years (depending on equipment size) after the compliance date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE/IES standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) Given the equipment size at issue here, DOE has applied the two-year implementation period to water-source heat pumps manufactured on or after October 9, 2015, which is two years after the publication date of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013.
Economic justification is not required for DOE to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2013, as DOE is statutorily required to, at a minimum, adopt those levels. Therefore, DOE did not perform an LCC analysis on the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels, and, for purposes of the LCC analysis, DOE used 2020 as the first year of compliance with amended standards.
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the commercial consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
Similar to the LCC, the inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of the equipment to the commercial consumer for each efficiency level and the average annual operating expenditures for each efficiency level for each building type and Census Division, weighted by the probability of shipment to each market. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that discount rates are not needed. Because the simple PBP does not take into account changes in operating expenses over time or the time value of money, DOE considered only the first year's operating expenses to calculate the PBP, unlike the LCC, which is calculated over the lifetime of the equipment. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides additional detail about the PBP.
The NIA evaluates the effects of a considered energy conservation standard from a national perspective rather than from the consumer perspective represented by the LCC. This analysis assesses the NPV (future amounts discounted to the present) and the NES of total commercial consumer costs and savings, which are expected to result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels. For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE calculated the NPV and NES for adopting more-stringent standards than the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013.
The NES refers to cumulative energy savings from 2016 through 2045;
The NPV refers to cumulative monetary savings. DOE calculated net monetary savings in each year relative to the base case (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013) as the difference between total operating cost savings and increases in total installed cost.
The NES and NPV are a function of the total number of units and their efficiencies. Both the NES and NPV depend on annual shipments and equipment lifetime. Both calculations start by using the shipments estimate and the quantity of units in service derived from the shipments model. DOE used the same approach to determine NES and NPV for water-source heat pumps which was used for small commercial air-cooled air-conditioning and heating equipment, as described in section V.F.1. In this case, the analysis period runs from 2016 through 2045.
In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE considered whether a rebound effect is applicable in its NES analysis, a concept explained in detail in section V.F. 1. 80 FR 1171, 1205 (Jan. 8, 2015). DOE did not expect commercial consumers with water-source heat pump equipment to increase their use of the equipment, either in a previously cooled space or another previously uncooled space. Water-source heat pumps are part of engineered water-loop systems designed for specific applications. It is highly unlikely that the operation or installation of these systems would be changed simply as a result of energy cost savings. Therefore, DOE did not assume a rebound effect in the NOPR analysis. DOE sought input from interested parties on whether there will be a rebound effect for improvements in the efficiency of water-source heat pumps, but did not receive any comment. As a result, DOE retained its assumptions in this final rule.
Equipment shipments are an important element in the estimate of the future impact of a potential energy conservation standard. DOE developed shipment projections for water-source heat pumps and, in turn, calculated equipment stock over the course of the analysis period by assuming a Weibull distribution with an average 19-year equipment life. (See section V.E.7 for more information on equipment lifetime.) DOE used the shipments projection and the equipment stock to determine the NES. The shipments portion of the spreadsheet model projects water-source heat pump shipments through 2045.
DOE based its shipments analysis for water-source heat pumps on data from the U.S. Census. The U.S. Census published historical (1980, 1983-1994, 1997-2006, and 2008-2010) water-source heat pump shipment data.
Table VI.6 shows the projected shipments for the different equipment classes of water-source heat pumps for selected years from 2016 to 2045, as well as the cumulative shipments.
As equipment purchase price and repair costs increase with efficiency, DOE recognizes that higher first costs and repair costs can result in a drop in shipments. However, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE had no basis for estimating the elasticity of shipments for water-source heat pumps as a function of first costs, repair costs, or operating costs. 80 FR 1171, 1206 (Jan. 8, 2015). In addition, because water-source heat pumps are often installed for their higher efficiency as compared to air-cooled equipment, DOE had tentatively concluded in the January 2015 NOPR that it was unlikely that shipments would change as a result of higher first costs and repair costs. Therefore, DOE presumed that the shipments projection would not change with higher standard levels. DOE sought input on this assumption in the January 2015 NOPR.
DOE acknowledges Lennox's concerns. However, DOE does not have data available to estimate the price elasticity for this equipment. Given that even without a drop in shipments, none of the efficiency levels in the January 2015 NOPR were determined to be economically justified, DOE has not revised its shipments estimates for this final rule. Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD provides additional details on the shipments forecasts.
DOE estimated base-case efficiency distributions based on model availability in the AHRI certified directory. In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE also estimated a base-case efficiency trend of an increase of approximately 1 EER every 35 years, based on the trend from 2012 to 2035 found in the Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR).
For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the market shares by efficiency level for the first full year that compliance would be required with amended standards (
The stock of water-source heat pump equipment is the total number of units in each equipment class purchased or shipped from previous years that have survived until a given point in time. The NES spreadsheet,
The national annual energy consumption is the product of the annual unit energy consumption and the number of units of each vintage in the stock, summed over all vintages. This approach accounts for differences in unit energy consumption from year to year. In determining national annual energy consumption, DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors derived from the
In response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in the
Table VI.8 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model along with a brief description of the data sources. The results of DOE's NES and NPV analysis are summarized in section VIII.B.2.b and described in detail in chapter 7 of the final rule TSD.
In the emissions analysis, DOE estimates the reduction in power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
DOE primarily conducted the emissions analysis using emissions factors for CO
EIA prepares the
SO
The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Beginning in 2016, however, SO
CAIR established a cap on NO
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps. DOE estimated mercury emissions using emissions factors based on
As part of the development of this final rule, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO
For this final rule, DOE relied on a set of values for the social cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by a Federal interagency process. The basis for these values is summarized in the next section, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided in dollars per metric ton of CO
Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, “assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of reducing CO
As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of CO
Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing CO
It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO
After the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate the SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed.
Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models, while respecting the different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers' best estimates and judgments.
In 2010, the interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from the three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, was included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects,
The SCC values used for this document were generated using the most recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.
Table VII.2 shows the updated sets of SCC estimates from the 2013 interagency update in 5-year increments from 2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC estimates between 2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix 10B of the final rule TSD. The central value that emerges is the average SCC across models at the 3-percent discount rate. However, for purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, the interagency group emphasizes the importance of including all four sets of SCC values.
It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable because they will evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The 2009 National Research Council report mentioned previously points out that there is tension between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of analytical challenges that are being addressed by the research community, including research programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the interagency process to estimate the SCC. The interagency group intends to periodically review and reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling.
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO
DOE multiplied the CO
In response to the NOPR, the Associations stated that DOE should not use SCC values to establish monetary figures for emissions reductions until the SCC undergoes a more rigorous notice, review, and comment process. (The Associations, No. 37 at p. 4) In conducting the interagency process that developed the SCC values, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. Key uncertainties and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates. These uncertainties and model differences are discussed in the interagency working group's reports, which are reproduced in appendix 10A and 10B of the final rule TSD, as are the major assumptions. The 2010 SCC values have been used in a number of Federal rulemakings in which the public had opportunity to comment. In November 2013, the OMB announced a new opportunity for public comment on the TSD underlying the revised SCC estimates. See 78 FR 70586 (Nov. 26, 2013). OMB is currently reviewing comments and considering whether further revisions to the 2013 SCC estimates are warranted. DOE stands ready to work with OMB and the other members of the interagency working group on further review and revision of the SCC estimates as appropriate.
As noted previously, DOE has taken into account how considered energy conservation standards would reduce site NO
DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided SO
The methodology for small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h was presented in section V of this this final rule. Table VIII.1 presents the market baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment class of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h subject to this rule. The EPCA baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE
The methodology for water-source heat pumps was presented in section VI of this final rule. Table VIII.2 presents the baseline efficiency level and the more-stringent efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment class of water-source heat pumps subject to this rule. The baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 and more-stringent efficiency levels where equipment is currently available on the market.
Table VIII.3 presents the baseline efficiency level and the more-stringent efficiency levels analyzed for the class of oil-fired storage water heaters subject to this rule. The baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 and more-stringent efficiency levels where equipment is currently available on the market.
To evaluate the net economic impact of potential amended energy conservation standards on commercial consumers of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses for each efficiency level. In general, higher-efficiency equipment would affect commercial consumers in two ways: (1) Purchase price would increase, and (2) annual operating costs would decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (
The output of the LCC model is a mean LCC savings (or cost
DOE also performed a PBP analysis as part of the LCC analysis. The PBP is the number of years it would take for the commercial consumer to recover the increased costs of higher-efficiency equipment as a result of energy savings based on the operating cost savings. The PBP is an economic benefit-cost measure that uses benefits and costs without discounting. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
DOE's LCC and PBP analyses provided five key outputs for each efficiency level above the baseline (
Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table VIII.4 through Table VIII.11 show the LCC and PBP results for all efficiency levels considered for each class of small commercial air-cooled air conditioner and heat pump in this final rule. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline equipment (
To estimate the lifetime energy savings for equipment shipped through 2046 (or 2048) due to amended energy conservation standards, DOE compared the energy consumption of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels (or current Federal levels for split-system air conditioners) to energy consumption of the same small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps under more-stringent efficiency standards. For the three equipment classes triggered by ASHRAE, DOE also compared the energy consumption of those small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels to energy consumption of small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps under the current EPCA base case (
The NPV analysis is a measure of the cumulative commercial consumer benefit or cost of standards to the Nation. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003)), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. Table VIII.16 and Table VIII.17 provide an overview of the NPV results. (See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for further detail.)
Table VIII.18 through Table VIII.23 show the LCC and PBP results for all efficiency levels considered for each class of water-source heat pump in this final rule. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline equipment (
To estimate the lifetime energy savings for equipment shipped through 2045 due to amended energy conservation standards, DOE compared the energy consumption of commercial water-source heat pumps under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels to energy consumption of the same water-source heat pumps under more-stringent efficiency standards. DOE also compared the energy consumption of those commercial water-source heat pumps under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 efficiency levels to energy consumption of commercial water-source heat pumps under the current EPCA base case (
Table VIII.27 and Table VIII.28 provide an overview of the NPV results. (See chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for further detail.)
DOE estimated the potential primary energy savings in quads (
DOE did not conduct an economic analysis for this oil-fired storage water heater equipment category because of the minimal energy savings.
An improvement in the energy efficiency of the equipment subject to this rule, where economically justified, is likely to improve the security of the nation's energy system by reducing overall demand for energy, to strengthen the economy, and to reduce the environmental impacts or costs of energy production. Reduced electricity demand may also improve the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. Reductions in national electric generating capacity estimated for each efficiency level considered in this rulemaking, throughout the same analysis period as the NIA, are reported in chapter 11 of the final rule TSD.
Energy savings from amended standards for the small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, water-source heat pumps, and oil-fired storage water heaters covered in this final rule could also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
Table VIII.30 and Table VIII.31 provide DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions projected to result from the efficiency levels analyzed in this rulemaking.
As part of the analysis for this final rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
Table VIII.32 and Table VIII.33 present the global value of CO
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO
DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic benefits associated with NO
Table VIII.34 and Table VIII.35 present the present value of cumulative NO
As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if “clear and convincing evidence” shows that a more-stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) This requirement also applies to split-system air conditioners evaluated under the 6-year look back. (42 U.S.C. 6313)(a)(6)(C)(i)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE reviewed the results in terms of their technological feasibility, significance of energy savings, and economic justification.
DOE has concluded that all of the SEER and HSPF levels considered by DOE are technologically feasible, as units with equivalent efficiency appeared to be available in the current market at all levels examined.
DOE examined the potential energy savings that would result from the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 and compared these to the potential energy savings that would result from efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. DOE estimates that 0.05 quads of energy would be saved if DOE adopts the efficiency levels set in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for each small air-cooled air conditioner and heat pump class specified in that standard. If DOE were to adopt efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, the potential additional energy savings range from 0.02 quads to 0.45 quads. Associated with proposing more-stringent efficiency levels for the three triggered equipment classes is a three-year delay in implementation compared to the adoption of energy conservation standards at the levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (see section V.E.10). This delay in implementation of amended energy conservation standards would result in a small amount of energy savings being lost in the first years (2017 through 2020) compared to the savings from adopting the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013; however, this loss may be compensated for by increased savings in later years. Taken in isolation, the energy savings associated with more-stringent standards might be considered significant enough to warrant adoption of such standards. However, as noted previously, energy savings are not the only factor that DOE must consider.
In considering whether potential standards are economically justified, DOE also examined the LCC savings and national NPV that would result from adopting efficiency levels more stringent than those set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. The analytical results show negative average LCC savings and negative national NPV at both 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate for all efficiency levels in all four equipment classes. These results indicate that adoption of efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 as Federal energy conservation standards would likely lead to negative economic outcomes for the Nation. Consequently, this criterion for adoption of more-stringent standard levels does not appear to have been met.
As such, DOE does not have “clear and convincing evidence” that any significant additional conservation of energy that would result from adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 would be economically justified. Comments on the NOPR did not provide any additional information to alter this conclusion. Therefore, DOE is adopting amended energy efficiency levels for this equipment as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. For split-system air conditioners, for which the efficiency level was not updated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, DOE is making a determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended for the reasons stated above. Table VIII.36 presents the amended energy conservation standards and compliance dates for small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h.
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for water-source heat pumps than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, DOE reviewed the results in terms of their technological feasibility, significance of energy savings, and economic justification.
DOE has concluded that all of the EER and COP levels considered by DOE are technologically feasible, as units with equivalent efficiency appeared to be available in the current market at all levels examined.
DOE examined the potential energy savings that would result from the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 and compared these to the potential energy savings that would result from efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. DOE does not estimate any energy savings from adopting the levels set in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, as very few models exist on the market below that level, and by 2020, DOE expects those models to be off the market. If DOE were to adopt efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, the potential additional energy savings range from 0.03 quads to 1.0 quads. Associated with proposing more-stringent efficiency levels is a four-and-a-half-year delay in implementation compared to the adoption of energy conservation standards at the levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (see section VI.E.10). This delay in implementation of amended energy conservation standards would result in a small amount of energy savings being lost in the first years (2016 through 2020) compared to the savings from adopting the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013; however, this loss may be compensated for by increased savings in later years. Taken in isolation, the energy savings associated with more-stringent standards might be considered significant enough to warrant adoption of such standards. However, as noted above, energy savings are not the only factor that DOE must consider.
In considering whether potential standards are economically justified, DOE also examined the NPV that would result from adopting efficiency levels more stringent than those set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. With a 7-percent discount rate, EL 1 results in positive NPV, and ELs 2 through 5 result in negative NPV. With a 3-percent discount rate, ELs 1 and 2 create positive NPV, while ELs 3 through 5 result in negative NPVs. These results indicate that adoption of efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 as Federal energy conservation standards might lead to negative economic outcomes for the Nation, except at EL1, which offers very little energy savings.
Furthermore, although DOE based it analyses on the best available data when examining the potential energy savings and the economic justification of efficiency levels more stringent than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, DOE believes there are several limitations regarding that data which should be considered before proposing amended energy conservation standards for water-source heat pumps.
First, DOE reexamined the uncertainty in its analysis of water-source heat pumps. As noted in section VI.D, DOE relied on cooling energy use estimates from a 2000 study. While DOE applied a scaling factor to attempt to account for changes in buildings since 2000, this is only a rough estimate. DOE considered running building simulations by applying a water-source heat pump module to reference buildings. However, DOE has been unable to obtain reliable information on the distribution of water-source heat pump applications. Therefore, it is not clear which building types would be most useful to simulate and how DOE would weight the results of the simulations. Furthermore, DOE has no field data with which to corroborate the results of the simulations. The analysis of heating energy use is also very uncertain; DOE relied on estimates for air-source heat pumps, but it is unclear whether water-source heat pumps would have similar heating usage, as they tend to be used in different applications. Any inaccuracy in UEC directly impacts the energy savings estimates and consumer impacts.
Second, in developing its analysis, DOE made refinements to various inputs, such as heating UEC and repair cost. DOE observed that the NPV results were highly sensitive to small changes in these inputs, with NPV for EL 2, for example, changing from positive to negative and back over several iterations. This model sensitivity, combined with high uncertainty in various inputs, makes it difficult for DOE to determine that the results provide clear and convincing evidence that higher standards would be economically justified.
Third, DOE relied on shipments estimates from the U.S. Census. As noted in the January 2015 NOPR, these estimates are considerably higher than those found in an EIA report. 80 FR 1171, 1206. Furthermore, DOE disaggregated the shipments into equipment class using data from over a decade ago. Although DOE requested comment, DOE has not received any information or data regarding the shipments of this equipment. Any inaccuracy in the shipment projection in total or by equipment class contributes to the uncertainty of the energy savings results and, thus, makes it difficult for DOE to determine that any additional energy savings are significant.
Fourth, due to the limited data on the existing distribution of shipments by efficiency level or historical efficiency trends, DOE was not able to assess possible future changes in either the available efficiencies of equipment in the water-source heat pump market or the sales distribution of shipments by efficiency level in the absence of setting more-stringent standards. Instead, DOE applied an efficiency trend from a commercial air conditioner rulemaking published 10 years ago. DOE recognizes that manufacturers may continue to make future improvements in water-source heat pump efficiencies even in the absence of mandated energy conservation standards. In particular,
In light of the above, DOE would again restate the statutory test for adopting energy conservation standards more stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE must have “clear and convincing” evidence in order to propose efficiency levels more stringent than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, and for the reasons explained in this document, the totality of information does not meet the level necessary to support these more-stringent efficiency levels for water-source heat pumps. Consequently, although certain stakeholders have recommended that DOE adopt higher efficiency levels for one water-source heat pump class (as discussed in section III.B), DOE has decided to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 as amended energy conservation standards for all three water-source heat pump equipment classes. Accordingly, Table VIII.37 presents the amended energy conservation standards and compliance dates for water-source heat pumps.
EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if “clear and convincing evidence” shows that a more-stringent standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for oil-fired storage water-heating equipment than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, DOE reviewed the results in terms of the significance of their additional energy savings. DOE believes that the energy savings from increasing national energy conservation standards for oil-fired storage water heaters above the levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 would be minimal. As noted in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE does not have “clear and convincing evidence” that significant additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more-stringent standard levels. 80 FR 1171, 1226-27. Comments on the NOPR did not provide any additional information to alter this conclusion. Therefore, DOE did not examine whether the levels are economically justified, and DOE is adopting the energy efficiency levels for this equipment type as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. Table VIII.38 presents the amended energy conservation standard and compliance date for oil-fired storage water heaters.
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The problems that the adopted standards for small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, water-source heat pumps, and oil-fired storage water heaters address are as follows:
(1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
(2) In some cases the benefits of more efficient equipment are not realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An example of such a case is when the equipment purchase decision is made by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy costs.
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, water-source heat pumps, and oil-fired storage water heaters that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to public health, environmental protection, and national energy security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global warming. DOE attempts to quantify some of the external benefits through use of social cost of carbon values.
In addition, DOE has determined that the proposed regulatory action is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this rule, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011) EO 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, OIRA has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that this final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For manufacturers of small air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, water-source heat pumps, and oil-fired storage water heaters, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and 77 FR 49991, 50000 (August 20, 2012), as codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at
DOE examined each of the manufacturers it found during its market assessment and used publicly-available information to determine if any manufacturers identified qualify as a small business under the SBA guidelines discussed previously. (For a list of all manufacturers of ASHRAE equipment covered by this rule, see chapter 2 of the final rule TSD.) DOE's research involved individual company Web sites and marketing research tools (
Based on reviews of product listing data in the AHRI Directory for commercial equipment, DOE estimates that small manufacturers account for less than 1 percent of the market for covered three-phase central air conditioner equipment and less than 5 percent of the market for covered water-source heat pump equipment. In the oil-fired storage water heat market, DOE understands that one of the small manufacturers is a significant player in the market. That manufacturer accounts for 34 percent of product listings. DOE believes that the remaining oil-fired storage water heater manufacturers account for less than 5 percent of the market.
DOE has reviewed this rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. As part of this rulemaking, DOE examined the potential impacts of amended standard levels on manufacturers, as well as the potential implications of the proposed revisions to the commercial warm air furnace test procedures on compliance burdens.
DOE examined the impact of raising the standards to the amended levels by examining the distribution of efficiencies of commercially-available models in the AHRI Directory. For water-source heat pumps and oil-fired storage water heaters, DOE found that all manufacturers in the directory, including the small manufacturers, already offer equipment at and above the amended standards. While these small manufacturers would have to discontinue a fraction of their models in order to comply with the standards adopted in this rulemaking, DOE does not believe that there would be a significant burden placed on industry,
For small commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE found one small manufacturer of single-package units in the directory with no models that could meet the adopted ASHRAE levels.
To estimate the impacts of the amended standard, DOE researched prior energy conservation standard analyses of the covered equipment, as well as any analyses of comparable single-phase products. The 2011 direct final rule for residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps included analysis for a 14 SEER efficiency level for split-system as well as single-package air conditioners and heat pumps. 76 FR 37408 (June 27, 2011). The 2011 analysis indicated that manufacturers would need to include additional heat exchanger surface area and to include modulating components to reach the 14 SEER level from a 13 SEER baseline. The 2011 analyses further concluded that these improvements could be made without significant investments in equipment and production assets. The amended levels for oil-fired storage water heaters or water-source heat pumps have not been analyzed as a part of any prior energy conservation standard rulemakings.
However, DOE understands that the ASHRAE standards were developed through an industry consensus process, which included consideration of manufacturer input, including the impacts to small manufacturers, when increasing the efficiency of equipment. Because EPCA requires DOE to adopt the ASHRAE levels or to propose higher standards, DOE is limited in terms of the steps it can take to mitigate impacts to small businesses, but DOE reasons that such mitigation has already occurred since small manufacturers had input into the development of the industry consensus standard that DOE is statutorily required to adopt.
As for the specific changes being adopted for the commercial warm air furnace test procedure, the test procedures (ANSI Z21.47-2012 and ASHRAE 103-2007) that DOE is incorporating by reference do not include any updates to the methodology in those sections utilized in the DOE test procedure. Thus, DOE has concluded that this test procedure rulemaking would keep the DOE test procedure current with the latest version of the applicable industry testing standards, but it will not change the methodology used to generate ratings of commercial warm air furnaces. Consequently, the test procedure amendments would not be expected to have a substantive impact on manufacturers, either large or small.
For the reasons stated previously, DOE did not prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the final rule. DOE will transmit its certification and a supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Manufacturers of the ASHRAE equipment subject to this final rule must certify to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment according to the applicable DOE test procedures for the relevant ASHRAE equipment, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including the ASHRAE equipment in this final rule. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is available at
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
DOE has concluded that this final rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the UMRA.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth amended energy conservation standards for certain types of ASHRAE equipment, is not a significant energy action because the standards are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the final rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” Id at FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
In this final rule, DOE updates its incorporations by reference to two industry standards related to the test procedure for commercial warm-air furnaces in 10 CFR 431.76. These standards include ANSI Z21.47-2012, “
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
(b)
(1) ANSI Z21.47-2012, (“ANSI Z21.47”) “
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007, (“ASHRAE 103”), “Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,” sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, and 11.3.7, approved June 27, 2007, IBR approved for § 431.76.
(2) [Reserved]
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(2)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) Each commercial air conditioner or heat pump (not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant flow systems) manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this section.
(c) Each packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) and packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP) manufactured on or after January 1, 1994, and before October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and before October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this section. Each PTAC and PTHP manufactured on or after October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and on or after October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 6 of this section.
The following letter will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Dear Deputy General Counsel Harkavy: I am responding to your January 2, 2015 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers, and perhaps thwart the intent of the revised standards by inducing substitution to less efficient products.
We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (80 FR January 8, 2015) (NOPR). We have also reviewed supplementary information submitted to the Attorney General by the Department of Energy, including a transcript of the public meeting held on the proposed standards on February 6, 2015 Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
William J. Baer
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission) seeks to rebuild the current framework of the Lifeline program and continue its efforts to modernize the Lifeline program so that all consumers can utilize advanced networks.
Comments are due August 17, 2015. Reply comments are due September 15, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or rulemaking number], by any of the following methods:
Jonathan Lechter, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90; FCC 15-71, adopted on June 18, 2015 and released on June 22, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the following Internet address:
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
1. For nearly 30 years, the Lifeline program has ensured that qualifying low-income Americans have the opportunities and security that voice service brings, including being able to find jobs, access health care, and connect with family. As the Commission explained at the program's inception, “[i]n many cases, particularly for the elderly, poor, and disabled, the telephone [has] truly [been] a lifeline to the outside world.” Thus, “[a]ccess to telephone service has [been] crucial to full participation in our society and economy which are increasingly dependent upon the rapid exchange of information.” In 1996, Congress recognized the importance and success of the program and enshrined its mission into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Over time, the Lifeline program has evolved from a wireline-only program, to one that supports both wireless and wireline voice communications. Consistent with the Commission's statutory mandate to provide consumers in all regions of the nation, including low-income consumers, with access to telecommunications and information services, the program must continue to evolve to reflect the realities of the 21st Century communications marketplace in a way that ensures both the beneficiaries of the program, as well as those who pay into the universal service fund (USF or Fund), are receiving good value for the dollars invested. The purpose of the Lifeline program is to provide a hand up, not a hand out, to those low-income consumers who truly need assistance connecting to and remaining connected to telecommunications and information services. The program's real success will be evident by the stories of Lifeline beneficiaries who move off of Lifeline because they have used the program as a stepping stone to improve their economic stability.
2. Over the past few years, the Lifeline program has become more efficient and effective through the combined efforts of the Commission and the states. The Lifeline program is heavily dependent on effective oversight at both the Federal and the state level and the Commission has partnered successfully with the states through the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) to ensure that low-income Americans have affordable access to voice telephony service in every state and territory. In addition to working with the Commission on universal service policy initiatives on the Joint Board, many states administer their own low-income programs designed to ensure that their residents have affordable access to telephone service and connections. These activities provide the states the opportunity and
3. The Commission's 2012
4. The Commission is pleased that its previous reforms have taken hold and sustained the integrity of the Fund. However, the Commission's work is not complete. In light of the realities of the 21st Century communications marketplace, the Commission must overhaul the Lifeline program to ensure that it advances the statutory directive for universal service. At the same time, it must ensure that adequate controls are in place as it implements any further changes to the Lifeline program to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission therefore, among other things, seeks to revise its documentation retention requirements and establish minimum service standards for any provider that receives a Lifeline subsidy. It also seeks to focus its efforts on targeting funding to those low-income consumers who really need it while at the same time shifting the burden of determining consumer eligibility for Lifeline support from the provider. The Commission further seeks to leverage efficiencies from other existing federal programs and expand its outreach efforts. By rebuilding the existing Lifeline framework, the Commission hopes to more efficiently and effectively address the needs of low-income consumers. It ultimately seeks to equip low-income consumers with the necessary tools and support system to realize the benefits of broadband independent of Lifeline support.
5. Three years ago, the Commission took important steps to reform the Lifeline program. The reforms, adopted in the 2012
6. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks to rebuild the current framework of the Lifeline program and continue its efforts to modernize the Lifeline program so that all consumers can utilize advanced networks. The Commission is joined in this effort by the many stakeholders who have suggested that further programmatic changes are necessary. The Commission also takes steps to promote accountability and transparency for both low-income consumers and the public at-large, and modernize the program. The Commission's efforts in the Second FNPRM are consistent with the Commission's ongoing commitment to monitor, re-examine, reform, and modernize all components of the Fund to increase accountability and efficiency, while supporting broadband deployment and adoption across the Nation.
7. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission proposes and seeks public input on new and additional solutions for the Lifeline program, including reforms that would bring the program closer to its core purpose and promote the availability of modern services for low-income families. The Second FNPRM is organized into five sections and, within those sections, the Commission addresses various issues:
• In Section A, the Commission proposes to modernize the Lifeline program to extract the most value for consumers and the USF. First, it seeks comment on establishing minimum service levels for both broadband and voice service under the Lifeline program to ensure low-income consumers receive “reasonably comparable” service per Congress's directive in section 254(b) and proposes to retain the current subsidy to do so. Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether to set a budget for the program. Third, it seeks comment on a transition period to implement these reforms. Fourth, it seeks comment on the legal authority to support the inclusion of broadband into the Lifeline program.
• In Section B, the Commission proposes various ways to further reduce any incentive for waste, fraud, and abuse by having a third-party determine whether a consumer is eligible for Lifeline, and, in doing so, also streamline the eligibility process. First, it seeks comment on establishing a national verifier to make eligibility determinations and perform other functions related to the Lifeline program. Second, it seeks comment on leveraging efficiencies from other federal benefit programs and state agencies that determine eligibility, and work with such programs and agencies to educate consumers and potentially enroll them in the Lifeline program. Third, it seeks comment on whether a third-party entity can directly transfer Lifeline benefits to individual consumers. Fourth, it seeks comment on changing the programs through which consumers qualify for Lifeline to ensure that those consumers most in need can receive support. Fifth, it seeks comment on putting in place standards for eligibility documentation and state eligibility databases.
• In Section C, the Commission proposes ways to increase competition and innovation in the Lifeline marketplace. First, it seeks comment on ways to promote competition among Lifeline providers by streamlining the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation process. Second, it seeks comment on whether to permit Lifeline providers to opt-out of providing Lifeline supported service in certain circumstances. Third, it seeks
• In Section D, the Commission proposes measures to enhance Lifeline service and update the Lifeline rules to enhance consumer protections and reflect the manner in which consumers currently use Lifeline service. First, it seeks comment on amending its rules to treat the sending of text messages as usage of Lifeline service and, thus, grants in part a petition filed by TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone). Second, it proposes to adopt procedures to allow subscribers to de-enroll from Lifeline upon request. Third, it seeks comment on ways to increase Lifeline provider participation in Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA).
• In Section E, the Commission proposes a number of ways to increase the efficient administration of the Lifeline program by, among other things, seeking comment on: Changing Tribal enhanced support; enhancing the requirements for electronic signatures; using subscriber data in the NLAD to calculate Lifeline provider support; and rules to minimize disruption to Lifeline subscribers upon the transfer of control of Lifeline providers.
8. In the Second FNRPM, the Commission proposes to modernize and restructure the Lifeline program. First, it proposes to establish minimum service levels for voice and broadband Lifeline service to ensure value for our USF dollars and more robust services for low-income Americans consistent with the Commission's obligations in section 254. Second, it seeks to reset the Lifeline eligibility rules. Third, to encourage increased competition and innovation in the Lifeline market, it seeks comment on ensuring the effectiveness of its administrative rules while also ensuring that they are not unnecessarily burdensome. Fourth, the Commission examines ways to enhance consumer protection. Finally, it seeks comment on other ways to improve administration and ensure efficiency and accountability in the program.
9. The 2012
10. While consumers increasingly are migrating to data, voice communications remain essential to daily living and may literally provide a lifeline to 911 and health care providers. Despite years of participation by multiple providers offering voice service in competition with one another, we do not see meaningful improvements in the available offerings. It has been over three years since the 2012
11. The ability to use and participate in the economy increasingly requires broadband for education, health care, public safety, and for persons with disabilities to communicate on par with their peers. As the Commission ensures that Lifeline is restructured for the 21st Century, it wants to ensure that any Lifeline offering is sufficient for consumers to participate in the economy.
12.
13. Unfortunately, many low-income students do not have access to the Internet at home. Computer ownership and Internet use strongly correlate with a household's income. The higher a household's income, the more likely it is for that household to subscribe to broadband service. In 2013, about 95 percent of the households with incomes of $150,000 or more reported connecting to the Internet, compared to about 48 percent of the households making less than $25,000. There are approximately 29 million American households with school-age children (ages 6 to 17). Approximately 31 percent of those American households with incomes below $50,000 do not have a high-speed connection at home. Thus, while low-income students may be connected to the Internet while at school, they become digitally disconnected immediately upon exiting the school building. As noted in the National Broadband Plan, “[o]nline educational systems are rapidly taking learning outside the classroom, creating a potential situation where students with access to broadband at home will have an even greater advantage over those students who can only access these resources at their public schools and libraries.” This lack of access to technology and broadband in low-income households has created a “homework gap” between low-income students and the rest of the student population.
14. The “homework gap” puts low-income students at a disadvantage. “If you are a student in a household without broadband, just getting homework done is hard, and applying for a scholarship is challenging.” Many students who do not have access to the Internet at home head to the library after school and on weekends in order to utilize the library's broadband service to complete assigned homework. However, library hours are limited and even when they are open, they may not be able to fully accommodate the needs of their users. Thus, in many communities, after the library and the computer labs close for the night, there is often only one place for students to go without Internet access at home—the local McDonald's. Some schools have attempted to extend the school day to help students with their homework or partner with after-school programs to ensure that students have the ability and resources needed to complete their assignments, but not all can do so. Moreover, after school programs cannot provide students with the same kind of flexibility and opportunity to access the Internet as those students who do have home access. As technology continues to evolve and teachers continue to integrate technology into their teaching by supplementing their in-class projects and instruction with projects and assignments necessitating Internet access, the “homework gap” presumably will widen as many students in low-income households, with a lack of home Internet access, struggle to complete assigned homework and projects.
15. Various successful initiatives have been improving broadband access to underserved groups, some of which contain low-income student populations. For example, Mobile Beacon's Internet Inclusion Initiative, in partnership with EveryoneOn, provides students who do not have Internet access at home with unlimited 4G access and low-cost computers in order to put them on the path to digital opportunity and learning. Comcast's Internet Essentials program provides qualifying low-income households with affordable access to high-speed service from their homes. Additionally, in conjunction with the Knight Foundation, The New York Public Library (NYPL) has implemented a pilot program to expand its efforts to bridge the digital divide by allowing the public to borrow portable Wi-Fi hotspot devices for up to one year (students can borrow the devices for the school year). The NYPL hopes to eventually provide 10,000 hotspots to people involved in their education programs. The Chicago Public Library (CPL) also has implemented a pilot program to provide members of underserved communities in three locations access to both portable WiFi and laptop computers. During the course of the two year pilot program, CPL plans to make 300-500 MiFi hotspots available in several library locations in areas with less than 50 percent broadband adoption rates. While these initiatives are working toward closing the “digital divide” and expanding broadband access to underserved populations, including low-income students, none of these initiatives provide for a comprehensive, nationwide solution addressing the “homework gap” issue.
16. Building upon the Commission's recent modernization of the E-rate program, where the Commission, among other things, took major steps to close the WiFi gap within schools and libraries, the Commission recognizes the valuable role that the Lifeline program can play beyond the school day in the lives of elementary and secondary-school students living in low-income households. Lifeline can help to extend broadband access beyond the school walls and the school day to ensure that low-income students do not become digitally disconnected once they leave the school building. Lifeline can help to ensure that low-income students have access to the resources needed to complete their research and homework assignments, and compete in the digital age. The Commission thus seeks comments on how the Lifeline program can address the “homework gap” issue—the gap between those households with school-age children with home broadband access to complete their school assignments and those low-income households with school-age children without home broadband access. The Commission recognizes that no one program or entity can solve this problem on its own and what is needed is many different organizations, vendors, and communities working together to address this problem. The Commission therefore seeks creative solutions to addressing this gap so that eligible low-income students are provided with affordable, reliable, and quality broadband services in order to effectively complete their homework, and have the same opportunity as their classmates to reach their full potential and feel like they are part of the academic conversation.
17.
18. The Commission first seeks comments on data it can use from the schools and libraries universal service support program (the E-rate program) to assist its efforts. Currently, school districts use student eligibility for free and reduced school lunches through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or an alternative discount mechanism as a proxy for poverty when calculating discounts on eligible services received under the E-rate program. Thus, when
19. The Commission seeks comments on sources of data that would be useful for identifying Lifeline eligible households with school-age children. Eligibility for free school lunches through the NSLP is already one way to demonstrate eligibility for the Lifeline program. Schools and school districts collect NSLP eligibility information, but they are already burdened with numerous administrative responsibilities and the introduction of other tasks may cause additional administrative burdens. In addition, more and more school districts have moved towards the community eligibility option in the NSLP program, which saves them from collecting individual NSLP eligibility data. How will the movement away from individual NSLP data collection affect the Commission's ability to identify Lifeline eligible households with school children? Are the state databases that directly certify some students' eligibility to participate in NSLP a possible source of information that could help the Commission identify Lifeline eligible households with school children? Are there other non-burdensome methods to identify Lifeline eligible households with students and make sure that those households with school children are aware of the opportunity to receive Lifeline support?
20. The Commission also seeks comments on how it can incentivize Lifeline providers to reach out to those households with school children to provide Lifeline supported services. Commenters should indicate what, if any, practical or administrative implications there may be to utilizing existing data provided to USAC under the E-rate program for this purpose. Are there other ways to use the E-rate program and the data the Commission already collects to address the “homework gap”?
21.
22.
23.
24.
25. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) prepared a report to assist the Commission in considering reforms to the Lifeline Program and released for public review and consumption all of the data reported by the participating carriers. The Broadband Pilot Report summarizes each of the 14 pilot projects and the data collected during the course of the projects. As shown from the data summarized in the Broadband Pilot Report, the pilot projects provide an informative perspective on how various policy tools can impact broadband adoption by low-income consumers. For example, patterns within the data indicate that cost to consumers does have an effect on adoption and which service plans they choose. Given the condition in the Pilot Program that participation was limited to consumers that had not subscribed to broadband within the last 60 days, Commission staff recognized that there was a risk of low enrollment in each of the projects relative to the initial provider projections. As a result of this limitation, providers had to market the limited-time project offerings to consumers that either could not afford broadband service or, until that time, did not understand the relevance of broadband. The Commission seeks comment on how this report and the underlying data will provide guidance to the Commission as it considers reforms to the Lifeline program.
26.
27. In the wireless market, direct-to-consumer broadband wireless plans are limited for low-income consumers, and generally require pricey top-ups for minimal broadband. However, low-income consumers are able to receive discounted service on either a smartphone plan or a mobile hotspot plan through some innovative plans. For about $10 per month, Mobile Beacon, a nonprofit licensee of EBS, provides mobile Internet to other nonprofit institutions. The Commission notes Mobile Beacon is not itself a direct-to-consumer wireless provider and consumers must have a relationship with a Mobile Beacon partner institution to receive service. Kajeet offers a similar service to schools, where the school pays a single low monthly fee for a hotspot, CIPA-compliant filtering software and network management, and 4G wireless service. Schools provide the devices to those students which they identify as most in need of connectivity at home.
28. The Commission proposes to establish minimum service levels for fixed and mobile voice and broadband service that Lifeline providers must offer to all Lifeline customers in order to be eligible to receive Lifeline reimbursement. The Commission also seeks comment on minimum standards for Tribal Lifeline, recognizing the additional support may allow for greater service offerings. The Commission believes taking such action will extract the maximum value for the program, benefitting both the recipients as well as the ratepayers who contribute to the USF. It also removes the incentive for providers to offer minimal, un-innovative services that benefit providers, who continue to receive USF support above their costs, more than consumers. The Commission also believes it is consistent with its statutory directives. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
29. The Commission seeks comments on how to establish minimum service levels. The Commission looks first to the statute for guidance. Congress indicated that “[q]uality services should be available at just, reasonable, and affordable rates.” Specifically with
30. Given that the Lifeline program is specifically targeted at affordability, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure that the minimum service levels it proposes to adopt result in services that are affordable to low-income Americans. How should the Commission establish minimum service levels that result in affordable but “reasonably comparable” offerings?
31. The Commission next seeks comment on how minimum service standards based on statutory universal service principles could be applied to various Lifeline offerings to produce different service levels. The Commission seeks comments on whether and how service levels would vary between fixed and mobile broadband service. In addition, the Commission proposes to require providers to offer data-only broadband to Lifeline customers to ensure affordability of the service. In addition to the comment the Commission solicits below, the Commission seeks explicit comment from the states on its proposed course of action. As the Commission's partners in implementation and administration of the Lifeline program, any views or quantifiable data specifically from a state perspective would be invaluable to the Commission as it moves forward with these reforms.
32.
33. In the 2012
34. The
35. The Commission seeks comments on how to ensure fixed voice service provides “reasonably comparable” service that is affordable for low-income consumers. Is there a price to the low-income consumer above which voice telephony service is no longer affordable?
36. A key component of ensuring service remains affordable to the end-user is ensuring Lifeline providers utilize universal service funds consistent with their intended purpose. The Commission seeks comment on whether Lifeline providers are currently passing on reductions in their costs to end-users. Specifically with respect to mobile voice service, the level of Lifeline service has not appreciably increased recently, while the cost per minute to wireless resellers has declined to less than two cents on the wholesale market. The per-minute cost for facilities-based providers is likely lower still. When the declines in costs are coupled with the average minutes of use and stagnant Lifeline service levels, it appears that Lifeline ETCs are not offering consumers “innovative and sufficient service plans” or passing on their greater efficiencies to consumers. The Commission seeks comment on these conclusions. Further, it notes that the Commission's rules state that federal universal service support should be used only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.
37.
38.
39. The Commission notes that low-income consumers that are more likely to only have mobile broadband service, likely due to affordability issues, may rely on that service more heavily than the majority of consumers who can offload some of their usage onto their residential fixed connection. The Commission seeks comments on how, if at all, this dynamic should affect its choice of minimum service levels.
40. The Commission seeks comments on how to ensure that this approach results in services that are affordable to low-income consumers. For example, the Commission understands that providers in the Lifeline market have developed their businesses based on the premise that Lifeline was a voice-only market, including the distribution of primarily voice-only handsets at a low price point. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should take into account the cost of wireless Consumer Premises Equipment (CPE) passed on to consumers by Lifeline providers in determining whether a particular level of service is affordable. The Commission seeks comments on how these costs would influence affordability of mobile broadband service to low-income consumers.
41.
42. The Commission seeks comment on how to set appropriate minimum service levels that evolve with technology and innovation, and how to ensure compliance with those levels. A comparison of subscription rates from 2011 to 2013 show a steady increase in adoption for fixed wireline at 10/1 Mbps level of service. The Commission expects these increases in adoption will continue because carriers will continue to build out networks offering at least 10/1 Mbps service. At the same time, the Commission has not seen a decline in the utilization of wireline voice service, but an increase in wireless voice service. In light of this dynamic, the Commission believes it needs a mechanism to ensure that the minimum service levels it proposes to adopt stay relevant over time.
43. The Commission proposes to delegate to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) the responsibility for establishing and regularly updating a mechanism setting the minimum service levels that are tied to objective, publicly available data. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. It also seeks comment on how best to regularly update service levels for both fixed and wireless voice and broadband services to ensure that Lifeline supports an “evolving level” of telecommunications service.
44. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to establish explicit procedures by which to ensure those minimum service levels are met and maintained. In the high-cost program, the Commission defined strict broadband performance metrics, and the Bureau recently sought comment on the best mechanism to measure these performance metrics. The Commission seeks comment on whether it would be reasonable to subject Lifeline providers to similar broadband measurement mechanisms.
45. The Commission also seeks comments on how to monitor and ensure compliance with any voice and broadband minimum service levels. Should this be part of an annual certification by Lifeline providers? Should offerings be part of any application to become a Lifeline provider? What information and records should be retained for an audit or review? Should consumer or other credible complaints result in an audit or review of a Lifeline provider provisioning Lifeline service? Should complaints to state/local regulatory agencies, the Commission, and/or public watchdog organizations trigger audits? Are there other events that should trigger an audit? Proposed audit triggers should address both ensuring that performance standards are met and minimizing administrative costs.
46. The Commission proposes to retain the current, interim non-Tribal Lifeline support amount that the Commission adopted in the 2012
47. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the support amount should be reduced for Lifeline supported mobile voice-only service. The cost of provisioning wireless voice service has decreased significantly since the 2012
48.
49. In the 2012
50. Accordingly, in light of progress made on these reforms, and consistent with steps the Commission has taken to control spending in other universal service programs, the Commission seeks comments on a budget for the Lifeline program. The purpose of a budget is to ensure that all of the Commission's goals are met as the Lifeline program transitions to broadband, including minimizing the contribution burden on ratepayers, while allowing the Commission to take account of the unique nature and goals of the Lifeline program. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
51. Adopting a budget for the Lifeline program raises a number of important implementation questions. For example, what should the budget be? The Commission expects that efforts to reduce fraud, waste and abuse should limit any increase in program expenditures that may be associated with the reforms to modernize the program. What data would help ensure Lifeline-supported voice and broadband services are available to qualifying low-income households and that also minimizes the financial burden on all consumers? Today, not every eligible household participates in the Lifeline program. Thus, if the Commission were to adopt the current size of the Lifeline program as a budget, it could foreclose some eligible households from participating in the program. And, there is no data to suggest that the particular size of Lifeline in a given year is the right approach. Ultimately, the size of the Lifeline program is limited by the number of households living in poverty and, as the Commission does better as a society to bring households out of poverty, the program should naturally reduce in size.
52. Additionally, the Lifeline program is a month-to-month program. The Commission wants to avoid a situation where the Commission would be forced to suddenly halt support for individuals that otherwise meet the eligibility requirements. How can the Commission monitor and forecast demand for the program so that the Commission would be in a position to address any possible increases in advance of reaching the budget, should that necessity arise? The Commission seeks comment on these and other implementation questions that would be raised by a budget.
53. The Commission seeks comments on whether any transition is necessary to implement the reforms described in this section. If the Commission adopts the proposal to eliminate the provider from determining whether a consumer is eligible for Lifeline, as discussed, the Commission seeks comments in particular on the appropriate transition to ensure that the Lifeline program has sufficient protections against waste, fraud and abuse. For example, should the Commission have a transition where the providers continue determining eligibility while the third-party process is being established and, if so, how long should there be an overlap to ensure that the third-party process is working as intended? For each of the possible program changes discussed in this document, the Commission seeks comments on whether a transition is necessary and, if so, how to structure any such transition to minimize fraud and protect the integrity of the program while maximizing the value and benefits to consumers.
54. The Commission also seeks to minimize any hardships on consumers affected by the proposed changes and we also seek to alleviate complications resulting from a transition on Lifeline providers. The Commission seeks comments on specific paths to transition that would minimize the impact on both consumers and Lifeline providers.
55. In order to establish minimum service levels for both voice and broadband service, the Commission proposes to amend the Commission's rules to include broadband Internet access service, defined consistent with the
56. The Commission also seeks comment on other ways to support broadband within the Lifeline program. For example, should the Commission condition a Lifeline provider's receipt of
57. The Commission proposes to remove the responsibility of conducting the eligibility determination from the Lifeline providers and seeks comment on various ways to shift this responsibility to a trusted third-party and further reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program, and leverage other programs serving the same constituency to extract saving for the Fund. By removing that decision from the Lifeline provider, the Commission removes one potential source of waste, fraud, and abuse from the program while also creating more efficiencies overall in the program administration. Doing so also brings much-needed dignity to the program, reduces administrative burdens on providers, which should help to facilitate greater provider participation and competition for consumers. A number of states have been proactive in their efforts to bring further efficiencies into the program by establishing state eligibility databases or other means to verify Lifeline eligibility. The Commission commends these states for working to make the program a prime example of Federal/state partnership, and seeks comment below on the best ways to build off of these successful efforts and extract benefits for Lifeline. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of each approach for third-party eligibility including the costs to providers, the universal service fund, and the costs and timeframe to transition to an alternative mechanism. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on leveraging eligibility and oversight procedures that already exist within other benefit programs rather than recreating another mechanism just for Lifeline. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to provide eligible consumers with a portable benefit, provided by the third-party verifying eligibility, which they could use with any Lifeline provider. That approach could facilitate consumer choice while also reducing administrative burdens on Lifeline providers. The Commission seeks comment on these and other options below.
58. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should establish a national Lifeline eligibility verifier (national verifier) to make eligibility determinations and perform other functions related to the Lifeline program. A national verifier would review consumer eligibility documentation to verify Lifeline eligibility, and where feasible, interface with state eligibility databases to verify Lifeline eligibility. A national verifier could operate in a manner similar to the systems some states have already implemented. For example, California has chosen to place the duty of verifying Lifeline eligibility in the hands of a third-party administrator. In California, the state's third-party administrator examines documentary proof of eligibility and verifies that the prospective subscriber has executed a proper Lifeline certification. The Commission seeks comment on whether such an approach could be adopted on a national scale and the costs and timeframe to do so. Because a number of states have already implemented Lifeline eligibility verification systems, the Commission seeks comment and quantifiable data from the states to enrich its understanding of how such systems function when implemented. As the Commission's partners in administering the Lifeline program, the states can provide a unique perspective on these issues that may be overlooked elsewhere. The Commission welcomes and solicits comment from the states on the issues of Lifeline eligibility verification discussed below.
59.
60.
61. If subscribers are not able to directly interface with a national verifier to apply for a Lifeline benefit, are there other ways a national verifier could interact with consumers? For example, California has established a call center to answer consumers' questions about the Lifeline application process. Are there other similar customer service functions the national verifier should implement as part of its responsibilities? Should the Commission establish a process so that a potential subscriber contacts the national verifier to learn about the service and the providers that serve the subscriber's area? Are there any lessons that providers have learned from the implementation of, and their interaction with the NLAD?
62.
63. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should implement a pre-approval process. To mitigate the effects of the delay from the time the consumer submits a Lifeline application and supporting documentation and an eligibility determination, California put a “pre-approval” process in place. It is the Commission's understanding that, in California, the pre-approval occurs subsequent to a duplicates check and ID verification, but before the third-party administrator performs a full review of the consumer's documentation for eligibility and occurs in a matter of minutes. The Commission seeks comment on whether we should implement a similar pre-approval process for the national verifier. Would pre-approval increase the chances for waste, fraud, and abuse in the program?
64. The Commission notes that delay of several hours or even days can occur during the period between when the subscriber seeks to obtain Lifeline service from a provider and subsequently provides a completed application and supporting documentation to the third-party entity. What assistance, if any, should providers or a national verifier give to the subscriber in completing a Lifeline application and compiling supporting eligibility documentation to shorten the eligibility verification process? For example, should verifier staff walk applicants through the enrollment process? Would permitting the national verifier to enroll subscribers directly without the subscriber having to apply through the provider shorten this period?
65. The Commission also seeks comment on how providers and/or consumers should transmit and receive Lifeline applications and proof documentation with a national verifier. Should consumers be required to submit their Lifeline applications and proof documentation through a provider who ultimately sends the documentation to a national verifier, or could consumers submit their documentation directly to a national verifier? For example, should the Commission permit consumers to directly submit their Lifeline application and supporting eligibility documentation to a national verifier via U.S. Postal Service, fax, email, or Internet upload? If consumers are not permitted to submit documentation on their own, how should providers submit consumer eligibility documentation to a national verifier? Are some forms of submission better than others in terms of ensuring an expedited response? What are the data privacy and security advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and how can any risk of unauthorized disclosure of personal information be mitigated? The Commission seeks comment on any other submission methods that may benefit consumers, providers, and a national verifier.
66.
67. While many states have made significant strides in verifying Lifeline eligibility, some states' processes are limited in that they only verify eligibility against some, but not all, Lifeline qualifying programs. The Commission seeks comment on how these states should interact with a national verifier. How would a possible change in the number of qualifying programs, as discussed below, affect this analysis? The Commission also seeks comment on interim steps that could be taken to leverage state databases to confirm eligibility as the Commission moves away from providers determining eligibility. Could the Commission move faster in states that have existing databases and then phase-in the process for other states?
68. The Commission also seeks comment on ways a national verifier could access state eligibility databases to verify subscriber eligibility prior to review of consumer eligibility documentation. Would this step improve the efficiency of the enrollment process? How would requiring a national verifier to utilize a state eligibility database for eligibility verification interplay with any standards set for state databases, as discussed below? Could the national verifier use the NLAD database and have the state databases interface with NLAD? If so, how? Alternatively, what are the drawbacks if the duty to check such databases remains with the state, its agent, and/or individual providers in those states? The Commission encourages interested parties to suggest cost-effective ways a national verifier could utilize state databases.
69.
70. The Commission also seeks comment on standards for any database or state-led process used to verify Lifeline program eligibility and how the states must meet these requirements as part of their request to opt-out of a national verifier. The Commission seeks comment on requirements for state eligibility databases generally in order for a state to qualify to opt out of a national verifier. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether state eligibility databases should be required to verify eligibility for each Lifeline qualifying program, or whether such a requirement would impose an unreasonable burden.
71. To ensure the reliability and integrity of the state eligibility databases, the Commission seeks comment on whether we should set a requirement for updating eligibility data on a regular basis, and if so, what the appropriate time frame should be. For example, would the burden of a nightly refresh requirement outweigh the benefit of fully up-to-date data? What specific barriers prevent timely data updates?
72. The Commission seeks comment on whether and to what extent to
73. The Commission and USAC may need to be able to audit state databases to monitor compliance. Is direct access to the databases needed to perform a sufficient audit? What are the data privacy and security implications of allowing direct access? How can we reduce the administrative burden on states, while ensuring compliance? What state or Federal rules and statutes may limit the ability of USAC or the FCC to audit the state database?
74. Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on how states may fund and implement any standards for their eligibility databases. Pursuant to § 54.410(a) of the Commission's rules, providers are required to implement procedures to ensure their subscribers are eligible to receive the Lifeline benefit. Could this rule be interpreted to require providers to fund any necessary implementation efforts for state eligibility databases? More generally, the Commission seeks comment on the sources and scope of Commission authority to require minimum standards for state databases so as to opt out of a national verifier.
75.
76. The Commission acknowledges that the current tapestry of state eligibility systems is far from uniform and has some shortcomings. It notes, as mentioned above, that many states have Lifeline eligibility verification systems in place but these systems vary in functionality. In addition, other states do not have in place
77. In addition, the Commission seeks explicit comment from the states on this alternative course of action. As the Commission's partners in implementation and administration of the Lifeline program, any views or quantifiable data specifically from a state perspective would be beneficial in determining whether to move forward with this alternative option for verifying Lifeline eligibility.
78.
79.
80.
81. A national verifier could also interact with the NLAD to check for duplicates. The NLAD has been established to ensure that neither individual consumers nor households receive duplicative Lifeline support. Now that the NLAD is fully operational, Lifeline providers and states are required to access the NLAD prior to enrolling a potential subscriber to determine whether the subscriber already is receiving service and load an eligible subscriber's information into the NLAD. Are there efficiencies if both the national verifier and the NLAD are operated by the same entity? Should a national verifier be required to access the NLAD to check for duplicates on behalf of or in addition to the Lifeline providers and/or states? Should a national verifier also be responsible for loading subscriber information into the NLAD on behalf of Lifeline providers? If so, what kinds of communication and coordination must occur between a national verifier, the NLAD and Lifeline providers? Should a national verifier assist in the process of generating or verifying the accuracy of the Lifeline providers' FCC Form 497s? Lifeline providers are generally designated by wire center and it may be difficult to determine if a particular address is within a wire center where the Lifeline provider is designated to serve. Could a national verifier implement a function so that a Lifeline provider could query a mapping tool to determine whether a prospective subscriber's address is within the Lifeline provider's service area and not be permitted to serve that subscriber if the tool indicates that the subscriber does not reside within the service area? The Commission also seeks comment on any other functions that could be undertaken by a national verifier.
82. Currently, the Commission believes that the administrative burden that Lifeline providers face in verifying subscriber eligibility is significant. A national verifier will lift this financial burden from Lifeline providers. The Commission proposes to require Lifeline providers to reimburse the Fund for part or all of the operations of the national verifier. Under this proposal, how should support be allocated amongst the contributing Lifeline providers? Would Lifeline providers that utilize a national verifier more than other Lifeline providers be required to pay more? The Commission seeks additional comment on any other ways to fund a national verifier outside of utilizing USF funds.
83. Upon the establishment and implementation of a national verifier, the Commission anticipates that Lifeline providers would no longer be permitted to formally verify subscriber eligibility for Lifeline purposes, and the Commission seeks comment on that approach. It also seeks comment on how to handle the transition. Should the Commission define a transition path? If so, how long should such a period last?
84. In the alternative, if we do not adopt a national verifier, the Commission seeks comment on whether, once Lifeline providers review subscriber eligibility, they should be required to send the eligibility documents to USAC so that they can be easily audited and reviewed later. The Commission seeks comment on this approach, including the cost to Lifeline providers and USAC to transmit, store and review such documentation. Are there benefits for USAC to receive such documents in the normal course instead of asking for them at the time of an audit? Under this approach, are there ways that USAC can examine eligibility documents on a regular basis to detect patterns of fraud?
85.
86. In this section, the Commission seeks comments on coordinating with federal agencies and their state counterparts to educate consumers about, or simultaneously allow consumers to enroll themselves in, the Lifeline program. The Commission seeks comments on this issue as an alternative, or supplement to, its inquiry regarding whether a third-party should perform consumer eligibility determinations rather than Lifeline providers. Other federal benefit programs which qualify consumers for Lifeline already have mechanisms to confirm eligibility. In this section, the Commission seeks comments on how to leverage such existing processes including verification and additional fraud protections in lieu of creating a separate national verifier to confirm Lifeline.
87.
88. In order to qualify for support under the Lifeline program, the Commission's rules require low-income consumers to have a household income at or below 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, or receive benefits from at least one of a number of federal assistance programs. Consumers qualifying for Lifeline under program-based criteria receive documentation from that program tying the eligibility and participation of both programs.
89. For example, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) is a qualifying program where coordinated enrollment may be particularly helpful. SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps, provides financial assistance to eligible
90.
91. The Commission seeks comment on how best to leverage the existing technologies, databases, and fraud protections that already exist in other federal benefit programs. For example, the SNAP program requires states to cross check any potential subscriber against the Social Security Master Death File, Social Security's Prisoner Verification System, and FNS's Electronic Disqualified Recipient System, prior to certifying individuals for the program, to ensure that no ineligible people receive benefits. If the Commission coordinates with other federal benefit programs, Lifeline receives the benefit of having another agency already conducted these checks, which increases protection against fraud while incrementally more efficient than creating a separate process.
92. How can the Commission better coordinate and build upon the work already invested by state and federal agencies to confirm consumers are eligible for programs. The Commission seeks comment on the incremental costs of adding Lifeline to an existing eligibility database in lieu of setting up a separate national framework. Would such administrative burdens and costs outweigh the benefits of such a proposal? Or would the Lifeline fund actually incur a net savings because of the administrative efficiencies that may result from coordinated enrollment? What are the various administrative, technological, or other barriers to implementation related to such coordinated enrollment? Should states be compensated for eligibility determinations and coordinated enrollment? If so, should it be per subscriber or another metric? Should such costs be borne equally by all Lifeline providers or should it be borne by the Lifeline program? The Commission seeks comment on the timeframe to implement such a change and whether the Commission should first start with a handful of states that already have coordinated enrollment across benefits programs. If so, the Commission seeks comment on how to identify these states.
93. The Commission seeks comment on how the Commission may best facilitate coordinated enrollment with other Federal benefit programs such as the USDA and its state agency counterparts (collectively, “SNAP Administrators”). For example, should SNAP Administrators merely educate consumers about Lifeline? If so, should SNAP Administrators limit their role to providing relevant materials to their SNAP consumers and informing them that eligibility in SNAP qualifies such consumers for Lifeline, while also directing these consumers to the appropriate sources to apply for Lifeline? If the Commission establishes a national verifier, how may the Commission facilitate coordinated enrollment with SNAP Administrators? In this context, should SNAP administrators play a role in which they “pre-approve” consumers who are eligible for SNAP and then forward the Lifeline application to a national verifier to complete the application? What responsibility, if any, should SNAP Administrators have for checking the NLAD prior to providing the consumer's application to a national verifier?
94. Should the Commission pursue coordinated enrollment in a manner that authorizes SNAP administrators to allow consumers who qualify for SNAP to simultaneously sign up for Lifeline as well? Since SNAP Administrators can perform eligibility verifications, does it makes sense for the Commission or USAC to conduct these same checks again for Lifeline? Should the Commission establish a procedure where the Commission and the SNAP Administrators work together on a single, unified application? As the Commission discusses
95. Are there any legal and practical limitations of having the state or federal benefit administrators serve as agents for the Commission with respect to Lifeline? Are there other ways to coordinate enrollment with other Federal or state agencies? How does having SNAP Administrators or other Federal or state benefit programs affect the need for a national verifier? How can the Commission best coordinate with or rely upon SNAP Administrators when verifying eligibility and enrolling subscribers?
96. The Commission also seeks specific comment on how to encourage coordinated enrollment with other Federal assistance programs that qualify participants for support under the Lifeline program—such as Medicaid; SSI; Federal Public Housing Assistance; LIHEAP; NSLP free lunch program; and Temporary TANF. As noted below, the Lifeline program has the potential to provide essential connectivity to the Nation's veterans. The Commission seeks comment on how we can coordinate its outreach and enrollment efforts to reach low-income veterans. For example, the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program, a joint effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs, provides support to homeless veterans and their families to help them out of homelessness and into permanent housing. The program provides housing assistance and clinical and supportive services to veterans. These services require communication between veterans, veteran families and caseworkers. The Commission seeks comment on how it can coordinate outreach efforts related to the Lifeline program with the VASH program or other federal efforts designed to assist vulnerable veterans.
97. The Commission recognizes that individual states play an important role in the administration of various Federal assistance programs and seeks specific comment from these states about their experiences, best practices, and how to encourage coordinated enrollment with these Federal programs, state administrative agencies, and the Lifeline program. For example, the Commission understands that administration of the SNAP EBT card is performed at the state level and the Commission seeks specific comment from states on issues such as eligibility verification, placing Lifeline benefits on the SNAP EBT card, and any other administrative issues. Because many individual states have implemented coordinated enrollment with Federal assistance programs, the Commission solicits specific comments from these states. The Commission encourages coordinated enrollment and recognizes how it can increase the effectiveness of state eligibility databases. The Commission seeks comments from states operating state eligibility databases and specifically ask how the Commission may work best with such states. If the Commission moves to a third party verification model, should the Commission first attempt to transition with a handful of states already operating eligibility databases before attempting such a transition on a national scale?
98. In this section, the Commission seeks comments on whether designated third-party entities can directly transfer Lifeline benefits to individual consumers. As discussed, having a third-party make eligibility determinations removes this burden from Lifeline providers and should result in substantial cost savings and efficiencies. The Commission now seeks comment on establishing processes for the national verifier or another federal agency to transfer Lifeline benefits directly to consumers via a portable benefit.
99.
100.
101. The Commission also seeks comment on the appropriate mechanism that should be used to transfer the Lifeline benefit directly from a third-party to the consumer. For example, what are the costs and benefits of placing Lifeline benefits on a physical card? The Commission notes that in some states, SNAP as well as other benefits are encoded on the SNAP EBT card, providing the consumer with a single card for several social service needs. Should the Commission work with SNAP administrators to place Lifeline benefits directly on a SNAP EBT card? If so, how would such a process be implemented? What costs have SNAP administrators or other agencies incurred in encoding non-SNAP benefits on the card and would such costs compare with other approaches the Commission seeks comment on today such as the National Verifier? As the Commission discusses above, the Commission seeks comment on how to encourage coordinated enrollment with other Federal and state agencies that administer programs that also qualify participants for Lifeline. Because many individual states have implemented coordinated enrollment with SNAP benefits and other Federal assistance programs, it solicits specific comments from these states regarding their experiences and any best practices which they may have established.
102. The Commission seeks comment on approaches other than a physical card but using alternative approaches such as an online portal or application on a user's device to submit payment. What is the most appropriate way to use an EBT-type card for a communications service? What are the costs and benefits to providers of moving to an EBT-type card? Can USAC pay Lifeline providers each month for EBT card is in use? How would USAC be informed that a card has been associated with a particular provider entitled to the benefit? What protections would need to be in place and how would USAC be notified when a consumer switches providers? Could the EBT card automatically notify USAC of a provider change?
103. If a portable benefit is offered to consumers through a national verifier or state or Federal agency, how would such a benefit be provided? How should secure physical cards be issued to the consumer? How may the Commission best facilitate coordination between third parties determining eligibility and Lifeline providers during the transition? What protections should be put in place to prevent fraud or abuse by, for example, automatically deactivating the card if it is not used for a certain period of time, if the consumer is no longer eligible, or if the consumer reports that the card has been lost or stolen? If the benefit is placed on a federal or state benefit card, can the FCC put in place such protections or must the FCC work within the structures and rules already established by the other relevant agencies? Would the customer need to “touch” the Lifeline provider on a monthly basis to reapply the discount?
104. As an alternative, or in addition to, the possibility of placing Lifeline benefits on a physical card, should
105.
106.
107. The Commission first seeks comment on which federal assistance programs it should continue to use to qualify low-income consumers for support under the Lifeline program. The Commission specifically seeks comments on any potential drawbacks in limiting the qualification criteria for Lifeline support exclusively to households receiving benefits under a specific federal assistance program(s). For example, if the Commission no longer permits consumers to qualify through Tribal-specific programs, what would be the impact to low-income consumers on Tribal lands? In particular, as the Commission noted in the 2012
108. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should continue to allow low-income consumers to qualify for Lifeline support based on household income and/or eligibility criteria established by a state. Under the current program, less than four percent of Lifeline subscribers subscribe to the service by relying on income level. Given the relatively low number of consumers using income as their qualifying method, the Commission seeks comment on any changes it should consider to ensure that the Lifeline program is targeted at the neediest.
109. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether low-income consumers should be permitted to qualify for Lifeline support through programs which do not currently qualify consumers for Lifeline benefits. For example, the Lifeline program has the potential to positively impact the lives of the veterans who have served this country. In the 2012
110. Additionally, the Commission seeks comments on the extent to which modifying eligibility criteria under the Lifeline program reduces and streamlines Lifeline providers' recordkeeping processes. The Commission anticipates that streamlining the eligibility criteria will reduce the costs and time incurred by Lifeline providers and state administrators and any national verifier. The Commission seeks comments on these anticipated efficiencies and any other potential improvements associated with restructuring the eligibility criteria.
111. In potentially limiting the number of eligible federal assistance programs under the Lifeline program, some current Lifeline consumers will no longer qualify for Lifeline benefits. The Commission therefore recognizes the need for a transition period to allow those low-income consumers to transition to non-supported service with minimal disruption. It thus seeks comment on how such a transition should be structured. For example, should the Commission transition subscribers off of Lifeline support as part of the annual recertification process following the effective date of this Second FNRPM?
112. In this section, the Commission proposes requiring Lifeline providers to obtain additional information in certain instances to verify that the eligibility documentation being presented by the consumer is valid, including obtaining eligibility documentation that includes identification information or a photograph. It also seeks comment on
113. In the 2012
114. The Commission seeks comment on requiring Lifeline providers to obtain additional information to verify that the eligibility documentation being presented by the consumer is valid and has not expired. Should the consumer be required to provide underlying eligibility documentation that includes subscriber identification information or a photograph? Should we only impose such a requirement in certain circumstances? Are there other more effective means for Lifeline providers to evaluate program eligibility documentation? The Commission believes that requiring prospective subscribers to produce a government issued photo ID would improve the identification verification process and more easily tie the identity of the prospective subscriber to the proffered eligibility documentation. Additionally, in its recent report, GAO noted that many eligible consumers fail to complete the application process because they have difficulty providing information and do not have access to scanners and photocopiers. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on how to address those factors in requiring consumers to provide additional information.
115. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on ways to increase competition and innovation in the Lifeline marketplace. The Commission believes the best way to do this is to increase the number of service providers offering Lifeline services. It therefore seeks comment on the best means to facilitate broader participation in the Lifeline program and encourage competition with most robust service offerings in the Lifeline market. The Commission makes these proposals consistent with the Commission's goal of avoiding waste, fraud, and abuse.
116. The Commission seeks comment on streamlining the ETC designation process at the state and federal levels to increase market entry into the Lifeline space. First, the Commission seeks comment on the Commission's authority under section 214(e) to streamline the ETC designation process at the Commission. In the
117. Given this broad authority, the Commission seeks comment on ways in which to streamline the Commission's ETC designation process to best promote the universal service goals found in section 254(b). It believes many entities, including many cable companies and wireless providers, are unwilling to become ETCs and some have in fact relinquished their designations. Are there certain requirements that are overly burdensome? Can the Commission simplify or eliminate certain designation requirements while protecting consumers and the Fund? Will establishing a national verifier lessen the need to streamline the ETC designation process? The Commission specifically seeks input from the states on examples of requirements that could be simplified or eliminated in order to make it less difficult for companies to become ETCs under the Lifeline program and suggestions for how the Commission can best refine the ETC designation process.
118. Second, the Commission seeks comment on coordinating and streamlining federal and state ETC designation processes. What are the benefits and drawbacks to a uniform, streamlined approach at both the state and federal levels? How can the Commission best encourage state commissions to adopt a path similar to a federal streamlined approach? The Commission strongly values input from the states on the pros and cons of such an approach and what measures could be adopted to encourage state commissions to adopt a similar streamlined approach.
119.
120. The Commission notes that these proposals are similar to those currently under consideration in two other Commission proceedings—the USTelecom forbearance proceeding, and the Connect America Fund proceeding. In both of those proceedings, AT&T and others have argued that the Commission should separate or “de-link” carriers' Lifeline obligations from their ETC status. To facilitate our consideration of relevant arguments previously raised in the Connect America Fund and USTelecom forbearance proceedings, we hereby incorporate by reference the pleadings in those proceedings.
121.
122.
123.
124. Recognizing the value of both unlicensed and licensed spectrum as a community and educational asset that can be utilized to improve broadband access and provide for innovative uses among low-income Americans, the Commission seeks comment on how we can augment the Lifeline program through the use of wireless spectrum to extend the Lifeline program's reach to as many low-income consumers as possible. What, if any, additional costs may providers incur as part of employing unlicensed technology for the benefit of low-income consumers? How can the Commission best support the use of these more unconventional ways of providing broadband access to the low-income community?
125. The Commission also seeks comment on other innovative wired or wireless technologies that may be similarly or better suited to provide low-income consumers with affordable broadband access than unlicensed or licensed spectrum or other, more traditional means of providing broadband. In proposing an alternative solution, commenters should describe how the alternative solution will complement the other programmatic changes and approaches the Commission discusses within this item.
126. The Commission also seeks comment on alternative means by which it can increase competition in this space. The Commission's rules current require that a provider become an ETC prior to receiving Lifeline universal service support. As discussed above, evidence in the record indicates that the ETC designation may be an impediment to broader participation in the Lifeline program. Would creating a process to participate in Lifeline that is entirely separate from the ETC designation process required to receive high cost universal service support encourage broader participation by providers? The Commission seeks comment on a new process applying to all entities that provide Lifeline service and ask how to include sufficient oversight to address concerns about waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission seeks comment on the policy benefits of such an approach, what responsibility the relevant Federal and state entities would have in such a scheme, and the Commission's legal authority to do so.
127.
128. In the 1996 Act, Congress made explicit the universal service objective of “quality services” at “affordable rates” and that “low-income consumers . . . should have access to . . . advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas.” In so doing, Congress embraced the Commission's Lifeline program and made clear that section 254 did not affect the pre-existing Lifeline program, stating “[n]othing in this section [254] shall affect the collection, distribution, or administration of the Lifeline Assistance Program.” The Commission has interpreted section 254(j) to give the Commission the authority and flexibility to retain or modify the Lifeline program even if the Lifeline program has “inconsistenc[ies] with other portions of the 1996 Act.” Moreover, the Commission found that, “by its own terms, section 254(j) applies only to changes made [to Lifeline] pursuant to section 254 itself. Our authority to restrict, expand, or otherwise modify the Lifeline program through provisions other than section 254 has been well established over the past decade.”
129. Importantly, in 1997, when the Commission implemented the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and revised the Lifeline program, it found that it had the authority to provide Lifeline support to include carriers other than ETCs. At that time, however, the Commission decided that for administrative convenience and efficiency, it would only provide Lifeline support to ETCs. The Commission did observe that it would reassess this decision if it appeared Lifeline was not being made available to low-income consumers nationwide.
130.
131. Given the Commission's desire to promote competition for low-income consumers and the evidence that the ETC process is currently deterring such entry, the Commission seeks comment on revisiting the 1997 decision not to provide Lifeline support to non-ETCs to encourage broader participation in the Lifeline market. The Commission seeks comment on its legal authority to create a separate designation process for Lifeline. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission could provide Lifeline support based on universal service contributions made pursuant to section 254(d) authority, or would it need to adopt a separate mechanism relying on subsidies among rates as it used prior to the 1996 Act? The Commission has found that, “by its own terms, section 254(j) applies only to changes made pursuant to section 254 itself. Our authority to restrict, expand, or otherwise modify the Lifeline program through provisions other than section 254 has been well established over the past decade.” Do sections 1, 4(i), 201, and 205 give the Commission authority to do so? Does section 706 of the 1996 Act or other statutory provisions provide the Commission with authority to give certain non-ETCs Lifeline support? As above, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the collection and disbursement of funds under an approach based on section 706 (or other statutory provisions) would comport with federal appropriations laws.
132. The Commission seeks comment on the process and mechanism to designate providers for participation in the Lifeline program and separate from the ETC designation process. What information should providers submit to participate in the Lifeline program? What certifications or other information should be required? Should the Commission use a process similar to certifications in the E-rate or rural health care programs today?
133. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission is proposing and seeking comment on fundamental structural changes to the Lifeline program that further mitigate incentives for waste fraud and abuse, including removing the provider from determining eligibility. How do these changes impact the type of information and oversight necessary for Lifeline providers? For example, if the Commission reforms Lifeline to provide the subsidy to the consumer as a portable benefit, how does that impact the oversight necessary on the provider? Should the Commission consider a “deemed grant” approach to streamline approval? Should the Commission retain the use of compliance plans and, if so, should they be modified or changed? The Commission seeks comment on how to ensure sufficient oversight and accountability to reduce waste, fraud and abuse.
134. The Commission seeks comment on the federal-state role in creating a new designation process. Lifeline and universal service generally has always involved federal-state partnerships and the Commission seeks comment on how to continue that work as the Commission seeks comment on a new framework. The Commission seeks comment on pros and cons of creating a national designation versus a state-by-state approach, or a combination thereof where states with individual Lifeline programs could supplement any federal Lifeline designation with additional conditions.
135. The Commission seeks comment on the process of transitioning from designating ETCs to a new designation process. The Commission also seeks comment on opening a window for new providers to participate to help minimize administrative burdens on federal and state agencies. The Commission seeks comment on alternative approaches and how best to ensure that the Commission has sufficient checks and safeguards to address potential waste, fraud and abuse.
136. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on two proposals to update its rules to reflect the manner in which consumers use Lifeline service today. The Commission finds that all consumers, including low-income consumers, should have access to the same features, functions, and consumer protections.
137. In light of the widespread use of text messages, and as part of the Commission's continuing efforts to modernize the Lifeline program, the Commission seeks comment on amending the Commission's rules to treat the sending of text messages as usage for the purpose of demonstrating usage sufficient to avoid de-enrollment from Lifeline service. In so doing, the Commission grants in part and denies in part a petition on this filed by TracFone. Specifically, the Commission grants that portion of Tracfone's petition that requests the initiation of a rulemaking proceeding to amend § 54.407(c)(2) of the Commission's rules to allow Lifeline subscribers to establish usage of Lifeline service by sending text messages. The Commission denies, however, the portion of TracFone's petition that requests the initiation of a rulemaking to also include receipt of text messages to count as usage. Because the subscriber cannot control whether others send texts, the receipt of such texts should not be used as a basis for concluding that the subscriber wishes to retain service. The Commission also denies the portion of Tracfone's petition that concerns a request for interim relief allowing subscribers to use text messaging to establish usage during the pendency of the requested rulemaking. While the Commission thinks there is enough merit to TracFone's proposal to seek comment on a rule change, the Commission is not yet certain enough to find good cause to waive the rule to allow text messaging to count as usage.
138. The Commission's rules currently require subscribers of prepaid Lifeline services to use the service at least once every 60 days. The Commission adopted that requirement to ensure that Lifeline providers do not receive Lifeline support for customers who do not actually use the service. The requirement only applies to prepaid services because the Commission found that subscribers to post-paid Lifeline providers do not present the same risk of inactivity as subscribers to pre-paid services.
139. In 2012, the Commission declined to include sending or receiving a text message in the list of activities that qualify as usage for purposes of § 54.407(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, on the basis that text messaging is not a supported service. While it is true that text messaging is not currently a supported service, it is widely used by wireless consumers for their basic communications needs. According to TracFone, the rapid increase in use of texting by subscribers of wireless service, and the reliance on text messaging by individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have difficulty with speech, weigh in favor of amending the Commission's rules to allow text messaging as an activity that constitutes usage of service.
140. Allowing text messages to constitute usage would be a reversal of the Commission's previous decision. However, in light of the changes in consumer behavior highlighted by the extensive use of text messaging, the
141. In this section, the Commission proposes to adopt procedures to allow subscribers to terminate Lifeline service in a quick and efficient manner. The Commission has received anecdotal evidence that some subscribers cannot readily reach their Lifeline provider to terminate service, or their request to terminate service is not followed. As a result, funds are wasted for services that are either not used or no longer desired.
142.
143. Although § 54.405(e)(1) of the Commission's rules requires Lifeline providers to de-enroll subscribers when an Lifeline provider has a reasonable basis to believe that the subscriber no longer meets the Lifeline-qualifying criteria (including instances where a subscriber informs the Lifeline provider or the state that he or she is ineligible for Lifeline), this provision does not cover those situations where, for whatever reason, subscribers themselves wish to terminate Lifeline services.
144.
145. The Commission seeks further comment on requiring Lifeline providers to publicize their 24-hour customer service number in a manner reasonably designed to reach their subscribers and indicate, on all materials describing the service that subscribers may cancel or de-enroll themselves from Lifeline services, for any reason, without having to submit any additional documents. For the purposes of this rule, the Commission proposes that the term “materials describing the service” includes all print, audio, video, and web materials used to describe or enroll in the Lifeline service offering, including application and certification forms and materials sent confirming initiation of the service. The Commission seeks comment on a rule requiring Lifeline providers to record such requests for termination and make such records available to state and Federal regulators upon request. The Commission also makes clear that a Lifeline provider's failure to respect their subscribers' wishes to de-enroll from Lifeline service may subject the Lifeline provider to enforcement action.
146. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should require a particular authentication process or leave that decision up to each Lifeline provider. In order to make this process easy for the subscriber wishing to terminate Lifeline service, the Commission proposes that ETCs authenticate subscribers solely through social security numbers, account numbers, or some other personal identification verifying the subscriber's identity. In order to minimize the burden on Lifeline providers implementing these de-enrollment procedures, including any customer authentication processes the Commission adopts, the Commission further proposes that any rules regarding subscriber de-enrollment shall become effective six months after the release of an order implementing such rules, and seeks comment on this proposal. However, the Commission notes that, prior to the effective date of any requirements in this section, a Lifeline provider's failure to de-enroll the subscriber within a reasonable period of time upon request may constitute a violation of the Act and the Commission's rules.
147. The Commission seeks comment on alternative ways to achieve the same goals. Relatedly, the Commission seeks comment on revising § 54.405(e)(1) of the Commission's rules to require Lifeline providers to de-enroll subscribers within five business days. The Commission also seeks comment on any other barriers to implementation the Commission should consider related to subscriber de-enrollment. The Commission believes that these rules will further its interest in reducing waste and fraud, improve program administration and accountability, and facilitate subscriber choice and ultimate control over their Lifeline service.
148. Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) play an important role in the nation's alerting and public warning system. Participating carriers send, free-of-charge to their subscribers, text-like messages alerting subscribers of emergencies in their area, falling under one of the following three classes: (1) Presidential alerts, (2) imminent threats, and (3) child abduction emergency, or AMBER, alerts. This system (formerly known as the Commercial Mobile Alert System) allows authorized government agencies to send geographically targeted emergency alerts to commercial wireless subscribers who have WEA-capable mobile devices and whose commercial wireless service provider has elected to offer the service. Under the WARN Act, participation in WEA system by wireless carriers is widespread but entirely voluntary. As a result, not all CMS providers currently provide WEA service or do not intend to provide WEA service through their entire service areas.
149. The Commission seeks comment on ways to increase Lifeline provider participation in WEA. Are there measures the Commission could take to encourage support of WEA, consistent with the Commission's legal authority and core mission to promote the safety
150. In this section of the Second FNRPM, the Commission seeks comment on a number of reforms to increase the efficient administration if the program.
The Government Accountability Office has recommended that the Commission conduct a program evaluation to determine how well Lifeline is serving its intended objectives. For example, one of the goals that the Commission has set for the Lifeline program is increasing the availability of voice service for low-income Americans, measured by the difference in the penetration rate (the percentage of households with telephone service) between low-income households and households with the next highest level of income. Without a program evaluation, however, GAO reports that the Commission is currently unable to determine the extent to which Lifeline has assisted in lowering the gap in penetration rates. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether a program evaluation is needed to determine the extent to which Lifeline has contributed towards fulfilling its goals, such as narrowing the gap in telephone penetration rates, and at what cost. Is this the right goal for Lifeline program or should it focus on affordability? Should the Commission focus on measuring program efficiency by determining the amount of people who no longer need Lifeline? In measuring the effectiveness of Lifeline on low-income broadband subscribers, how can the Commission capture the benefits that flow from getting consumers connected, such as the ability to obtain employment, education and improve their health care? How should a program evaluation be structured? How expensive would it be to implement? Moreover, if Lifeline is expanded to include broadband support, how could we evaluate the effectiveness of such an expansion? What metrics and timeframe should the Commission use to determine whether such funds were being spent efficiently?
151. The Commission now turns to the universal service support provided to low-income recipients residing on Tribal lands, often referred to as enhanced Tribal support. Enhanced support provides a higher monthly subsidy amount as well as Link Up at service activation. In this section, the Commission seeks additional information on whether and how enhanced Tribal support is being utilized on Tribal lands, and whether the minimum service level for Tribal consumers should be different from the proposed minimum service levels for other consumers. The Commission also seeks comment on narrowly tailoring enhanced support to ensure that it actually supports the deployment of infrastructure. It also seeks comment on requiring additional documentation to demonstrate that a subscriber resides on Tribal lands.
152.
153. Under the current rules, Lifeline providers that are authorized to provide service on Tribal lands may receive the $9.25 per month that is offered for any eligible low-income consumer and an additional amount of up to $25 per month for service provided to eligible low-income residents of Tribal lands—a total of up to $34.25 per month for each eligible low-income consumer on Tribal lands. Additionally, under the current enhanced Link Up program, Lifeline providers that receive high-cost support on Tribal lands may receive a one-time support payment of up to $100 for each eligible low-income subscriber on Tribal lands enrolled in the Lifeline program to cover the cost of connecting a consumer to service.
154. In the 2000
155. In its 2012 Annual Report, the Commission's Office of Native Affairs and Policy provided case studies that showed the benefits of enhanced Tribal support and what some Tribal Nations have been able to achieve in terms of affordable and accessible service on Tribal lands. For many Tribally-owned ETCs, for example, the names Lifeline and Link Up resonate strongly, given the very high levels of unemployment in Tribal lands, the very high percentage of Tribal families with incomes well under the Federal Poverty Guidelines, and the remote nature of Tribal Reservations. For example, seventy-eight percent of Hopi Telecommunications Inc.'s (HTI) residential customers are eligible for Lifeline. The Lifeline and Link Up programs have been vital assets as HTI has expanded the reach and adoption of communications services across the Hopi Reservation. While the Commission recognizes the benefits that enhanced Tribal support have provided to date, however, Tribal Nations have indicated that there is still much that can be done to encourage infrastructure build-out and improve the level of telecommunications service and affordability of those services for Tribal residents.
156.
157. The Commission also seeks comment, information, and data on the utilization of enhanced Link Up support for the benefit of consumers on Tribal lands and the carriers that serve such consumers. How is the subsidy utilized by carriers and how does it affect the services delivered to consumers on Tribal lands? How much do residents of Tribal lands pay and how much do carriers charge for connecting a Tribal resident to voice service? What are the variables affecting how much is charged? Does the Link Up subsidy achieve the intended goal of making telephone service available and affordable for residents of Tribal lands? If not, how should the rule be modified to better effectuate the intended goal? If enhanced Tribal Link Up was eliminated, what effect would it have on affordability?
158. Additionally, the Commission knows there are many factors that contribute to whether telecommunications service is available and affordable for low-income consumers living on Tribal lands. What policies or practices should the Commission adopt to ensure that the Lifeline and Link Up programs are successful on Tribal lands? What measures should be implemented to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse?
159.
160. Lifeline program data show that two-thirds of enhanced Tribal support goes to non-facilities-based Lifeline providers, and it is unclear whether the support is being used to deploy facilities in Tribal areas. The Commission proposes, therefore, to limit enhanced Tribal Lifeline and Link Up support only to those Lifeline providers who have facilities. Should there, for example, be different approaches to enhanced support provided to non-facilities-based Lifeline providers serving Tribal lands? One option would be to limit enhanced Lifeline support only to those ETCs currently receiving high-cost support, similar to the Commission's Link Up reforms. Another option would be to adopt the proposal of the OCC that the Commission limit enhanced Lifeline support to those Lifeline providers that are deploying, building, or maintaining infrastructure on Tribal lands, even if they do not or are not eligible to receive high-cost support. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and drawbacks to these proposed options. What would be the impact of such limitations on the provision of Lifeline-supported service to residents of Tribal lands? How can the Commission best accomplish the objective of encouraging build out to Tribal lands?
161. If the Commission were to adopt a rule limiting enhanced Lifeline support as proposed above, the Commission seeks comment on whether the annual submission of FCC Form 481 would be sufficient to determine whether a Lifeline provider was deploying, building, or maintaining infrastructure on Tribal lands. Would any changes to that form be required to document that the build-out was occurring on Tribal lands? For those Lifeline providers that either are not receiving or are not eligible for high-cost support, but seek to receive enhanced Lifeline support consistent with the OCC proposal, what documentation would be necessary to ensure that build out was occurring on Tribal lands? Should such a Lifeline provider have to demonstrate that it is continuing to build infrastructure on Tribal lands?
162. The Commission also seeks comment on whether we should focus enhanced Tribal support to those Tribal areas with lower population densities, on the theory that provision of enhanced support in more densely populated areas is inconsistent with the Commission's objectives. In the 2000
163. Certain Tribal lands have within their boundaries more densely populated locations, such as Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is eligible for enhanced Tribal Lifeline support as it is within a former reservation in Oklahoma, but nonetheless has a comparatively high population density compared to many other Tribal lands. The Commission notes there are other potential locations on Tribal lands, such as Chandler, Arizona; Reno, Nevada; or Anchorage, Alaska. If we adopted an approach that focused Tribal support on less densely populated areas, what level of density would be sufficient to justify the continued receipt of enhanced Tribal lands support? What level of geographic granularity should we
164.
165. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on ways to strengthen the integrity of electronic signatures in a manner that is both consistent with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and that increases protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission also seeks comment on reforms to ensure that the clear intent of the subscriber to enroll in Lifeline and his/her understanding of the rules is reflected in the completed Lifeline application.
166.
167.
168. In responding to this query, commenters may also take note of other proposals in this
169. The Commission seeks comment on whether adopting regulations based on what state governments or other federal agencies have done would be suitable in this context. The Commission recognizes that in many instances state and federal regulations concern transactions between a state or federal agency and the public, perhaps allowing for greater government leeway in determining what specific technology should be used. While the Commission does not wish to dictate the use of technologies, it cannot permit a system where a random stray mark, attributed to stylus difficulties, or an automatically generated signature, without more constitute valid signatures. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on what safeguards Lifeline providers have adopted to date to ensure that an electronic signature represents the named subscriber's “intent to sign the record.” The Commission also seeks comment on the utility of requiring service providers to retain the IP, or other unique identifier, such as a MAC address, affiliated with the email or device that was used for signing up a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on whether such mechanisms might be useful in detecting and ultimately curtailing fraud. For example, would retaining the MAC addresses associated with iPads used by sales agents enable service providers and, if the need should arise, regulators to better monitor the sign-up practices of such agents? Such an approach would assist companies and auditors in determining patterns of fraudulent behavior by agents or a subset of agents within the company.
170. Moreover, as an added protection, to ensure all subscribers truly understand the certifications they are making, the Commission proposes that all written certifications (irrespective of whether they are in paper or electronic form) mandate that subscribers initial their acknowledgement of each of the requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.410(d)(3). In proposing these requirements, the Commission emphasizes that Lifeline service providers remain mindful of their obligation under 15 U.S.C. 7001(e) to ensure that an electronic record be in a form that is capable of being retained and accurately reproduced for later reference. In this regard, the Commission finds that it is consistent with section 7001(e) of the E-Sign Act that Lifeline providers be able to
171. As part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program, we propose a number of additional applications to the NLAD, including the use of the NLAD to calculate Lifeline providers' monthly Lifeline reimbursement. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and others below.
172.
173. The Commission notes that in the national verifier section above, it sought comment on whether it would be equitable and non-discriminatory pursuant to section 254(d) to require only those Lifeline providers that will benefit from the functions of the national verifier to contribute to its implementation and operation through additional USF funds. Since only certain Lifeline providers will utilize the NLAD, just as the national verifier, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is equitable and non-discriminatory to require Lifeline providers that will utilize the benefits of the NLAD to contribute additional USF funds pursuant to section 254(d). Under this proposal, how would support be allocated amongst the contributing Lifeline providers? Would Lifeline providers that utilize the NLAD more than other Lifeline providers be required to pay more? What methodology should the Commission use if implementing this support mechanism?
174. The Commission also asks about methods to address situations in which there is a dispute about a Lifeline provider's subscribership. The Commission's rules, for example, currently require that the NLAD be updated with subscriber de-enrollments within one business day. If Lifeline providers receive reimbursement from the NLAD, should this rule be modified to ensure that Lifeline providers do not receive reimbursement for subscribers that they no longer serve? The NLAD incorporates a dispute resolution process whereby Lifeline providers have an opportunity to ensure that eligible subscribers are not inadvertently rejected by the NLAD as ineligible. How should support for subscribers in the dispute resolution process be treated for the purpose of determining Lifeline support? What additional safeguards against fraud, if any, should be implemented in the NLAD in light of a direct relationship between subscriber counts in the NLAD and receipt of payment?
175.
176.
177.
178. The Commission proposes rules to minimize the disruption to Lifeline subscribers associated with the transfer of control of ETCs or the sale of assets and lists of customers receiving benefits under the program, as well as the transfer of ETC designations between providers. The Commission seeks comment on proposals for when it should permit an ETC to assume an ETC designation from another carrier. The Commission also proposes establishing notification requirements when a carrier sells or otherwise transfers Lifeline
179. The Commission also requires any non-facilities-based carriers seeking to offer Lifeline service to submit to the Bureau and receive approval of a compliance plan. The approval of a compliance plan is limited to the entity, and its ownership, as they are described in the compliance plan approved by the Bureau, and any material changes in ownership or control require modification of the compliance plan that must be approved by the Bureau in advance of the changes. The Commission has not otherwise addressed specific requirements on ETCs that seek to transfer a Lifeline subscriber to another entity.
180. Finally, section 214 of the Act requires domestic telecommunications carriers to obtain authorization to undertake acquisitions of assets such as by the purchase of transmission lines or customers, or through acquisition of corporate control, such as by acquisitions of equity ownership. The Commission treats acquisitions, whether they are through a stock or asset transaction, in the same manner by requiring section 214 approval prior to consummation of the transaction. In cases in which a carrier does not transfer its subscriber base to another entity but instead discontinues service for those customers, the carrier must obtain authorization from the Commission prior to discontinuing the service. In practice, however, today these rules apply to wireline or fixed wireless service ETCs, either facilities-based or resellers. The Commission has forborne from imposing the section 214(a) requirements on commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers' provision of domestic telecommunication services.
181.
182. The Commission proposes that these requirements would apply when the acquiring entity becomes the ETC using a different corporate name or operating entity, and also would apply when the acquiring entity maintains the acquired ETC's corporate name or operating entity. In proposing such requirements, the Commission seeks comment on the approval process and obligations for all impacted entities, including the acquired ETCs. The Commission also proposes that these requirements would not apply to designations in which the acquired entity was designated by the state and the state continues to exercise authority to designate such carriers (State Designated ETCs). The Commission is persuaded that entities it has never evaluated as an ETC should continue to have the obligation to file their own ETC petition and that a more streamlined approach is better suited for transactions where the acquiring entity is an existing FCC Designated ETC.
183. The Commission proposes a more streamlined approach for transactions where the acquiring entity is also an FCC Designated ETC. The Commission has already evaluated whether such entities satisfy the requirements of the Act so there is a presumption it is unnecessary for the Commission to undertake the same analysis again. The Commission seeks comment on requiring an acquiring entity that is an FCC Designated ETC, and where such designation has not been relinquished or revoked, to notify the Commission of its intent to assume control of the FCC Designated ETC held by the acquired entity, details of the transaction, how the acquiring entity is financially and technically capable to offer Lifeline service to the selling carrier's Lifeline subscribers, and how allowing the acquiring entity to assume the selling carrier's ETC designation is in the public interest. To comply with a Commission notification requirement, the Commission seeks comment on the period of time that an acquiring entity would notify the Commission of its intent to acquire or assume the selling carrier's ETC designation and the details contained in such notice, including whether such transaction involved high-cost support prior to consummation of the transaction. If the Commission or Bureau does not act on the ETC's notification within a certain period, the Commission proposes that the transaction would be deemed approved and seek comment on that period of time. If the Commission or Bureau acts on the ETC's notification within the designated period of time via Public Notice or other type of notice to impacted entities, the proposed transaction would not take effect until the Commission or Bureau take affirmative action on the proposed transaction. The Commission seeks comment on this process for the Commission or Bureau to act regarding such transactions, and whether the process should change if there is an underlying transaction connected with the assumption or transfer of the ETC designations (
184. The Commission recognizes that states, as designating authorities, have their own procedures to address the assumptions and transfers of ETC designations. The Commission seeks comment from states and third parties on whether we should consider certain state procedures addressing transfer of ETC designations in modifying the Commission's processes.
185.
186. Specifically, the Commission proposes requiring an acquiring carrier that is not currently subject to the 214 requirements, or already subject to Commission approval of the underlying transaction (
187. The Commission proposes that this requirement would be a condition of receipt of Lifeline support. Under this scenario, the Commission is not proposing to reinstate the discontinuance authorization rules for which the Commission has forborne for CMRS providers. The notice requirements the Commission seeks comment on here are not pre-approval requirements but are intended to ensure that Lifeline consumers have the opportunity to seek an alternative provider. The notice provisions would also support the Commission's efforts against waste by requiring providers to inform regulators before exiting the market and attempting either to benefit from exit transactions or to shift funds away before USAC or the Commission could obtain repayment, if appropriate. The Commission seeks comment on such requirements and the impact to the affected subscribers.
188.
189. In regards to transfers among entities, the Commission also notes that any material changes in ownership or control of entities with approved compliance plans require modification of those compliance plans, which in turn, must be approved by the Bureau in advance of changes. To facilitate transfers between entities with approved compliance plans, should the Commission consider other rules that will minimize disruption to Lifeline subscribers? Should the Commission also consider other rules to minimize disruption to Lifeline subscribers associated with the transfer of control of ETCs receiving benefits under the program, as well as the transfer of ETC designations between providers? Given that a majority of states designate competitive ETCs, the Commission seeks comment from states on these matters. The Commission seeks comment on whether states impose discontinuance of service requirements on CMRS ETCs and if so, whether those states' requirements should serve as a model for the Commission's rules.
190. As part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to reduce waste and inefficiency in the Lifeline program, the Commission proposes to reduce the non-usage interval to 30 days. In the
191. The Commission further seeks comment on how this change would impact ETCs. Would a reduction in the usage period cause administrative burdens for ETCs? If yes, what are the burdens and would there be ways to minimize these burdens? Are there benefits to reducing the non-usage period, for example, to 30 days instead of the current 60 days?
192. To increase transparency and promote accountability in the program, the Commission proposes to direct USAC to modify its online disbursement tool to display the total number of subscribers for which the ETC seeks support for each SAC, including how many are subscribers for which it claims enhanced Tribal support. Making this data more accessible will allow the public to more easily ascertain the number of subscribers that each ETC serves within each SAC on a monthly basis.
193. Within the Lifeline program, ETCs provide discounts to eligible households and receive support from the Fund for the provision of such discounts. ETCs submit an FCC Form 497 to USAC on a monthly or quarterly basis, which lists the number of subscribers it served for the previous month(s) and the requested support amount. USAC has a disbursement tool available on its Web site that provides the disbursement amounts that are authorized for payment for a particular
194. Even though the public can already derive Lifeline subscriber counts from USAC's Web site and Quarterly Reports, we propose this additional transparency step so the public, including state commissions and policymakers at the state and federal levels, can more easily examine these aspects of the program through one resource. In proposing these modifications, the Commission seeks comment on the impact to ETCs. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other modifications to USAC's disbursement tool that should be made to promote transparency and accountability in the program. For example, should USAC modify the disbursement tool to provide more clarity on an ETC's adjustments made to its FCC Form 497 filings within the last 12 months?
195. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on adopting forms approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that all consumers, ETCs, or states, where applicable, must use in order to certify consumers' initial and ongoing eligibility for Lifeline benefits. The Commission believes that standardization of subscriber certification forms will save time by avoiding the need to analyze each form to make sure it contains all of the requirements of the federal rules, and allow for easier compliance checks. The Commission specifically seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt standard forms for consumers' initial and annual certifications of consumer eligibility as well as the “one-per-household worksheet” for when multiple households reside at the same address and seek Lifeline benefits.
196. All ETCs must obtain a signed certification from the consumer that complies with § 54.410 of the Commission's rules. ETCs are required to annually recertify each subscriber's eligibility for Lifeline, and may recertify subscribers by requiring each subscriber to submit an annual re-certification form to the ETC. In instances where multiple households reside at the same address, the consumer must affirmatively certify through the “one-per-household worksheet” that other Lifeline recipients residing at that address are part of a separate household,
197. Currently, ETCs (or states, where applicable) may create and use their own forms, so long as their forms comply with the Commission's rules. The Commission has received anecdotal evidence expressing concerns that the forms for these purposes are inconsistent, deficient, or are difficult for consumers to understand. To increase compliance with the rules, facilitate administration of the program and to reduce burdens placed upon ETCs, the Commission proposes creating an official, standardized initial certification form, annual recertification form and “one-per household” worksheet. Standardized forms would allow ETCs, the states, and consumers to better interface with any national verifier or state or federal agency that assists with enrollment, as proposed elsewhere in this item. The Commission seeks comment on potential drawbacks to adopting a standardized form. In GAO's most recent report on Lifeline, it notes that many eligible consumers may struggle to complete an application due to lack of literacy or language skills. The Commission thus seeks comment on how to improve the language used on such forms so that consumers are better able to understand their and the ETC's obligations.
198. The URL,
199. The Commission proposes to require Lifeline providers to record the subscriber execution date on certification and recertification forms. In the 2012
200. The Commission seeks comment on requiring Lifeline providers to record the subscriber execution date on certification and recertification forms. Mandating an execution date produces a number of benefits for ETCs and regulators. An execution date will ensure that USAC, the Commission, and independent auditors can, among other things, determine the relevant rules that apply to the enrollment or recertification of that subscriber. Obtaining the execution date will also allow USAC to recover funds for enrollment and recertification rule violations more accurately.
201. The Commission seeks additional comment on the manner in which the execution date should be collected and retained. For example, should the execution date appear in a particular designated area on the certification or recertification form? How would this requirement be implemented for subscribers that complete a certification or recertification form online or through other electronic means? How would this obligation interact with the E-Sign Act and any additional requirements the Commission proposes to implement for electronic signatures?
202. In order to increase ETC accountability and compliance with the Lifeline rules, the Commission proposes to require an officer of an ETC to certify on each FCC Form 497 that all individuals taking part in that ETC's enrollment and recertification processes have received sufficient training on the Lifeline rules. In the 2012
203. Subsequent to the 2012
204. Interested parties have suggested additional reforms to the Lifeline program intended to reduce agent abuses. In June 2013, the Lifeline Reform 2.0 Coalition filed a petition urging the Commission to establish a rule that requires all ETCs to have only their employees review and approve consumers' documentation of eligibility, rather than an agent or independent contractor, before the ETC activates Lifeline service or seeks reimbursement from the Fund. To minimize any improper financial incentives, the Lifeline Reform 2.0 Coalition argued that the Commission should implement a rule to no longer permit employees who are paid on a commission to review and approve applicants of the program. In responding to the June 2013 Lifeline Reform 2.0 Coalition petition, the Michigan Public Service Commission suggested that the Commission require ETCs to develop quality control procedures tailored to their particular business plan in lieu of having the Commission impose one specific set of procedures.
205. Consistent with the Michigan PSC's suggestion, the Commission now proposes to require an officer of an ETC to certify on each FCC Form 497 that all individuals taking part in that ETC's enrollment and recertification processes have received sufficient training on the Lifeline rules. Under this proposal, ETCs would be required to affirmatively certify on each FCC Form 497 that all individuals, both company employees and third-party agents (“covered individuals”), interfacing with consumers on behalf of the company have received sufficient training on the Lifeline program rules. The Commission seeks comment on how an ETC can show sufficiency of training. The Commission believes that this requirement will not only help to ensure that covered individuals are adequately trained but will also create an environment of compliance at all levels of the company, thereby reducing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, adequate training will have the additional benefit of reducing consumer confusion during the enrollment process. The Commission seeks comment on these views.
206. The Commission proposes to require that ETCs obtain a signature of all covered individuals certifying that the covered individual has completed such training. This would allow auditors, the FCC, and other interested government agencies to ensure that the ETC is acting in accordance with its Form 497 certification. The Commission seeks comment on alternative means to document the training of covered individuals. To ensure that covered individuals remain aware of the current rules, we propose that every covered individual must receive such training before taking part in the enrollment process on behalf of the company and again every twelve months thereafter in order to ensure that every person involved in enrolling and verifying consumers for Lifeline has been adequately educated about the program and its requirements. The Commission seeks additional comment and solicit ideas for any additional safeguards that may be necessary to ensure that agents or other employees enrolling subscribers do not have the opportunity or incentive to defraud the Fund.
207. As the Lifeline program enters its fourth decade, it must continue to evolve to ensure that it is serving its statutory mission. The proposals and questions included herein are intended to solicit the kind of record that will allow the Commission to ensure that it is meeting the requirements of section 254 while strengthening protections against waste, fraud, and abuse.
208. To ensure the Lifeline audits are the best use of Commission resources, do not unduly burden Lifeline providers and accurately demonstrate a Lifeline provider has complied with Commission rules, the Commission proposes to revise the Commission's rule requiring all first-year Lifeline providers to undergo an audit within the first year of receiving Lifeline benefits.
209. The Commission has directed USAC to establish an audit program for all of the universal service programs, including Lifeline. As part of the audit program, in the
210. Since the adoption of the 2012
211. Given the three years of experience auditing these carriers since the adoption of the 2012
212. Instead of adopting a bright-line threshold to identify those audits of
213. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if an audit is delayed, it should establish a deadline by which the audit must be conducted, even if the Lifeline provider still has limited operations. The Commission notes that it can audit any beneficiary at any time. Is there some benefit to a Lifeline provider in knowing that it will definitely be audited within its first year? Alternatively, or in addition, are there procedures that OMD, Bureau, or USAC should follow beyond those typically used in the case of other audits under § 54.707 of the Commission's rules? For example, should a letter or other notification be sent to the Lifeline provider to set a period of time in advance of when the audit was scheduled to occur notifying the provider it will be delayed? After a delay, should USAC notify the Lifeline provider when it has been determined that an audit will be announced? If so, how far in advance? Should any such notification simply inform the Lifeline provider of the forthcoming audit pursuant to § 54.420(b) of the Commission's rules, or is there additional information that should be included?
214. Instead of setting a specific time frame by which an audit must be conducted after the current one-year deadline or delegating authority to OMD, to determine when an audit should be conducted, should the Commission instead adopt a minimum threshold under which audits should not be conducted because they are unlikely to be useful? If so, what metric(s) should be used to define the threshold(s)? Should it be measured in dollars or subscribers, some other metric(s), or some combination? Under such an approach, what metrics would best enable an evaluation of the usefulness of a § 54.420(b) of the Commission's rules audit, in terms of both substance (
215. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are variations or combinations of the forgoing options or other alternatives that the Commission should consider. Commenters advocating particular alternatives should explain how readily they can be used to identify whether an audit is likely to be useful and how readily administrable the alternatives would be.
216. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Second FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
217. The Commission is required by section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to promulgate rules to implement the universal service provisions of section 254. The Lifeline program was implemented in 1985 in the wake of the 1984 divestiture of AT&T. On May 8, 1997, the Commission adopted rules to reform its system of universal service support mechanisms so that universal service is preserved and advanced as markets move toward competition. The Lifeline program is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the Administrator of the universal service support programs, under Commission direction, although many key attributes of the Lifeline program are currently implemented at the state level, including consumer eligibility, eligible telecommunication carrier (ETC) designations, outreach, and verification. Lifeline support is passed on to the subscriber by the ETC, which provides discounts to eligible households and receives reimbursement from the universal service fund (USF or Fund) for the provision of such discounts.
218. The Second FNPRM seeks comment on a potential new or revised information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a separate notice in the
219.
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
220.
221. In addition, one copy of each paper filing must be sent to each of the following: (1) The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; Web site:
222. Filing and comments are also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its Web site:
223. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. All interested parties must include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. The Commission also strongly encourages parties to track the organization set forth in the Second FNPRM in order to facilitate the Commission's internal review process.
224. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Jonathan Lechter at (202) 418-7387 in the Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
225. When the Commission overhauled the Lifeline program in its 2012
226. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission therefore seeks comment on a package of potential reforms to modernize and restructure the Lifeline program. First, it proposes to establish minimum service levels for voice and broadband Lifeline service to ensure value for its USF dollars and more robust services for those low-income Americans who need them. Second, the Commission seeks to reset the Lifeline eligibility rules. Third, to encourage increased competition and innovation in the Lifeline market, the Commission seeks comment on ensuring the effectiveness of its administrative rules while also ensuring that they are not unnecessarily burdensome. Fourth, the Commission examines ways to enhance consumer protection. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on other ways to improve administration and ensure efficiency and accountability in the Lifeline program. The rules the Commission proposes in the Second FNPRM are directed at enabling the Commission to meet these goals and objectives for the Lifeline program.
227. The legal basis for the Second FNPRM is contained in sections 1 through 4, 201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403.
228. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
229. Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 87,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,506 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241. The category of
242. The second category,
243.
244. In addition, in the
245. Currently, there are approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service, 291 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of “paging and messaging” services. Of these, an estimated 289 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. We estimate that the majority of common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
246.
247. The 2007 Economic Census places these firms, whose services might include voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities (
248. In this Second FNPRM, we propose and seek public input on new and additional solutions for the Lifeline program, including reforms that would bring the program closer to its core purpose and promote the availability of modern services for low-income families. The rules we propose in this Second FNPRM are directed at enabling us to meet the Commission's goals and objectives for the Lifeline program. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on a number of proposed changes that would increase the economic burdens on small entities. These proposed changes include:
249.
250.
251.
252. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
253. As indicated above, in the Second FNPRM, while the Commission seeks comment on several proposed changes that would increase the economic burdens on small entities, it also proposes a number of changes that would lessen the economic impact on small entities. In those instances in which a proposed change would increase burdens on small entities, the Commission has determined that the benefits from such changes outweigh the increased burdens on small entities.
254.
255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.
262. None
263.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(l)
(m)
(a) * * *
(2) That provides qualifying low-income consumers with Voice Telephony service or broadband Internet access service as defined in § 54.400(l). Toll limitation service does not need to be offered for any Lifeline service that does not distinguish between toll and non-toll calls in the pricing of the service. If an eligible telecommunications carrier charges Lifeline subscribers a fee for toll calls that is in addition to the per month or per billing cycle price of the subscribers' Lifeline service, the carrier must offer toll limitation service at no charge to its subscribers as part of its Lifeline service offering.
(b) Eligible telecommunications carriers may allow qualifying low-income consumers to apply Lifeline discounts to any residential service plan that includes Voice Telephony service or broadband Internet access service, including bundled packages of both voice and broadband Internet access services; and plans that include optional calling features such as, but not limited to, caller identification, call waiting, voicemail, and three-way calling. Eligible telecommunications carriers may also permit qualifying low-income consumers to apply their Lifeline discount to family shared calling plans.
(e) * * *
(1)
(5)
(a) Universal service support for providing Lifeline shall be provided directly to an eligible telecommunications carrier based on the number of actual qualifying low-income customers it serves directly as of the first day of the month in the NLAD.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Sending a text message.
(d) In order to receive universal service support reimbursement, an officer of each eligible telecommunications carrier must certify, as part of each request for reimbursement, that:
(1) The ETC is in compliance with all of the rules in this subpart;
(2) The ETC has obtained valid certification and recertification forms to the extent required under this subpart for each of the subscribers for whom it is seeking reimbursement; and
(3) The ETC has provided sufficient training on all of the rules in this subpart to all individuals who interact with consumers during enrollment, recertification, or consumer information calls.
(d)
(1) The FCC Form [XXX] shall provide the following information in clear, easily understood language:
(2) The FCC Form [XXX] shall require each prospective subscriber to provide the following information:
(ix) The date on which the certification form was executed.
(3) The FCC Form [XXX] shall require each prospective subscriber to initial his or her acknowledgement of each of the following certifications individually and under penalty of perjury:
(f) * * *
(1) All eligible telecommunications carriers must annually re-certify all subscribers using FCC Form [XXX], except for subscribers in states where a state Lifeline administrator or other state agency is responsible for re-certification of subscribers' Lifeline eligibility.
(2) * * *
(iii) Obtaining a signed certification from the subscriber on the FCC Form [XXX] that meets the certification requirements in paragraph (d) of this section.
(3) * * *
(iii) Obtaining a signed certification from the subscriber on the FCC Form [XXX] that meets the certification requirements in paragraph (d) of this section.
(h)
(b)
| 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 |