| Page Range | 44829-45049 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 45011 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the Route 624 Bridge Replacement Project in Virginia | |
| 80 FR 44992 - Draft Resource Management Plan Revisions and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Western Oregon; Notice of Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 45008 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 45009 - Kentucky Disaster Number KY-00052 | |
| 80 FR 44961 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 45018 - Departmental Offices; Change in the Calculation of Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
| 80 FR 44940 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 44992 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Montana | |
| 80 FR 44953 - Notice of Receipt of Requests To Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 80 FR 45006 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rules Related to Obvious Errors | |
| 80 FR 44993 - Notice of Intent and Notice of Scoping Meetings for the Long-Term Recapture and Recirculation of San Joaquin River Restoration Program Flows Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 80 FR 44892 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment | |
| 80 FR 44947 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation | |
| 80 FR 44863 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2; Notice of Public Hearings and Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 44952 - Defense Programs Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 44947 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah | |
| 80 FR 44948 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 80 FR 45015 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 80 FR 44882 - Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year | |
| 80 FR 45017 - Proposed Collection: Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 80 FR 45016 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 97-22 | |
| 80 FR 44846 - Addition of Certain Persons to the Entity List; and Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List Based on Removal Requests | |
| 80 FR 44988 - Announcement of Funding Awards, Indian Community Development Block Grant Program, Fiscal Year 2014 | |
| 80 FR 45018 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8811 | |
| 80 FR 44987 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing | |
| 80 FR 45013 - Agency Requests for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Maritime Administration Service Obligation Compliance Annual Report | |
| 80 FR 45012 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PARAISO; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 45014 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Request for Transfer of Ownership, Registry, and Flag, or Charter, Lease, or Mortgage of U.S. Citizen-Owned Documented | |
| 80 FR 45011 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TAURI; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 45014 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SORTILEGE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 45013 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BAYADERE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 80 FR 44951 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 80 FR 44950 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 44949 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 45017 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8832 | |
| 80 FR 44949 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 44925 - Forest Resource Coordinating Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 45003 - ZionSolutions, LLC, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 | |
| 80 FR 45011 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Petition To Classify Special Immigrant Under INA 203(b)(4) as Employee or Former Employee of the U.S. Government Abroad | |
| 80 FR 45010 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Contact Information and Work History for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicant | |
| 80 FR 45009 - Texas Disaster Number TX-00448 | |
| 80 FR 45010 - Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00081 | |
| 80 FR 45009 - Texas Disaster Number TX-00447 | |
| 80 FR 45002 - Uranerz Energy Corporation; Nichols Ranch ISR Project | |
| 80 FR 45010 - Texas Disaster Number TX-00447 | |
| 80 FR 44961 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR; Submission for OMB Review; Environmental Conservation, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace | |
| 80 FR 45008 - Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00092 | |
| 80 FR 44986 - Renewal of the Generalized System of Preferences and Retroactive Application for Certain Liquidations and Reliquidations Under the GSP | |
| 80 FR 44852 - Special Local Regulation; Annual Marine Events on the San Diego Bay, Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 80 FR 44852 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 80 FR 44965 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 44964 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 44939 - Marine Mammals; File No. 14296 | |
| 80 FR 44938 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19590 | |
| 80 FR 44939 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18786 | |
| 80 FR 44930 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Subzone 37D; Xylem Water Systems USA LLC; (Centrifugal and Submersible Pumps) Auburn, New York | |
| 80 FR 44936 - Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments | |
| 80 FR 45001 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 44973 - Request for Quality Metrics; Notice of Draft Guidance Availability and Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 45019 - Special Medical Advisory Group; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 45015 - BNSF Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Kane County, Ill. | |
| 80 FR 44979 - Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS | |
| 80 FR 44977 - Meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 44978 - Public Meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues | |
| 80 FR 44952 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 44970 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 44992 - Indian Gaming | |
| 80 FR 44946 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Natural Experiments and Model Career-Focused Schools: An Environmental Scan | |
| 80 FR 44993 - Record of Decision for Wilderness Management Plan, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada and Arizona | |
| 80 FR 44930 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Maine Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 44883 - Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; 2015 Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Closure | |
| 80 FR 44942 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 80 FR 44884 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery | |
| 80 FR 44970 - Administration for Native Americans; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 44981 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 44982 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 44944 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 45006 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 44921 - Procedures Related to Commission Views | |
| 80 FR 44966 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 44940 - National Commission on the Future of the Army; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 44981 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 44980 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 44983 - Test To Collect Biometric Information at Up to Ten U.S. Airports (“Be-Mobile Air Test”) | |
| 80 FR 44924 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 44971 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments and Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products | |
| 80 FR 45005 - Information Collection: Request for Information Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights From the Fukushima Dai-ichi Event | |
| 80 FR 44959 - Notice of Appointment of Chairman and New FASAB Members | |
| 80 FR 44960 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technological Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 44960 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 44942 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 44996 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection; National Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape | |
| 80 FR 44910 - Safety Zone; Turritella FPSO, Walker Ridge 551, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico | |
| 80 FR 44925 - Inviting Rural Business Development Grant Program Applications for Grants To Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems | |
| 80 FR 44887 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Recreational Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna | |
| 80 FR 44998 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Notification of Change of Mailing or Premise Address | |
| 80 FR 44995 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Transactions Among Licensees/Permittees and Transactions Among Licensees and Holders of User Permits | |
| 80 FR 45000 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Notification to Fire Safety Authority of Storage of Explosive Materials | |
| 80 FR 44997 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Certification of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 44998 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for an Amended Federal Firearms License | |
| 80 FR 44999 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Firearms Transaction Record, Part I, Over-the-Counter | |
| 80 FR 44997 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification to Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 80 FR 44961 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10454, The Royal Palm Bank of Florida, Naples, FL | |
| 80 FR 44980 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 44962 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 44946 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) Performance Report | |
| 80 FR 45000 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Request for Earnings Information Report | |
| 80 FR 44945 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Program for International Student Assessment 2012 (PISA:2012) Validation Study 2015 Field Test and Main Study Additional Module Amendment | |
| 80 FR 44922 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Revisions to Linn County Air Quality Ordinance | |
| 80 FR 44870 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Revisions to Linn County Air Quality Ordinance | |
| 80 FR 44873 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment | |
| 80 FR 44868 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties | |
| 80 FR 44842 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Campbellsville, KY | |
| 80 FR 44843 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Greenville, SC | |
| 80 FR 44841 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Headland, AL | |
| 80 FR 44895 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hart/Shelby, MI | |
| 80 FR 44896 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Revocation of Class E Airspace; Mountain Home, ID | |
| 80 FR 44844 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Dyersburg, TN | |
| 80 FR 44859 - Update to NFPA Standards, Incorporation by Reference | |
| 80 FR 44967 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Announcement of the Extended Temporary Moratoria on Enrollment of Ambulance Suppliers and Home Health Agencies in Designated Geographic Locations | |
| 80 FR 44930 - Order Renewing Order Temporarily Denying Export Privileges | |
| 80 FR 44892 - Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 44949 - Solar Star Colorado III, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 45022 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Adopting New Equity Trading Rules Relating to Orders and Modifiers and the Retail Liquidity Program To Reflect the Implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology Platform | |
| 80 FR 44864 - [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0322; FRL-9931-13-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon: Grants Pass Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan | |
| 80 FR 44923 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon: Grants Pass Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan | |
| 80 FR 44829 - Federal Awarding Agency Regulatory Implementation of Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards | |
| 80 FR 44832 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 44839 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines | |
| 80 FR 44829 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 44898 - Public Access to Information | |
| 80 FR 44913 - Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Dental and Oral Conditions | |
| 80 FR 44835 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The Department of Commerce publishes this rule to adopt as a final rule, without change, a joint interim final rule published with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all Federal award-making agencies that implemented guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). This rule is necessary to incorporate into regulation and thus bring into effect the Uniform Guidance as required by OMB for the Department of Commerce.
This rule is effective August 27, 2015.
John Geisen at 202-482-0602 or
On December 19, 2014, OMB issued an interim final rule that implemented for all Federal award-making agencies the final guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). In that interim final rule, Federal awarding agencies, including the Department of Commerce, joined together to implement the Uniform Guidance in their respective chapters of title 2 of the CFR, and, where approved by OMB, implemented any exceptions to the Uniform Guidance by including the relevant language in their regulations. Where applicable, agencies provided additional language beyond that included in 2 CFR 200, consistent with their existing policy, to provide more detail with respect to how they intend to implement the policy, where appropriate.
In addition, the interim final rule made technical corrections to the Uniform Guidance, where needed, to ensure that particular language in the final guidance matched with the Council on Financial Assistance Reform's intent and to avoid any erroneous implementation of the guidance. The interim final rule went into effect on December 26, 2014. The public comment period for the interim final rule closed on February 17, 2015.
The Department of Commerce publishes this final rule to adopt the provisions of the interim final rule. The Department did not request any exceptions to the Uniform Guidance and did not provide any language beyond what was included in 2 CFR 200. The Department did not receive any public comments on its regulations. Accordingly, the Department makes no changes to the interim final rule.
This rule contains no collections of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506). Notwithstanding any other provision of 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 Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined this final rule to be not significant.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 2 CFR part 1327, and 15 CFR parts 14 and 24, which was published at 79 FR 75867 on December 19, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-10-01 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2015-10-01 required inspection for correct assembly of the main landing gear (MLG) alternate extension system reservoir lid, and corrective action if necessary. This new AD revises the applicability. This AD was prompted by the discovery of two errors in the applicability of AD 2015-10-01. We are issuing this AD to, in the event of a failure of the primary MLG extension system, prevent failure of the alternate MLG extension system to fully extend the MLG into a down-and-locked position, which could result in collapse of both left-hand and right-hand MLG sides during touchdown.
This AD becomes effective August 12, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference
We must receive comments on this AD by September 11, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Bombardier 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
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7303; fax 516-794-5531.
On May 1, 2015, we issued AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015). AD 2015-10-01 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2015-10-01 was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the reservoir of the MLG alternate extension system. AD 2015-10-01 required inspection for correct assembly of the MLG alternate extension system reservoir lid, and corrective action if necessary. We issued AD 2015-10-01 to, in the event of a failure of the primary MLG extension system, prevent failure of the alternate MLG extension system to fully extend the MLG into a down-and-locked position, which could result in collapse of both left-hand and right-hand MLG sides during touchdown.
AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015), corresponds to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-15, dated June 6, 2014. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Since we issued AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015), we have discovered two inadvertent errors in the identification of the affected airplane models in the applicability of AD 2015-10-01. Paragraph (c) of AD 2015-10-01 omitted Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 airplanes and erroneously referred to a model (DHC-8-403) that is not identified on the U.S. type certificate. However, the serial numbers identified in paragraph (c) of AD 2015-10-01 were correct. We have also revised the estimated number of U.S.-registered airplanes affected by this AD. The number of airplanes is less than we originally estimated.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We are superseding AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015), to correct two errors in the applicability in paragraph (c) of AD 2015-10-01, which inadvertently omitted a certain airplane model affected by the unsafe condition, and included a model that is not identified on the U.S. type certificate. We have made no other changes to the requirements published in AD 2015-10-01. Also, there are currently no Bombardier Inc. Model DHC-8-400 airplanes (the omitted airplane model) on the U.S. Register. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013, with the attached Parker Service Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated October 22, 2012. The service information describes procedures to inspect the lid assembly of the MLG alternate extension system reservoir for correct assembly and corrective actions. 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 78 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015), and retained in this AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2015-10-01 is $340 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.
The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.
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.
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 12, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 through 4424 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic Power.
This AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the reservoir of the main landing gear (MLG) alternate extension system. We are issuing this AD to, in the event of a failure of the primary MLG extension system, prevent failure of the alternate MLG extension system to fully extend the MLG into a down-and-locked position, which could result in collapse of both left-hand and right-hand MLG sides during touchdown.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015), with no changes. Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after July 14, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-10-01), whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of the MLG alternate extension system reservoir lid for correct assembly, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013, and with the attached Parker Service Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated October 22, 2012, as referenced in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013. Do all applicable corrective actions within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after July 14, 2015, whichever occurs first.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (h) of AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015), with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before July 14, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-10-01), using Bombardier All Operator Message 543, dated October 17, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-10-01, Amendment 39-18156 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-15, dated June 6, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(6) 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 14, 2015 (80 FR 32449, June 9, 2015).
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013.
(ii) Parker Service Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated October 22, 2012.
(4) For Bombardier 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
(5) For Parker service information identified in this AD, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618; phone: 949-833-3000; Internet:
(6) 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.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of skin cracks and subsequent findings of hidden corrosion found on the mating surfaces between certain skin and stringers at circumferential skin splices. This AD requires general visual inspections of the fuselage skin at certain lower circumferential splices for the presence of existing external doublers, repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct hidden corrosion due to compromised fillet seals, which can result in skin cracking and consequent loss of capability to support limit loads.
This AD is effective September 1, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 1, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines stated that it concurs with the proposed requirements specified in the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014).
Boeing requested that we clarify the unsafe condition and revise various locations of the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014) to indicate that corrosion was discovered only after a skin crack was reported. Boeing explained the hidden corrosion between the skin and stringer was not visibly detectable and was discovered only after a skin crack was reported.
We agree to revise the sentences that specify the unsafe condition and that specify what prompted the AD action. We have revised the
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014) to clarify the proposed requirements for surface low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for areas with and without repair doublers.
We agree to revise paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify configurations of areas with and without repair doublers. We have revised paragraph (g)(1) and added new paragraph (g)(2) to this AD to specify configurations having “an external repair doubler” and where “no existing repair doubler” exists.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(2)(i) of the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014) by adding HFEC inspections as a required action.
We disagree with specifying HFEC inspections as requested in this AD because this AD already requires compliance with all applicable “related investigative actions,” which include applicable HFEC inspections. The terminology for the proposed AD requirements was addressed by the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014). Our standard practice is to specify actions that are related to the primary action and actions that further investigate the nature of any condition found as “related investigative actions.” No change has been made to this AD in this regard.
UPS requested that the correct eddy current inspection procedure be referenced in the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014). UPS stated that Boeing Information Notice 747-53A2861 IN 01, dated April 24, 2014, was issued to inform operators that Paragraph 3.B, Part 2, Step 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, should refer to “747 Nondestructive test (NDT) Manual Part 6, 53-30-00, Procedure 5,” instead of “747 NDT Manual Part 6, 51-00-00, Procedure 8,” as the correct inspection procedure of the fuselage skin. UPS stated that adding this information would prevent the need for requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) related to this error.
We find that clarification is needed. To clarify this information, we have added a new exception to include the correct source of service information for this inspection. New paragraph (i)(3) of this AD refers to “747 NDT Manual Part 6, 53-30-00, Procedure 5,” as the appropriate source of service information for the eddy current inspection of the fuselage skin. We have also added a reference to paragraph (i)(3) of this AD in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
UPS requested that the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 2014) be revised to exclude a certain location from the inspection requirements, or that the proposed AD provide an inspection procedure that is adequate for that location. UPS stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, specifies that external surface LFEC inspections for corrosion of the fuselage skin be done using “747 NDT Manual Part 6, 51-00-00, Procedure 5 or Procedure 12,” which are appropriate for skins with a specified thickness. UPS stated Table 2 of Appendix C of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, contains an error. Skin panels having part number 65B23792-XX are chem milled with a thickness that exceeds the specification listed in Table 2 of Appendix C of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014. Therefore, the NDT procedures are not valid for those skin panels at this location. UPS stated that since action is identified as “Required for Compliance,” by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, no deviations are allowed without AMOC approval.
We disagree with the request. Agreeing with the request would delay the issuance of the AD and we find that delaying this action would be inappropriate in light of the identified unsafe condition. Boeing is aware of the discrepancy with the NDI instructions, and is actively working on a global AMOC for operators to correct the error by means of a validated procedure. Operators have the option of proposing their own procedure in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD.
Since chem milling affects the ability to accomplish Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, and the corrective action is not clear in the service information, we have added an exception to new paragraph (i)(4) of this AD to specify where Paragraph 3.B, Part 3, Step 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, specifies doing external surface LFEC inspections in accordance with “747 NDT Manual Part 6, 51-00-00, Procedure 5 or Procedure 12,” and the skin panels are chem milled with a thickness that exceeds the specification listed in Table 2 of Appendix C of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, this AD requires using an AMOC per paragraph (j) of this AD. We have added a reference to paragraph (i)(4) of this AD in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Operators may request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, for procedures that would help them meet the NDT test requirements.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 70799, November 28, 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 70799, November 28, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1,
We estimate that this AD affects 165 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 1, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of skin cracks and subsequent findings of hidden corrosion found on the mating surfaces between certain skin and stringers at circumferential skin splices. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct hidden corrosion due to compromised fillet seals, which can result in skin cracking and consequent loss of capability to support limit loads.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do external general visual inspections for the presence of external doublers on the fuselage skin, and do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, except as required by paragraphs (i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014.
(1) For each affected area with an external repair doubler: Before further flight, do a surface low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection for skin cracks of the external lower lobe repair doubler, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(2) For any affected area with no external repair doubler: Before further flight, do a surface LFEC inspection for corrosion of the external lower lobe skin surface, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do external general visual inspections for the presence of
(1) For affected areas with any existing repair doubler: Before further flight, do inspections and applicable repairs using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified by paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) For affected areas with no existing repair doubler, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before further flight, do a surface LFEC inspection for corrosion of the external lower lobe doubler, a surface LFEC inspection for skin cracks of the external lower lobe doubler, a detailed inspection for cracks of the external lower lobe skin, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(ii) Do all applicable repetitive inspections of the fuselage skin thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair data, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(3) Where Paragraph 3.B, Part 2, Step 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, incorrectly identifies “747 NDT Manual Part 6, 51-00-00, Procedure 8,” associated with the LFEC inspection for skin cracks of the external lower lobe repair doubler, the correct reference is “747 NDT Manual Part 6, 53-30-00, Procedure 5.”
(4) Where Paragraph 3.B, Part 3, Step 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, specifies doing external surface LFEC inspections in accordance with “747 NDT Manual Part 6, 51-00-00, Procedure 5 or Procedure 12,” and the skin panels are chem milled with a thickness that exceeds the specification listed in Table 2 of Appendix C of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014, this AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/certificate holding district office.
(3) Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Some steps in the Work Instructions are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC). If this service bulletin is mandated by an AD, then the steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures. Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(4) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2861, dated April 1, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-14-05 for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes. AD 2013-14-05 required repetitive inspections of the longeron extension fittings for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD would continue to require the actions specified in AD 2013-14-05, and would add new repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of any modified, repaired, or replaced longeron extension fitting for cracking, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the outboard flange of the longeron extension fittings, and our determination that more work is necessary on airplanes on which a permanent repair, longeron extension fitting replacement, or modification was accomplished. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which can become large and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD is effective September 1, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 1, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of August 26, 2013 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013). AD 2013-14-05 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and 747-400F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 74038, December 15, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines expressed that the NPRM (79 FR 74038, December 15, 2014) affects 13 of its Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes, and that it concurs with the NPRM.
Boeing expressed that it concurs with the NPRM (79 FR 74038, December 15, 2014).
Atlas Air requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 74038, December 15, 2014) to include a new paragraph (k)(3) to list the effective date of AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013), or that we include the effective date of AD 2013-14-05 in paragraph (g) of the NPRM. Atlas Air pointed out that the compliance time in paragraph (g) of the NPRM references the “Compliance” section of the service information, which is based on the effective date of AD 2013-14-05, and once AD 2013-14-05 is replaced, the effective date of AD 2013-14-05 will no longer exist.
We disagree with the commenter's request to add a new paragraph (k)(3) to this AD, or to add the effective date of AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013), to paragraph (g) of this AD. The effective date of AD 2013-14-05 (August 26, 2013) is specified in the first sentence under paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the referenced service information. Therefore, no change is needed for this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 74038, December 15, 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 74038, December 15, 2014).
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive HFEC inspections of any modified, repaired, or replaced longeron extension fitting for cracking, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S. registry
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 1, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the outboard flange of the longeron extension fittings, and our determination that more work is necessary on airplanes on which a permanent repair, longeron extension fitting replacement, or modification was accomplished, as required by AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the longeron extension fittings, which can become large and adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014: Do surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the left and right longeron extension fittings, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions at the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing
(1) Doing the permanent repair, longeron extension fitting replacement, or preventative modification before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012, was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013) and continues to be incorporated by reference in this AD. After accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph, the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD must be done at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) Doing the repair (PART 4 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014), longeron extension fitting replacement, or modification on or after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. After accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph, the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD must be done at the times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
For airplanes on which any action identified in paragraph (h) of this AD has been accomplished (including if the action is done as a corrective action required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD): At the applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, do a surface HFEC inspection of the left and right longeron extension fittings for cracking, as applicable, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions at the applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at the interval specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014.
For airplanes on which a temporary repair specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860 has been done: At the times specified in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, do a surface HFEC inspection of the temporary repair of the longeron extension fittings for cracking, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair information: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013).
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-14-05, Amendment 39-17510 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), and (j) of this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 1, 2015.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, Revision 1, dated March 18, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 26, 2013 (78 FR 43763, July 22, 2013).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2860, dated December 4, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-19-05 for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, 1S1, 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines. AD 2014-19-05 required an initial one-time vibration check of the engine accessory gearbox (AGB) on certain Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 model engines, and repetitive vibration checks for all Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines. This AD was prompted by our determination that we incorrectly identified technical references in AD 2014-19-05. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine AGB, which could lead to in-flight shutdown and damage to the engine, which may result in damage to the aircraft.
This AD is effective September 1, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 1, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 5, 2014 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 0 5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7758; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-19-05, Amendment 39-17973 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014), (“AD 2014-19-05”). AD 2014-19-05 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.
One commenter requested that sufficient time be allowed to comply with this AD to account for the availability of the vibration test equipment and Turbomeca technical representatives. The commenter indicated that the initial one-time vibration check of the engine AGB requires use of Turbomeca-specified vibration test equipment and is performed by Turbomeca technical personnel.
We do not agree. The compliance times in the AD provide sufficient time for the operator to perform the required maintenance. Operators can also procure the required vibration test equipment to perform the test. We did not change this AD.
One commenter requested that we revise the AD to make the definition of “shop visit” consistent with EASA AD 2014-0036. The EASA AD specifies that the repetitive vibration check of the engine AGB be performed during a “qualifying shop visit,” which is when the engine is “overhauled or repaired in a qualified Repair Center.” The commenter indicated that because of the modularity of the Arriel engine, it is possible to separate a major mating flange during “Level 2” or “Level 1 maintenance.”
We do not agree. We do not find specific criteria in EASA AD 2014-0036's definition of “engine shop visit” for when the repetitive AGB vibration check should be conducted. We did not change this AD.
One commenter requested that the repetitive vibration check required by this AD be eliminated. The commenter indicated that this vibration check is already incorporated in Turbomeca Level 4 maintenance, and in subsequent test requirements, so it will always be done. Further, adding this requirement to the AD only adds to the cost and paperwork requirements for operators.
We do not agree. The repetitive vibration checks of the engine AGB are required to prevent failure of the AGB. We did not change this AD.
Turbomeca S.A. updated the service bulletins (SBs) referenced in this AD. We reviewed the updated SBs and found they adequately addressed the unsafe condition. Therefore, we revised this AD to reference the updated versions of the SBs. This AD now references Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, and Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014. We also revised compliance paragraph (e) of this AD to refer to the corresponding paragraphs used in these updated MSBs to require the vibration checks.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014; and Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for vibration checks. 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 1,268 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 hours per engine to comply with the inspection requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $431,120.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 1, 2015
This AD supersedes AD 2014-19-05, Amendment 39-17973 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014).
This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, 1S1, 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines.
This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns on Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 engines following rupture of the 41-tooth gear forming part of the 41/23-tooth bevel gear located in the engine accessory gearbox (AGB). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine AGB, which could lead to in-flight shutdown and damage to the engine, which may result in damage to the aircraft.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1B, 1D, 1D1, 2B, and 2B1 turboshaft engines, perform a one-time vibration check of the AGB 41/23-tooth bevel gear meshing within 32 months of the effective date of this AD, as follows:
(i) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines, except those engines with an AGB installed with a serial number (S/N) listed in the figure under paragraph 2.2. of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, use paragraph 2.3.1. through 2.3.3. of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, to perform the vibration check.
(ii) You must also use Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 Technical Instruction (TI) No. 292 72 0839 and Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 TI No. 292 72 0840 to do the vibration check.
(iii) For all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 engines, except those engines with an AGB installed with an S/N listed in the figure under paragraph 2.2. of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, use paragraphs 2.3.1. through 2.3.3. of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, to perform the vibration check. Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849 refers to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2849 and to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2850, which you must also use to do the vibration check.
(iv) The reporting requirements in paragraphs 2.3.1.1.3., 2.3.2.1.3., and the requirement to return module M01 (AGB) to a Repair Center in paragraph 2.3.2.2.2. in Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, and in Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014, are not required by this AD.
(2) For all affected Turbomeca S.A. engines, during each engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, perform a vibration check of the AGB 41/23-tooth bevel gear meshing.
(3) If the AGB does not pass the vibration check required by paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, replace the AGB with a part eligible for installation.
If you performed a vibration check of the AGB before the effective date of this AD using Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version A, dated September 9, 2013, or Version B, dated November 25, 2013, or MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version A, dated September 9, 2013, or Version B, dated November 25, 2013; or during an engine shop visit per paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you met the initial inspection requirement of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges. The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7758; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2014-0036, dated February 11, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Turbomeca S.A. Engine Test Bed Acceptance Test Specifications CCT No. 0292009400, Version T; CCT No. 0292019400, Version R; CCT No. 0292019690, Version I; CCT No. 0292019530, Version K; CCT No. 0292019610, Version K; CCT No. 0292029450, Version J; CCT No. 0292029490, Version I; CCT No. 0292029440, Version I; CCT No. 0292029480, Version K; CCT No. 0292029520, Version H; CCT No. 0292029410, Version L; CCT No. 0292029530, Version H; or Turbomeca ID No. 383952; or Turbomeca RTD No. X 292 65 327 2, provide information on performing a vibration check during an engine shop visit. These service documents can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A. using the contact information in paragraph (j)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 1, 2015.
(i) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 0839, Version C, dated June 18, 2014.
(ii) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version C, dated June 18, 2014.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 5, 2014 (79 FR 59091, October 1, 2014).
(i) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 0839, Version B, dated November 25, 2013.
(ii) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2849, Version B, dated November 25, 2013.
(iii) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 Technical Instruction (TI) No. 292 72 0839, Version E, dated February 20, 2014.
(iv) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 TI No. 292 72 0840, Version A, dated November 29, 2013.
(v) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2849, Version E, dated February 20, 2014.
(vi) Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2 TI No. 292 72 2850, Version A, dated November 29, 2013.
(5) For Turbomeca S.A. service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 0 5 59 74 45 15.
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(7) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E Airspace at Headland, AL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Headland Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, 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.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Headland Municipal Airport, Headland, AL.
On April 24, 2015, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, 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 amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Headland Municipal Airport, Headland, AL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Headland Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read 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 7-mile radius of Headland Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Campbellsville, KY as the Taylor County NDB has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Taylor County Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Taylor County Airport, Campbellsville, KY.
On April 24, 2015, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends 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 amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Taylor County Airport, Campbellsville, KY, with a segment extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 11.3 miles northeast of Taylor County Airport.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Taylor County NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Taylor County Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 050° bearing of the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 11.3 miles northeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Greenville, SC as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Greenville Downtown Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) ope rations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code.
On April 24, 2015, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, 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 amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.3-mile radius of Greenville Downtown Airport, Greenville, SC. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Greenville Downtown Airport, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.3-mile radius of Greenville Downtown Airport, and within a 10-mile radius of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Donaldson Center Airport and within 4 miles northwest and 8 miles southeast of the 224° bearing from the DYANA NDB extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 16 miles southwest of Donaldson Center Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Dyersburg, TN as the Dyersburg VORTAC has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Dyersburg Regional Airport, formerly Dyersburg Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 29591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Dyersburg Regional Airport, Dyersburg, TN.
On March 20, 2015, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, 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 amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Dyersburg Regional Airport, Dyersburg, TN.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Dyersburg VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action also recognizes the airport's name change from Dyersburg Municipal Airport, to Dyersburg Regional Airport and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Dyersburg Regional Airport.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding ten persons to the Entity List. The ten persons who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These ten persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of China and South Korea.
This final rule also removes four persons from the Entity List, as the result of requests for removal submitted by these persons, a review of information provided in the removal requests in accordance with the procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity, and further review conducted by the End-User Review Committee (ERC).
This rule is effective July 28, 2015.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email:
The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) notifies the public about entities that have engaged in activities that could result in an increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Since its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have expanded to include activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. Certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to entities identified on the Entity List require licenses from BIS and are usually subject to a policy of denial. The availability of license exceptions in such transactions is very limited. The license review policy for each entity is identified in the license review policy column on the Entity List and the availability of license exceptions is noted in the
The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add ten persons to the Entity List. These ten persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The ten entries added to the Entity List consist of eight entries in China and two entries in South Korea.
The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these ten persons to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of § 744.11 include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.
Pursuant to § 744.11 of the EAR, the ERC determined that the following eight persons under the destination of China and two persons under the destination of South Korea be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.
Specifically, for the eight additions under the destination of China, there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that these eight persons have violated U.S. export laws by illicitly procuring sensitive U.S. items for unauthorized end use in China and Iran. For the two additions under the destination of South Korea, there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts that these two persons have violated U.S. export laws by supporting the illicit procurement efforts of ballistic-missile related parties in Iran since at least 2011.
Pursuant to § 744.11(b)(5) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these ten persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.
For the ten persons recommended for addition on the basis of § 744.11, the ERC specified a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule.
This final rule adds the following ten persons to the Entity List:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(1)
This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove four persons, Shanghai Hengtong Optics Technology Limited, located in China; and Zener Electrical & Electronics, Zener Electronics Services, and Zener Navcom, located in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), from the Entity List on the basis of removal requests submitted by these listed persons. Based upon a review of the information provided in the removal requests in accordance with § 744.16 (Procedure for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity) and further review conducted by the ERC, the ERC determined that these four persons should be removed from the Entity List.
For the first ERC approved removal, Shanghai Hengtong Optics Technology Limited was added to the Entity List on May 1, 2014 (79 FR 24563) pursuant to § 744.11(b)(2) and (b)(5) of the EAR. The ERC's decision to remove Shanghai Hengtong from the Entity List was based on information provided by the company in its appeal request pursuant to § 744.16, forthcoming information provided by Shanghai Hengtong in subsequent cooperative exchanges, and further reviews conducted by the ERC.
For the three ERC approved removals for Zener Electronics Services, Zener Electrical & Electronics, and Zener Navcom, these persons were added to the Entity List on June 5, 2014 (79 FR 32441), pursuant to § 744.11(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(4) of the EAR. The ERC's decision to remove Zener Electronics Services, Zener Electrical & Electronics, and Zener Navcom from the Entity List was based on the information provided by the companies in their appeal request, forthcoming information by the companies in subsequent cooperative exchanges, and further reviews conducted by the ERC.
The Zeneer related entity removals in this rule are limited to the three entities specified in this rule. This rule does not remove any of the other Zener related entities currently on the Entity List (Zener Marine, Zener One Net located in the UAE, and Zener Lebanon located in Lebanon), which were also added to the Entity List on June 5, 2014 (79 FR 32441) and are still subject to the Entity List-based license requirements.
In accordance with § 744.16(c), the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has sent written notification to these four persons, informing these persons of the ERC's decision to remove these persons from the Entity List.
This final rule implements the decision to remove the following four persons located in China and the UAE from the Entity List:
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
The removal of the four entities referenced above, which was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these entities. However, the removal of these four entities from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally these removals do not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to
Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on July 28, 2015, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. For the ten persons added to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (
5. For the four removals from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.
In determining whether to grant removal requests from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed persons requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These four removals have been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales because the customer remained a listed person on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removal pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicants to receive U.S. exports immediately since these four applicants already have received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).
The removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relied to make the decisions to remove these four entities. In addition, the information included in
Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the
No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
The additions read as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a marine event special local regulation on the navigable waters of Mission Bay, San Diego, CA in support of the annual San Diego Bayfair from September 18, 2015 to September 20, 2015, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 12, will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from September 18, 2015 to September 20, 2015.
If you have questions on this publication, call or email Petty Officer Nick Bateman, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the marine event special local regulation for the annual San Diego Bayfair in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 12 from September 18, 2015 to September 20, 2015, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area of the Mission Bay unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority 33 CFR 100.1101 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the
If the Coast Guard determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, then a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor will grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement.
The Coast Guard will enforce the events outlined in Tables 1 and 2 taking place throughout the Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This action is necessary to protect marine traffic and spectators from the hazards associated with powerboat races, regattas, boat parades, rowing and paddling boat races, swim events, and fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the special local regulation area or safety zone without permission of the COTP.
The special local regulations and safety zones listed in 33 CFR 100.120 and 33 CFR 165.171 will be enforced during the dates and times as listed in the
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Chief Chris Bains, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Northern New England, Waterways Management Division, via telephone at 207-347-5003 or email at
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations and safety zones listed in 33 CFR 100.120 and 33 CFR 165.171. These regulations will be enforced for the duration of each event, on or about the dates indicated in TABLES 1 and 2.
For events where the date is different from the dates previously published for that event, new Temporary Rules will be issued to enforce limited access areas for the marine event. The Coast Guard may patrol each event area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.” Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP, Sector Northern
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.120, 33 CFR 165.171, and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations incorporating by reference the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes and standards. These codes and standards are referenced in VA regulations concerning community residential care facilities, contract facilities for certain outpatient and residential services, Medical Foster Homes, and State home facilities. To ensure the continued safety of veterans in these facilities, VA is continuing to rely upon NFPA codes and standards for VA approval of such facilities. This rulemaking updates our regulations to adhere to more recent NFPA codes and standards.
This regulation is effective August 27, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 27, 2015.
David Klein, Fire Protection Engineer, (10NA8), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7888. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In a document published in the
This rulemaking amends § 17.1 to reflect the current edition of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, and the editions of the NFPA codes and standards that are cited in Chapter 2 of NFPA 101. This rulemaking also amends §§ 51.200, 52.200, and 59.130 to reflect the current editions of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, and NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code. The NFPA codes and standards that have been updated since we published current § 17.1 are NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2009 edition); NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems (2008 edition); NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (2008 edition); and NFPA 720, Standard for the Installation of Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detection and Warning Equipment (2009 edition). The NFPA codes and standards updated from the editions referenced in current §§ 51.200 and 59.130 are NFPA 101 (2009 edition) and NFPA 99, Standard for Health Care Facilities (2005). NFPA codes and standards updated from the edition referenced in current § 52.200 is NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2000 edition). This final rulemaking updates the references to these NFPA codes and standards in the cited VA regulations to reflect the most recent editions cited in NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2012 edition). We are also updating cited references within VA regulations to be consistent with the current NFPA codes and standards. In some cases, reorganization of material in the NFPA codes and standards, without change in substance, has affected the citation within VA regulations, and we are making minor amendments to reflect these changes.
We provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on September 15, 2014. We received one comment on the proposed rule. The commenter supported the proposed rule, but indicated that the 2015 Edition of NFPA 101 became available on September 11, 2014. The commenter suggested that in addition to the changes in the proposed rule, VA adopt the 2015 standards as well. We agree with the commenter, however, prior to adopting the new standards, VA will issue a proposed rulemaking and allow the public to comment on the NFPA 101 standards for 2015 before these changes can become final. VA will address the suggestion in a future rulemaking.
This final rule is reorganizing § 17.1 by placing the NFPA standards in numerical order. These edits to § 17.1 are technical only. We are not making any edits to the content of § 17.1, other than those already stated in the proposed rulemaking. We are also amending §§ 51.200 and 59.130 by removing the incorporation by reference language from the individual paragraphs where the NFPA codes are referenced and adding a new paragraph that will incorporate by reference all of the NFPA codes currently referenced in each paragraph. The new paragraph in §§ 51.200 and 59.130 adds clarity to each section but does not alter the content. This merely is a technical change.
In the proposed rulemaking, we stated that we would be adding a new paragraph (c) to § 17.1. This subparagraph was intended to permit fire and safety specialists to determine when upgrades to existing facilities are necessary on a case-by-case basis. The proposed paragraph was intended as an exception to the NFPA codes and standards for Medical Foster Homes. Upon further consideration, we are not going to adopt the new paragraph (c) in § 17.1 because this regulation merely
We have revised § 51.200(a) by removing the exception for the application of NFPA 101 (2009 edition) for paragraph 19.3.5.1. This exception was added to delay the enforcement of paragraph 19.3.5.1 until August 13, 2013. Since this date has passed and State homes were on notice that the exception would expire on this date, we are making a technical change to remove the outdated language.
Based on the rationale set forth in the
This rulemaking updates the references to the NFPA codes and standards in the cited VA regulations. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, is the primary source document that establishes the safety requirements for newly constructed and existing facilities. NFPA 101 is unique in that it provides a different set of requirements for the same type of facility based on whether the facility is to be newly constructed or already exists. The provisions of NFPA 25 and 720 used in VA's regulations are generally relied on to establish the requirements for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of already installed existing systems, and the majority of the changes in the updated editions are relatively minor with respect to inspection, testing, and maintenance. We believe that compliance with these minor revisions would not be difficult for the affected facilities. This rulemaking updates NFPA 25 to the 2011 edition and updates NFPA 720 to the 2012 edition. The 2012 edition of NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code, revises the fire safety standards to provide for safety standards that are based on the risk of a critical condition and remain relatively unchanged from the previous edition. The standard for NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, has not changed; however, the paragraph that contains the definition of safety can has changed in the 2012 edition. We are removing the citation to the specific paragraph and merely referencing the standard to avoid future minor reorganizational changes made by NFPA. The materials for which we are seeking incorporation by reference are available for inspection at the ANSI Incorporation by Reference (IBR) Portal,
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule updates current fire safety standards and will not require more than a modest capital investment on the part of affected entities. The changes to § 17.1 will likely affect between 50 and 100 of the 1,293 community residential care facilities approved for referral of veterans under the regulations. Medical Foster Homes are small entities, providing between 1 and 3 resident beds to veterans in each Medical Foster Home. The changes to § 17.74 will likely affect fewer than 10 of the 561 Medical Foster Homes approved by VA for referral under the regulations. Any additional costs for compliance with the final rule incurred by either community residential care facilities or Medical Foster Homes will constitute an inconsequential amount of the operational costs of such facilities.
Where modification is anticipated, such as adding heat detection to unused attic space, the impact is minimal because the costs to comply with the new requirements range from $100.00 to $500.00 dollars, which includes labor costs. In many cases, the adoption of the current NFPA codes and standards provides options that are less restrictive than the prior NFPA codes and standards. The changes to §§ 17.81 and 17.82 will affect only small entities; however, most, if not all, of these entities are already in compliance with the current NFPA codes and, therefore, should not be significantly impacted by this rule. The changes to parts 51, 52, and 59 will affect State homes. The State homes that will be subject to this rulemaking are State government entities under the control of State governments. All State homes are owned, operated and managed by State governments except for a small number operated by entities under contract with State governments. These contractors are not small entities. On this basis, the Secretary certifies that the adoption of this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 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 effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.005, Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 20, 2015, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Incorporation by reference, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Incorporation by reference, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Incorporation by reference, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Incorporation by reference, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR parts 17, 51, 52, and 59 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
(a) Certain materials are incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce an edition of a publication other than that specified in this section, VA will provide notice of the change in a rule in the
(b) National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269. (For ordering information, call toll-free 1-800-344-3555).
(1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers (2010 edition), Incorporation by Reference (IBR) approved for §§ 17.63, 17.74, and 17.81.
(2) NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems (2010 edition), IBR approved for § 17.74.
(3) NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes (2010 edition), IBR approved for § 17.74.
(4) NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies Up To and Including Four Stories in Height (2010 edition), IBR approved for § 17.74.
(5) NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems (2011 edition), IBR approved for § 17.74.
(6) NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (2012 edition), IBR approved for § 17.74.
(7) NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (2010 edition), IBR approved for § 17.74.
(8) NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2012 edition), IBR approved for §§ 17.63, 17.74 (chapters 1 through 11, 24, and section 33.7), 17.81, and 17.82.
(9) NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life Safety (2010 edition), IBR approved for § 17.63.
(10) NFPA 720, Standard for the Installation of Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detection and Warning Equipment (2012 edition), IBR approved for § 17.74.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)* * *
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, meet the applicable provisions of chapters 1 through 11 and 24, and section 33.7 of NFPA 101 (incorporated by reference, see § 17.1), and the other codes and chapters identified in this section, as applicable. Existing buildings or installations that do not comply with the installation provisions of the codes or standards referenced in paragraph (b)(1) through (5), (b)(8), and (b)(10) of § 17.1 shall be permitted to be continued in service, provided that the lack of conformity with these codes and standards does not present a serious hazard to the occupants.
38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1720, 1741-1743; and as stated in specific sections.
(a)
(b)
(2) The system must be the appropriate type essential electrical system in accordance with the applicable provisions of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code and NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code.
(3) When electrical life support devices are used, an emergency electrical power system must also be provided for devices in accordance with NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code.
(4) The source of power must be an on-site emergency standby generator of sufficient size to serve the connected load or other approved sources in accordance with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code and NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code.
(i)(1) Incorporation by reference of these materials was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials incorporated by reference are available for inspection at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420, call 202-461-4902, or 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:
(2) National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269. (For ordering information, call toll-free 1-800-344-3555).
(i) NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code, Including all Gas & Vacuum System Requirements, (2012 Edition).
(ii) NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2012 edition).
38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1741-1743, unless otherwise noted.
38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 8105, 8131-8137.
(d)(1) State homes must meet the applicable provisions of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, except that the NFPA requirement in paragraph 19.3.5.1 for all buildings containing nursing homes to have an automatic sprinkler system is not applicable until February 24, 2016 for “existing buildings” with nursing home facilities as of June 25, 2001 (paragraph 3.3.36.5 in the NFPA 101 defines an “[e]xisting [b]uilding” as “[a] building erected or officially authorized prior to the effective date of the adoption of this edition of the Code by
(i)(1) Incorporation by reference of these materials was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials, incorporated by reference, are available for inspection at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420, call 202-461-4902, or 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:
(2) National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269. (For ordering information, call toll-free 1-800-344-3555.)
(i) NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities Code, Including all Gas & Vacuum System Requirements, (2012 Edition).
(ii) NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2012 edition).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of public hearings; extension of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) are announcing public hearings to be held for the joint proposed rules “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2,” and also for NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The proposed rules were published in the
NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 6, 2015, beginning at 9:00 a.m. local time, and a second hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, beginning at 9:00 a.m. local time. EPA and NHTSA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers that arrive and register. Each hearing will continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. If you would like to present oral testimony at one of these this public hearings, please contact the person identified under
In order to provide commenters 30 days after the last public hearing, the comment period for the proposal is being extended through September 17, 2015.
The August 6, 2015 hearing will be held at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, 17 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois. The location for the August 18, 2015 hearing in the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA area will be announced in a subsequent
If you would like to present oral testimony at a public hearing, please contact JoNell Iffland at EPA by the date specified under
Questions concerning the NHTSA proposed rule or Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be addressed to NHTSA: Ryan Hagen or Analiese Marchesseault, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Questions concerning the EPA proposed rule should be addressed to EPA: Tad Wysor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4332; fax number: (734) 214-4050; email address:
The purpose of the public hearings is to provide the public an opportunity to present oral comments regarding NHTSA and EPA's proposal for “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.” These hearings also offer an opportunity for the public to provide oral comments regarding NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement, accompanying the proposed NHTSA fuel efficiency standards. The proposed rules would establish a second round of standards for the agencies' comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program, which would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase fuel efficiency for on-road heavy-duty vehicles. These new standards would phase in over time, beginning in the 2018 model year and entering into full effect in model year 2027. NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards and EPA's proposed carbon dioxide (CO
The joint proposed rules for which EPA and NHTSA are holding the public hearings were published in the
NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of each hearing and keep the official record for the proposed rule open for 30 days after the last public hearing to allow speakers to submit supplementary information. Panel members may ask clarifying questions during the oral statements but will not respond to the statements at that time. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearings. The comment period for the proposed rule will be extended such that the closing date is 30 days after the last public hearing. Therefore, written comments on the proposal must be post marked no later than September 17, 2015.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a carbon monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for Grants Pass, submitted by the State of Oregon on April 22, 2015 as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). In accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is approving this SIP revision because it demonstrates that Grants Pass will continue to meet the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a second 10-year period beyond re-designation, through 2025.
This rule is effective on September 28, 2015, without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by August 27, 2015. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0322, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lucy Edmondson at (360) 753-9082,
Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the carbon monoxide (CO) LMP for Grants Pass, Oregon. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted this plan as a SIP revision, on April 22, 2015. This CO LMP is designed to keep Grants Pass in attainment with the CO standard for a second 10-year period beyond re-designation, through 2025.
Under Section 107(d)(1)(c) of the CAA, each CO area designated nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, such as Grants Pass, was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section 186(a) of the CAA, each CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of law as either “moderate” or “serious” depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such as Grants Pass, were classified as moderate. These nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81. (56 FR 56694) (November 6, 1991).
In August 2000, the EPA approved the first maintenance plan designed to maintain compliance with the CO standard in Grants Pass, OR through the year 2015 (see 65 FR 52932, August 31, 2000). While the central business district represented the maintenance area, the EPA considered the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to be a more representative area of influence for carbon monoxide emissions, and the 1993 emission inventory was prepared for the UGB. In addition to approving ODEQ's maintenance plan for the area, the EPA also approved ODEQ's request to redesignate the Grants Pass area to attainment of the CO standard (see 65 FR 52932, August 31, 2000). On November 5, 1999, Oregon submitted a complete rule renumbering and relabeling package to EPA for approval in the SIP. On January 22, 2003, EPA approved the recodified version of Oregon's rules to remove and replace the outdated numbering system (68 FR 2891).
Per CAA section 175A(b), Oregon's current SIP submittal provides a second 10-year CO maintenance plan for Grants Pass that will apply until 2025, and fulfill the final planning requirements under the CAA. In addition, the plan is consistent with the elements of a LMP as outlined in an EPA October 6, 1995 memorandum from Joseph Paisie, the Group Leader of the Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, titled, “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas” (LMP Option). To qualify for the LMP Option, the CO design value for an area, based on the eight consecutive quarters (two years of data) used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS). In addition, the control measures from the first CO maintenance plan must remain in place and unchanged. The primary control measure has been the emission standards for new motor vehicles under the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. Other control measures have been the New Source Review Program and several residential woodsmoke emission reduction efforts. The EPA has determined that the LMP Option for CO is also available to all states as part of the CAA 175A(b) update to the maintenance plans, regardless of the original nonattainment classification, or lack thereof. Thus, the EPA finds that Grants Pass qualifies for the LMP.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision offer a reasonable opportunity for notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by the State to the EPA. The State provided notice and an opportunity for public comment from December 16, 2014 until January 26, 2015, with no comments received. ODEQ also held a public hearing on January 22, 2015 in Grants Pass. This SIP revision was submitted by the Governor's designee and was received by the EPA on April 22, 2015. The EPA has evaluated ODEQ's submittal and determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
The EPA has reviewed Oregon's SIP submittal for Grants Pass. The following is a summary of the requirements for a LMP and the EPA's evaluation of how each requirement has been met by the SIP submittal.
The maintenance plan must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to identify a level of CO emissions in the area that is sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. The April 22, 2015 SIP submittal contains a summary of the CO emissions inventory for Grants Pass for the base year 2005. This summary is based on the Grants Pass Inventory Preparation and Quality Assurance Plan for the Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary Limited Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, adopted March 2014.
Historically, exceedances of the CO standard in Grants Pass have occurred during the winter months, when cooler temperatures contribute to incomplete combustion, and when CO emissions are trapped near the ground by atmospheric inversions. The UGB was used for the initial 1993 emissions inventory, since it was more representative of the area of influence for carbon monoxide emissions, and used again for the 2005 emission inventory in this LMP. Sources of carbon monoxide in Grants Pass include industry, motor vehicles, non-road mobile sources, (
Because violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on winter weekdays, the inventory prepared is for a “typical winter day”. The table below shows the estimated tons of CO emitted per winter day by source category for the 2005 base year.
The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour average CO concentration for an area does not exceed a concentration of 9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO
For areas using the LMP Option, the maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied when the second highest 8-hour CO concentration is at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS) for 8 consecutive quarters. The current 8-hour CO Design Value for Grants Pass is 4.0 ppm based on the two most recent years of data (2004-2005), which is significantly below the LMP Option requirement of 7.65 ppm. Therefore, the State has demonstrated that Grants Pass qualifies for the LMP Option.
With the LMP Option, there is no requirement to project emissions of air quality over the upcoming maintenance period. The EPA believes that if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS, the applicability of prevention of significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, and Federal control measures already in place will provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period.
Monitored CO levels in the Grants Pass UGB steadily declined since monitoring began in the area in 1980. CO levels have declined significantly across the nation through motor vehicle emissions controls and fleet turnover to newer, cleaner vehicle models. As CO levels dropped and stayed low, Oregon requested to remove the Grants Pass CO monitor in 2006, and the EPA approved the request on October 19, 2006. ODEQ now uses an alternate method of verifying continued attainment with the CO standard.
ODEQ calculates CO emissions every three years as part of the Statewide Emissions Inventory and submits the data to the EPA for inclusion in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). ODEQ commits to review the NEI estimates to identify any increases over the 2005 emission levels and source categories, and report on them in the annual network plan for the applicable year. Since on-road motor vehicles are the predominant source of carbon monoxide in Grants Pass (about 70%), this source category will be the primary focus of this review. ODEQ will annually calculate CO emissions and evaluate any increase in CO emissions to confirm it is not due to a change in emission calculation methodology, an exceptional event, or other factor not representative of an actual emissions increase. Recognizing there could be a minor, insignificant emissions increase, for the purposes of triggering the Contingency Plan described below, an increase of five percent in either the total annual or season day emissions, or in the on-road mobile source category, represents a “significant” emission increase.
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions necessary to ensure prompt correction of any violations of the standard that may occur. In its April 22, 2015 submittal, the State of Oregon included the following contingency measures for this LMP:
1. If ODEQ's three-year periodic review of CO emissions shows a significant increase in emissions, as described in Section 8 of this plan, ODEQ will then reestablish ambient CO monitoring in Grants Pass.
2. If the highest measured 8-hour CO concentration in a given year in Grants Pass exceeds the LMP eligibility level of 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the 8-hr standard), ODEQ will evaluate the cause of the CO increase. Within six months of the validated 7.65 ppm CO concentration, ODEQ will determine a schedule of selected strategies to either prevent or correct any violation of the 8-hour CO standard. The contingency strategies that will be considered include, but are not limited to:
ODEQ (and the advisory group if needed) may also conduct further evaluation, to determine if other strategies are necessary.
3. If a violation of the CO standard occurs, in addition to step two above, ODEQ will replace the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement for new and modified stationary sources with the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) technology, and reinstate the requirement to offset any new CO emissions. Additional CO emission reduction measures will be considered, as needed.
Federal transportation conformity rules (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and general conformity rules (58 FR 63214, November 30, 1993) continue to apply under a LMP. However, as noted in the LMP Option memo, these requirements are greatly simplified. An area under a LMP can demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget, and as a result, emissions do not need to be capped nor a regional emissions analysis (including modeling) conducted. Grants Pass is currently meeting the requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
In the June 24, 2015 adequacy finding for the Grants Pass CO LMP, the EPA determined that Grants Pass has met the criteria to be exempt from regional emissions analysis for CO. However, other transportation conformity requirements such as consultation, transportation control measures, and project level conformity requirements would continue to apply to the area. With approval of the LMP, the area continues to be exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation conformity criteria mentioned above.
In accordance with the requirements of the CAA, the EPA is approving the CO LMP for Grants Pass, Oregon submitted by the State of Oregon on April 22, 2015 as a revision to the Oregon SIP. The State has adequately demonstrated that Grants Pass will maintain the CO NAAQS and meet the requirements of a LMP through the second 10-year maintenance period through 2025.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit, unless the source has been provided five days advanced written notice of the violation, and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's Title V program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program from Federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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 28, 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 the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State of North Carolina's April 16, 2015, revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), in support of the State's request that EPA change the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. This RVP-related SIP revision evaluates whether changing the Federal RVP requirements in these counties would interfere with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). North Carolina's April 16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision also updates the State's maintenance plan and the associated motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) related to its redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Rock Hill 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Charlotte Area) to reflect the requested change in the Federal RVP requirements. EPA has determined that North Carolina's April 16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.
This rule is effective July 28, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0260. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Richard Wong of the Air Regulatory Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at
On May 21, 2012, EPA designated and classified areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008, as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On April 16, 2015, to support its request for EPA to change the Federal RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, DAQ submitted a SIP revision that contains a noninterference demonstration that included modeling assuming 9.0 psi for RVP for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties and that updates the maintenance plan submission and associated MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on May 21, 2015, EPA proposed to approve the State's noninterference demonstration and the updates to its maintenance plan and the associated MVEBs related to the State's redesignation request for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area, contingent upon EPA approval of North Carolina's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area.
EPA is taking final action to approve the State of North Carolina's noninterference demonstration, submitted on April 16, 2015, in support of the State's request that EPA change
EPA has determined that North Carolina's April 16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA for the reasons provided in the NPR. EPA is not taking action today to remove the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Any such action would occur in a separate and subsequent rulemaking.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary because this action approves a noninterference demonstration that will serve as the basis of a subsequent action to relieve the Area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule will serve as a basis for a subsequent action to relieve the Area from certain CAA requirements. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 28, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Linn County Air Quality Ordinance, Chapter 10. These revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules.
This direct final rule will be effective September 28, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 27, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0357, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, at 913-551-7039, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
The State of Iowa has requested EPA approval of revisions to the local agency's rules and regulations, Linn County Air Quality Ordinance, Chapter 10, as a revision to the SIP. In order for the local program's “Air Quality Ordinance” to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, on behalf of the local agency, the state must submit the formally adopted regulations and control strategies, which are consistent with the state and Federal requirements, to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The regulation adoption process generally includes public notice, a public comment period and a public hearing, and formal adoption of the rule by the state authorized rulemaking body. In this case, that rulemaking body is the local agency. After the local agency formally adopts the rule, the local agency submits the rulemaking to the
EPA received the request from the state to adopt revisions to the local air agency rules into the SIP on May 4, 2015. The revisions were adopted by the local agency on January 28, 2015, and became effective on January 30, 2015. EPA is approving the requested revisions to the Iowa SIP relating to the following:
• Chapter 10.1 “Purpose and Ambient Air Quality Standards”;
• Chapter 10.2 “Definitions”;
• Chapter 10.5 “Locally Required Permits”;
• Chapter 10.6 “Permit Fees”;
• Chapter 10.8 “Emissions from Fuel-Burning Equipment”;
• Chapter 10.12 “Sulfur Compounds”;
• Chapter 10.13 “Fugitive Dust,” and,
• Chapter 10.17 “Testing and Sampling of New and Existing Equipment.”
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
We are taking direct final action to approve the amendments to the Linn County Air Quality Ordinance, Chapter 10. The local agency routinely revises its “Air Quality Ordinance” regulations to be consistent with the Federally-approved Iowa Administrative Code and are revised as follows:
Chapter 10.1, “Purpose and Ambient Air Quality Standards” is revised to cite the cross reference to state-approved rules at (455B).
Chapter 10.2, “Definitions” is revised to add “major modification,” “replacement unit,” and to revise the definitions of “regulated New Source Review (NSR) pollutant,” “significant,” and “untreated.” Punctuation and grammar corrections were made to the definitions of “Emissions Unit,” “Responsible Official,” and “Startup.”
Chapter 10.5, “Locally Required Permits,” includes revisions to 10.5(9), “Exemptions from the Authorization to Install Permit and Permit to Operate Requirements.” For the purposes of this publication, the exemptions are abbreviated but can be found in their entirety in the Technical Support Document included in the rulemaking docket: f. The equipment in laboratories, n. Asbestos demolition and renovation projects, u. Incinerators and pyrolysis cleaning furnaces, dd. Production welding, and ee. Electric hand soldering, wave soldering and electric solder paste reflow ovens. The following exemptions have been added with this rulemaking: mm. Equipment related to research and development activities at a stationary source, and, nn. A non-road diesel fueled engine as defined in 40 CFR 1068.30 and as amended through October 8, 2008.
Chapter 10.6, “Permit Fees,” is revised for administrative corrections to the fourth paragraph of item 2. “Annual Fee for Permit to Operate.”
Chapter 10.8, “Emissions from Fuel-Burning Equipment,” “d” has been removed in its entirety as it refers to the State of Iowa Compliance Sampling Manual which is now obsolete.
Chapter 10.12, “Sulfur Compounds,” item 2, “Other Processes Capable of Emitting Sulfur Dioxide” is revised to add a sentence that the paragraph shall not apply to devices which have been installed for air pollution abatement purposes where it is demonstrated by the owner of the source that the ambient air quality standards are not being exceeded.
Chapter 10.13, “Fugitive Dust” item 1, “Attainment and Unclassified Areas,” is revised to add that a person shall take reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne in quantities sufficient to cause a nuisance as defined in Iowa Code section 657.1 when the person allows, causes or permits any materials to be handled, transported or stored or a building, its appurtenances or a construction haul road to be used, constructed, altered, repaired or demolished. This does not apply to farming operations or dust generated by ordinary travel on unpaved roads. The revision further states what ordinary travel includes, and the public highway authority shall be responsible for taking corrective action in cases where said authority has received complaints.
Chapter 10.13, “Fugitive Dust” item 2, “Nonattainment Areas” is revised for administrative changes for clarification.
Chapter 10.17, “Testing and Sampling of New and Existing Equipment,” is revised for administrative, grammar, and punctuation corrections for clarification as follows: Item 1, “Continuous Monitoring of Opacity from Coal-Fired Steam Generating Units,” item 5, “Maintenance of Records of Continuous Monitors,” item 6, “Reporting of Continuous Monitoring Information,” item 7, “Tests by Owner,” item 8, “Tests by Department,” item 9, “Methods and Procedures,” and item 10, “Exemptions from Continuous Monitoring Requirements.”
Chapter 10.17, item 7, “Tests by Owner” is also revised to clarify when pretest meetings should be conducted and to clarify reporting requirements. Item 9, “Methods and Procedures,” is revised to cite the cross reference to state-approved rules as they apply to permit and compliance demonstration requirements.
As previously mentioned, additional information on the details of the Linn County Air Quality Ordinance revisions can be found in the Technical Support Document in the docket for this action.
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
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 Iowa Regulations for Chapter 10 Linn County Air Quality Ordinance, described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 28, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking three separate final actions related to a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ), on April 16, 2015. These final actions are for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “bi-state Charlotte Area” or “Area”). The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties, North Carolina; and a portion of York County, South Carolina. Regarding South Carolina's request to redesignate the South Carolina portion of the Area and its maintenance plan for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will address this in a separate action. In the three actions for the North Carolina bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA determines that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); approves and incorporates the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 sub-area motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule will be effective August 27, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at
On May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008.
EPA received two sets of comments on its May 21, 2015, proposed rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from the Sierra Club (“Commenter”) and comments supporting the proposed actions from one member of the general public.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is determined by calculating the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor, also known as a monitor's design value.
EPA's analysis of monitoring data in the bi-state Charlotte Area supports its determination under section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) that the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The design values for each monitor in the Area for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and the data from these monitors during this time period meet the data quality and completeness requirements and are recorded in AQS. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix P requirements.
As noted above, Federal regulations require EPA to use a three-year average to determine attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The averaging of values over three years serves to account for some variation in meteorology from year to year. While EPA agrees that 2013 was cooler than the long-term average temperature and may have been less conducive to the formation of ozone, the Agency also notes that the weather conditions in the 2012 ozone season (a season included in the three-year average forming the basis for the attainment determination) were warmer than the long-term average and were more conducive to ozone formation.
Table 1 provides temperature and precipitation data for the bi-state Charlotte Area for the ozone seasons (May 1 -September 30) from 2010-2014 obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA NCEI).
The data in Table 1 show that both average temperature and precipitation varied significantly from 2010-2014. The rank and anomaly data in Table 1 show that average ozone season temperatures and precipitation were slightly above normal for the year 2012, temperatures were below normal and precipitation was above normal in 2013, and temperatures were near normal and precipitation slightly above normal in 2014. The year 2012 was one of the hottest in the recent past across the Southeast. In fact, a record-setting heat wave occurred in late June through early July 2012, which resulted in high ozone levels measured across the Southeast. Based upon the meteorology analysis, 2012 was hotter, 2013 was cooler, and 2014 was near normal when compared to the long-term average. Therefore, the 2012-2014 period does not appear to be abnormally conducive to low ozone formation and does not undermine EPA's analysis that the attainment in the bi-state Charlotte Area was due to permanent and enforceable reductions.
EPA also evaluated preliminary ozone data and meteorology for May 2015, which is the beginning of the ozone season in the Area. The Commenter provided data to show that the average maximum temperature in May 2015 is
The Commenter's focus on meteorological conditions is inconsistent with EPA's analysis of the permanent and enforceable emission reductions that did occur in the area during the relevant time period. Consistent with EPA's longstanding practice and policy, a comparison of nonattainment period emissions with attainment period emissions is a relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. EPA evaluated the ozone precursor emissions data in the Area and found that there were significant reductions in these emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a nonattainment year) to 2014 (an attainment year). The emissions data show that from 2011 to 2014, non-road NO
The emissions reductions identified in Tables 2 and 3, above, are attributable to numerous measures implemented during this period, including the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures discussed in the NPR such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, the large non-road diesel engines rule,
The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source emissions contained in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and procedures that account for the Federal mobile source measures identified above, fleet turnover, and increased population.
Regarding the Commenter's discussion of capacity factors at the GG Allen and Marshall power plants and cooling degree days, the Commenter does not attempt to quantify how any decreases in these parameters translate to decreases in NO
In addition, EPA does not believe that the cooling degree and capacity factor data supports the conclusions reached by the Commenter. The Commenter presents data showing cooling degree days for North Carolina for the past ten years and concludes that the cooler summers in 2013 and 2014 have resulted in a lower demand for air conditioning and thus a lower demand for electric power. EPA acknowledges that the number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 and the total consumption of electricity in North Carolina were lower in 2013 and 2014 than during 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, the Commenter ignores the fact that the numbers of cooling degree days in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were significantly above average. In fact, the number of cooling degree days in 2010 ranks the highest in the 120 years of data available for North Carolina and 2011 ranks the third highest out of those 120 years. In contrast, the number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 were close to the 120-year average—2013 is slightly below the average, but the 2014 cooling degree days are actually above the long-term 120-year average. Also, even within the ten years of data presented by the Commenter, the number of cooling degree days in 2014 is on par with the number of cooling degree days in 2006, 2008, and 2009. EPA therefore does not agree with the Commenter that the number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 undermines the Agency's conclusion about the causes of the attainment air quality in the Area.
EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's characterization of the capacity factor and electric power usage data presented in its comments. For example, the Commenter provides a figure showing total consumption of electric power in North Carolina for each ozone season for only the last five years (2010 through 2014) and concludes that the electric power consumption in 2013 and 2014 was “unusually low” using this limited time period as its reference point. However, as demonstrated by the meteorological analysis provided in Table 1 of this final action, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are warmer than long-term average years. Therefore, it is not appropriate to conclude that levels in 2013 and 2014 were “unusually low” without evaluating consumption data from a larger time period. EPA also notes that the Commenter's conclusion that ozone season capacity factors in 2012-2014 at the GG Allen and Marshall power plants are “starkly lower than preceding years” that “can be attributed, in part to the aberrantly mild summer weather and the resulting decrease in energy demand” ignores the fact that 2012 had warmer than average summer temperatures and still had capacity factors at those same units that were lower than or comparable to 2014. The Commenter's assertion is also based on the limited 2010-2014 time period that is not representative of long-term meteorological conditions. Therefore, the Commenter has not established a causal connection between differences in ozone season meteorological conditions and capacity factors for these EGUs.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA does not agree with the Commenter that the meteorological data from the relevant time period undermines its analysis and conclusion that the improvement in air quality in the bi-State Charlotte Area is reasonably attributable to the permanent and enforceable emission reductions identified by the State and EPA.
With respect to climate impacts on future ozone levels, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has identified as a priority action the need to adjust air quality modeling tools and guidance as necessary to account for climate-driven changes in meteorological conditions and meteorologically-dependent emissions. However, EPA has not yet made those changes. The broad range of potential future climate outcomes and variability of projected response to these outcomes limits EPA's ability, at this time, to translate a general expectation that average ozone levels will increase with rising temperatures to specific “actionable” SIP policies at any specific location, including the bi-state Charlotte Area. Thus, EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely upon the existing air quality modeling tools and guidance and applicable CAA provisions to ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not violate the NAAQS (as a result of climate change or any other cause).
As noted above, EPA is currently unable to fully account for the potential impact of climate change on ozone concentrations in the Area. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the large emissions reductions of NO
EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's belief that emission reductions associated with the CSA, CAIR, and CSAPR are not permanent and enforceable simply because the underlying program is an emissions trading program. Cap-and-trade programs provide economic incentives for early reductions in emissions and encourage sources to install controls earlier than required for compliance with future caps on emissions. The flexibility under a cap-and-trade system is not about whether to reduce emissions; rather, it is about how to reduce them at the lowest possible cost. Trading programs require total mass emission reductions by establishing mandatory caps on total emissions to permanently reduce the total mass emissions allowed by sources subject to the programs, validated through rigorous continuous emission monitoring and reporting regimens. The emission caps and associated controls are enforced through the associated SIP rules or federal implementation plans. Any purchase of allowances and increase in emissions by one source necessitates a corresponding sale of allowances and either reduction in emissions or use of banked allowances by another covered source.
Given the regional nature of ozone, the corresponding NO
Moreover, experience has demonstrated that cap and trade programs do successfully generate lasting emission reductions. For example, the NO
Many states have sought and continue to seek redesignation of their nonattainment areas relying in part on the reductions attributable to these cap-and-trade programs.
Of the Federally-enforceable rules relied upon by North Carolina in its redesignation request, the Commenter singles out cap-and-trade programs as insufficiently permanent and enforceable to meet the requirements for redesignation. However, as discussed above, a number of other permanent and enforceable measures have helped contribute to the Area's attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and ensure maintenance of that standard. There is inherent flexibility in nearly all of these measures, including Federal transportation control measures and SIP emission rate limits, also known as “command-and-control” regulations. For example, the rules do not and cannot account for when and where people drive their cars, nor do they dictate that consumers in a certain area invest in newer, lower-emitting cars. Similarly, emission rate limits limit the rate of emissions per unit of fuel consumed, or parts per million of emissions in the exhaust but do not regulate throughput or hours of operation of the regulated sources. It would be unworkable for EPA to disqualify a requirement as “permanent and enforceable” for the purposes of redesignation simply because the requirement did not require the exact same pollutant emission reduction every hour of every day of every year. North Carolina relied on a suite of requirements that, while inherently allowing for some flexibility, has collectively served to bring the Area into, and to maintain, attainment of the NAAQS.
EPA's position that cap-and-trade programs are permanent and enforceable measures under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was recently upheld by two Federal appellate courts. In the most recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Sierra Club's argument that EPA improperly relied on emissions reductions from cap-and-trade programs such as the NO
EPA also notes that North Carolina's maintenance plan provides for verification of continued attainment by performing future reviews of triennial emissions inventories and also for contingency measures to ensure that the NAAQS is maintained into the future if monitored increases in ambient ozone concentrations occur.
Regarding the need for additional controls at the GG Allen and Marshall power plants, EPA has concluded that the Area has attained, and will maintain, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the permanent and enforceable measures identified in the State's submission and in EPA's NPR. EPA also notes that the Marshall Steam Plant is not located within the bi-state Charlotte Area nonattainment boundary, and is therefore not included in the emissions comparison portion of the maintenance demonstration. Furthermore, continued nonattainment status for this Area would not require any further emissions controls for either power plant under their current configurations.
Approval of North Carolina's redesignation request changes the legal designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, found at 40 CFR 81.334, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026. The maintenance plan establishes NO
EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding the bi-state Charlotte Area's redesignation to attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period.
Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan for the bi-state Charlotte Area, including the sub-area NO
Third, EPA is determining that North Carolina has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is approving North Carolina's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. As mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81.
EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-established sub-area NO
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not a significant regulatory actions 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);
• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do 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);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 28, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notice of data availability (NODA).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of emission allowance allocations to certain units under the new unit set-aside (NUSA) provisions of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) federal implementation plans (FIPs) and is responding to objections to preliminary calculations. EPA has completed final calculations for the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2015 compliance year and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations on EPA's Web site. The final allocations are unchanged from the preliminary calculations. EPA will record the allocated allowances in sources' Allowance Management System (AMS) accounts by August 1, 2015.
July 28, 2015.
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or
Under the CSAPR FIPs, a portion of each state budget for each of the four CSAPR emissions trading programs is reserved as a NUSA from which allowances are allocated to eligible units through an annual one- or two-round process. In a NODA published in the
In response to the June 1 NODA, EPA received three timely written objections, two late written objections, and several telephone inquiries. The objections and inquiries all concerned the question of whether EPA is correct to exclude emissions that occurred before a unit's monitor certification deadline from the emissions data used to calculate the NUSA allowance allocations. As explained below, under the regulations such emissions are properly excluded because they are not emissions during a “control period.”
Under the CSAPR FIPs, an eligible unit's first-round NUSA allowance allocation for a given compliance year is generally based on the unit's emissions “during the immediately preceding control period” (that is, the control period in the year before the compliance year).
EPA excluded emissions before units' monitor certification deadlines from the preliminary calculations of first-round 2015 NUSA allowance allocations discussed in the June 1 NODA. In the final calculations, EPA has likewise excluded emissions before units' monitor certification deadlines and has made no other changes to the data used in the preliminary calculations. The final first-round 2015 NUSA allowance allocations are therefore unchanged from the preliminary calculations.
The final unit-by-unit data and allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOx_Annual_1st_Round_Final_Data”, “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOx_OS_1st_Round_Final_Data”, and “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_SO
Pursuant to CSAPR's allowance recordation timing requirements, the allocated NUSA allowances will be recorded in sources' AMS accounts by August 1, 2015. EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that NUSA allocations are subject to potential correction if a unit to which NUSA allowances have been allocated for a given compliance year is not actually an affected unit as of January 1 (or May 1 in the case of the NO
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; fishery closure.
NMFS is closing the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean as a result of the fishery reaching the 2015 catch limit. This action is necessary to prevent additional fishing pressure on this fish stock.
Effective August 5, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
Tom Graham, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5032.
Pelagic longline fishing in the western and central Pacific Ocean is managed, in part, under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Act appear at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O.
NMFS established a calendar year 2015 limit of 3,502 metric tons (mt) of bigeye tuna (
During the closure, a U.S. fishing vessel may not retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the Convention Area, except that any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed, provided that they are landed within 14 days of the start of the closure, that is, by August 19, 2015. This 14-day landing requirement does not apply to a vessel that has declared to NMFS, pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a), that the current trip type is shallow-setting.
Longline-caught bigeye tuna may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed if the fish are caught by a vessel with a valid American Samoa longline permit, or landed in the territories. In either case, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The fish is not caught in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Hawaii;
(2) Other applicable laws and regulations are followed; and
(3) The vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
Bigeye tuna caught by longline gear during the closure may also be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a vessel that is included in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(iv).
During the closure, a U.S. vessel is also prohibited from transshipping bigeye tuna caught in the Convention Area by longline gear to any vessel other than a U.S. fishing vessel with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
The catch limit and this closure do not apply to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear outside the Convention Area, such as in the eastern Pacific Ocean. To ensure compliance with the restrictions related to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area, however, the following requirements apply during the closure period:
(1) Longline fishing both inside and outside the Convention Area is not allowed during the same fishing trip. An exception would be a fishing trip that is in progress on August 5, 2015. In that case, the catch of bigeye tuna must be landed by August 19, 2015; and
(2) If a longline vessel fishes outside the Convention Area and the vessel then enters the Convention Area during the same fishing trip, the fishing gear must be stowed and not readily available for fishing in the Convention Area. Specifically, hooks, branch lines, and floats must be stowed and the mainline hauler must be covered.
The above two additional prohibitions do not apply to the following vessels:
(1) Vessels on declared shallow-setting trips pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a); and
(2) Vessels operating in the longline fisheries of the territories. This includes vessels included in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(iv). This group also includes vessels with valid American Samoa longline permits and vessels landing bigeye tuna in one of the territories, as long as the bigeye tuna were not caught in the EEZ around Hawaii, the fishing was compliant with all applicable laws, and the vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this action, because it would be contrary to the public interest. This rule closes the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific as a result of reaching the applicable bigeye tuna catch limit. The limit is codified in Federal regulations and is based on agreed limits established by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. NMFS forecasts that the fishery will reach the 2015 limit by August 5, 2015. Although this is much earlier than in previous years, longline fishermen have been subject to longline bigeye tuna limits in the western and central Pacific since 2009. They have received ongoing, updated information about the 2015 catch and progress of the fishery in reaching the Convention Area limit via the NMFS Web site, social media, and other means. This constitutes adequate advance notice of this fishery closure. Additionally, the publication timing of this rule provides longline fishermen with seven days' advance notice of the closure date, and allows two weeks to return to port and land their catch of bigeye tuna.
For the reasons stated above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this temporary rule. NMFS must close the fishery as soon as possible to ensure that fishery does not exceed the catch limit. According to NMFS stock-status-determination criteria, bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean are currently experiencing overfishing. NMFS implemented the catch limit to reduce the effects of fishing on bigeye tuna and restore the stock to levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Failure to close the fishery immediately would result in additional fishing pressure on this stock, in violation of Federal law and international obligations.
This action is required by 50 CFR 300.224 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 6901
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; Swordfish General Commercial permit retention limit adjustment for Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions.
NMFS is adjusting the Swordfish (SWO) General Commercial permit retention limits for the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions for the remainder of 2015, unless otherwise noticed. The SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in each of these three regions is increased to six SWO per vessel per trip. The SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area will remain unchanged at zero SWO per vessel per trip. This adjustment applies to SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when on a non-for-hire trip. This action is based upon consideration of the applicable inseason regional retention limit adjustment criteria.
The adjusted SWO General Commercial permit retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions are effective July 30, 2015 through December 31, 2015.
Rick Pearson or Randy Blankinship, 727-824-5399.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The 2015 adjusted North Atlantic SWO quota is 3,359.4 mt dw (see FR 80 25609, May 5, 2015). From the adjusted quota, 50 mt dw was allocated to the reserve category for inseason adjustments and research, and 300 mt dw was allocated to the incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental SWO permit holders, per § 635.27(c)(1)(i). This resulted in an allocation of 3,009.4 mt dw for the directed fishery, which is split equally (1,504.7 mt dw) between two seasons in 2015 (January through June, and July through December).
The 2015 North Atlantic SWO fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and divided into two equal semi-annual quotas, began January 1, 2015. Landings attributable to the SWO General Commercial permit are counted against the applicable semi-annual directed fishery quota. Regional default retention limits for this permit have been established and are automatically effective from January 1 through December 31 each year, unless changed based on the inseason regional retention limit adjustment criteria at § 635.24(b)(4)(iv). The default retention limits established for the SWO General Commercial permit are: (1) Northwest Atlantic region—three SWO per vessel per trip; (2) Gulf of Mexico region—three SWO per vessel per trip; (3) U.S. Caribbean region—2 SWO per vessel per trip; and, (4) Florida SWO Management Area—zero SWO per vessel per trip. The default retention limits apply to SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and to HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when fishing on non-for-hire trips. As a condition of these permits, vessels may not possess, retain, or land any more SWO than is specified for the region in which the vessel is located. The retention limits were not adjusted in 2014.
NMFS has received requests to increase the retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic region and in the Florida SWO Management Area. Under § 635.24(b)(4)(iii), NMFS may increase or decrease the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limit in any region within a range from zero to a maximum of six SWO per vessel per trip. Any adjustments to retention limits must be based upon consideration of the relevant criteria provided in § 635.24(b)(4)(iv), which include: The usefulness of information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic SWO stock; the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of SWO quota available before the end of the fishing year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of SWO; effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall SWO quota; and, review of dealer reports, landing trends, and the availability of SWO on the fishing grounds.
NMFS has considered these criteria, as discussed below, and their applicability to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in all regions for the remainder of 2015. Last year, with application of the default SWO General Commercial permit retention limits, total annual directed SWO fishery landings were approximately 1,303 mt dw (39 percent of the 3,303-mt dw total annual adjusted directed fishery quota). This year, through June 30, 2015, directed SWO landings are 481.6 mt dw (36.5 percent of the 1,505 mt dw Jan. to June semi-annual adjusted directed subquota; or 16 percent of the 3,010 mt dw total annual adjusted directed quota).
Given that SWO directed landings fell well below the available 2014 quota, and that 2015 landings continue to be below the available 2015 directed SWO quota, and considering the regulatory criteria, NMFS has determined that the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limit in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions applicable to persons issued a SWO General Commercial permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit (when on a non-for-hire trip) should be increased from the default levels discussed above.
A principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full North Atlantic directed SWO quota without exceeding it based upon the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP goal: “Consistent with other objectives of this FMP, to manage Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield so as to provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production, providing recreational opportunities, preserving traditional fisheries, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.” At the same time, it is also important for NMFS to continue to provide protection to important SWO juvenile areas and migratory corridors.
After considering all of the relevant criteria, NMFS has determined that this year, increases from the default limits are warranted. With respect to the regulatory criteria, NMFS has examined dealer reports and landing trends, and determined that the information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic SWO stock is useful. Recently implemented electronic dealer reporting provides accurate and timely monitoring of landings. This information indicates that sufficient directed SWO quota is available that would warrant an increase in the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit. Regarding the regulatory criterion that NMFS consider “the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of SWO quota available before the end of the fishing year,” the directed SWO quota has not been harvested for several years and, based upon current landing trends, is not likely to be harvested or exceeded in 2015. Based upon recent landings rates from dealer reports, an increase in the vessel retention limit for SWO General Commercial permit holders is not likely to cause quotas for other categories of the fishery to be exceeded. Similarly, regarding the criterion that NMFS consider the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded, NMFS expects there to be sufficient SWO quota for the remainder of the year, and thus increased catch rates in one region are not expected to preclude vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall SWO quota. Landings by vessels issued this permit (and Charter/Headboat permitted vessels on a non-for-hire trip) are counted against the adjusted directed SWO quota. As indicated above, this quota has not been exceeded for several years and, based upon current landing trends, is not likely to be exceeded in
With regard to SWO abundance, the 2014 report by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics indicated that the North Atlantic SWO stock is not overfished (B
Mature SWO are anticipated to migrate to the fishing grounds off the northeast U.S. coast during the summer and fall months. Based upon landings over the last several years, it is highly unlikely that the June through December directed SWO subquota will be filled with the current default retention limits of three SWO per vessel per trip (Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico), and two SWO per vessel per trip (U.S. Caribbean). For the entire 2014 fishing year, 39 percent of the total adjusted directed SWO quota was filled.
Increasing the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit to six fish per vessel per trip will increase the likelihood that directed SWO landings will approach, but not exceed, the annual SWO quota, as well as increase the opportunity for catching SWO during the June through December directed subquota period. Increasing opportunity within this subquota period is also important because of the migratory nature and seasonal distribution of SWO, one of the regulatory criteria to be considered when changing the retention limit inseason (variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of SWO). In a particular geographic region, or waters accessible from a particular port, the amount of fishing opportunity for SWO may be constrained by the short amount of time the SWO are present as they migrate. Dealer reports for Swordfish General Commercial permitted vessels indicate swordfish are available from June through December in both the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions and are likely to be available in the U.S. Caribbean region during December and January.
Based upon these considerations, NMFS has determined that a six-fish per vessel per trip SWO General Commercial permit retention limit is warranted in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions through December 31, 2015, for SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when on a non-for-hire trip. It would provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the U.S. quota of SWO without exceeding it, while maintaining an equitable distribution of fishing opportunities; help achieve optimum yield in the SWO fishery; allow for the collection of data for stock monitoring purposes; and be consistent with the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended. Therefore, NMFS increases the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit from the default limit to six SWO per vessel per trip in these three regions, effective from July 30, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The regional SWO retention limits will automatically revert back to the default levels on January 1, 2016.
As indicated above, NMFS has also received requests since publication of the final rule implementing Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (which established the SWO General Commercial permit) to increase the retention limit of SWO in the Florida SWO Management Area from the default of zero. NMFS has determined that the retention limit will remain at zero SWO per vessel per trip in the Florida SWO Management Area in 2015. As described in Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, the area off the southeastern coast of Florida, particularly the Florida Straits, contains oceanographic features that make the area biologically unique. It provides important juvenile SWO habitat, and is essentially a narrow migratory corridor containing high concentrations of SWO located in close proximity to high concentrations of people who may fish for them. Public comment on Amendment 8, including from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, indicated concern about the resultant high potential for the improper rapid growth of a commercial fishery, increased catches of undersized SWO, the potential for larger numbers of fishermen in the area, and the potential for crowding of fishermen, which could lead to gear and user conflicts. These concerns remain valid. NMFS will continue to collect information to evaluate the appropriateness of the retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area and other regional retention limits.
These adjustments are consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, ATCA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are not expected to negatively impact stock health.
NMFS will continue to monitor the SWO fishery closely through mandatory landings and catch reports. Dealers are required to submit landing reports and negative reports (if no SWO were purchased) on a weekly basis.
Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of SWO, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments or closures are necessary to ensure that available quota is not exceeded or to enhance fishing opportunities. Subsequent actions, if any, will be published in the
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to changes in SWO landings, the availability of SWO on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and regional variations in the fishery. Based on available SWO quota, stock abundance, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of SWO on the fishing grounds, among other considerations, adjustment to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limits from the default levels is warranted. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the SWO daily retention limit from the default level would result in minimal risks of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notice in the
This action is being taken under § 635.24(b)(4) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing regulations to modify the existing Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF)
The final rule is effective July 30, 2015.
Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Environmental Assessment, and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Craig Heberer, NMFS, 760-431-9440, ext. 303, or
On April 21, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
The proposed rule contains additional background information, including the basis for the new regulations. Additional information on changes since the proposed rule is included below.
This final rule reduces the existing bag limit of 10 PBF per day to 2 PBF per day and the maximum multiday possession limit (
The regulations establish new requirements for filleting tuna at-sea (
NMFS received 976 written public comments pertaining to the proposed action.
NMFS categorized comments by whether they supported a reduced bag limit and/or establishment of new fillet requirements. Summaries of the comments received and NMFS' responses appear below. Some comments were beyond the scope of this rulemaking and are not addressed here. Nonetheless, those comments are valuable; and NMFS will consider them for future management planning.
Of the tunas, PBF has the broadest geographic range, spanning large expanses of the Pacific Ocean. They spawn in the WCPO between central Japan and the northern Philippines, and in the Sea of Japan from April through August. Based on tag return data, a portion of these fish are known migrate to waters off the U.S. West Coast and Mexico. The exact proportion that migrates is unknown, but it is possible that in the last few years a larger proportion of the juveniles have migrated from the spawning grounds to the U.S. West Coast and Mexico. The migration patterns of PBF are influenced by oceanographic conditions and vary among years. Increases in the number of fish observed locally may be a result of changes in the proportion of fish migrating to the eastern Pacific, and/or conditions along the west coast that may have shifted schools further north.
• All members must reduce their fishing of PBF to below the average amount they fished in 2002 to 2004 in the WCPO; and
• All members must reduce their catch of PBF smaller than 30 kg (66 lbs) by 50 percent of the average amount fished in 2002 to 2004 in the WCPO.
Additionally, IATTC Resolution C-14-06 stipulates that:
• A 20- to 45-percent reduction be made to PBF catches to benefit rebuilding of the stock, provided that these reductions are implemented over the entire range of the stock; and
• U.S. commercial catches cannot exceed 600 mt in 2015 and 2016 combined; and the total commercial catches by all IATTC Members cannot exceed 6,600 mt in 2015 and 2016 combined in the EPO.
The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that the regulatory amendment under the HMS FMP is necessary for the conservation and management of the PBF fishery, and that it is consistent with the MSA and other applicable laws.
There is good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness, and to implement this rule 7 days after the date of filing with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS is waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness because PBF have appeared in California waters earlier than anticipated. The vast majority of U.S. recreational angling trips for PBF are from 1 to 3 days in duration. Seven days would provide enough advanced notice for recreational vessel operators and anglers to be notified of the new regulations if they are out at sea when the rule publishes. At present, there is extensive media coverage of the presence of PBF in U.S. west coast waters, which suggests that fishing effort targeting PBF will remain a focal point for anglers and could potentially intensify if favorable oceanic conditions result in additional PBF entering local waters. If this rule is delayed to allow for a 30-day delay in effectiveness, the level of harvest permitted under current regulations (10 fish per day with a daily possession limit of 30 fish per day) could compromise efforts to rebuild the PBF stock, conform with State of California regulations, and uphold the U.S. obligations to reduce catch agreed to under IATTC Resolution C-14-06.
There has been considerable and extensive public outreach and education relating to the impending imposition of reduced daily bag and possession limits for PBF that will mitigate the impacts of a shortened delay in effectiveness of this rule. As stated earlier, this rulemaking is based on a recommendation by the Council, which came after several public scoping meetings and extensive opportunities for public input and comment. The State of California and NMFS has kept the regulated public informed with frequent announcements on this action (
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the PRA. Existing collection-of-information requirements associated with the HMS FMP have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0648-0204. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
This section applies to recreational fishing for albacore tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington and for bluefin tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California. In addition to individual fishermen, the operator of a U.S. sportsfishing vessel that fishes for albacore or bluefin tuna is responsible for ensuring that the bag and possession limits of this section are not exceeded. The bag limits of this section apply on the basis of each 24-hour period at sea, regardless of the number of trips per day. The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take and retain more than one daily bag limit of fish during 1 calendar day. Federal recreational HMS regulations are not intended to supersede any more restrictive state recreational HMS regulations relating to federally-managed HMS.
(a)
(b)
(e)
(1) The bag must be marked with the species' common name; and
(2) The fish must be cut into the following six pieces with all skin attached: the four loins, the collar removed as one piece with both pectoral fins attached and intact, and the belly cut to include the vent and with both pelvic fins attached and intact.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Publication of determination.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) make a determination on the impact, if any, on the lessening of competition likely to result from a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed rule for energy conservation standards and that DOE publish the determination in the
Date of DOJ determination—November 25, 2013.
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email:
Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:
On March 28, 2014 (79 FR 17725), DOE published a final rule amending energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. Those amended standards were determined by DOE to be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy. The Energy Conservation and Policy Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.6291,
DOE received the determination in response to the September 11, 2013 NOPR (78 FR 55781) from the Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on November 25, 2013. DOE is publishing the text of DOJ's November 25, 2013 determination.
I am responding to your September 24, 2013 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and refrigerators. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 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 of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g).
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 (78 FR 176, September 11, 2013) (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 October 3, 2013. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of corrugation cracking found at various wing stations and on the main spar lower cap. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 11, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; Fax: 250-656-0673; telephone: (North America) 1-800-663-8444; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Safety Engineer, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Steward Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone: (516) 228-7329; fax: (516) 794-5531; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued AD No. CF-2015-05, dated March 18, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes. The MCAI states:
An operator found cracks on the upper inner wing skin corrugations emanating from the rib attachment points. As a result, Viking Air Limited released Service Bulletin (SB) V3/0002, Revision NC to inspect for possible corrugation cracking between wing stations 34 and 110. Subsequently, operators discovered additional corrugation cracking at multiple wing stations and on the main spar lower cap.
These cracks, if not detected and rectified, may compromise the structural integrity of the wing. In order to address this potentially unsafe condition, Viking Air Limited has issued SB V3/0002, Revision C, specifying repetitive internal borescope and visual inspections. This AD is issued to mandate compliance with that SB.
We reviewed Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin No. V3/0002, Revision “C”, dated April 30, 2014; and Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin 3-STC (03-50)-001, Revision “NC”, dated April 30, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing additional wing inspection access panels and inspecting the wings using borescope and visual methods. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 38 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 36 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $5,000 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $306,280, or $8,060 per product.
The scope of damage found in the required inspection could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining how much damage may be found on each airplane or the cost to repair damaged parts on each airplane.
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,
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 11, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as reports of corrugation cracking found at various wing stations and on the main spar lower cap. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect cracking and correct as necessary to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this AD:
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, determine the accumulated air time for each wing by contacting Technical Support at Viking Air Limited. You can find contact information for Viking Air Limited in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, determine all installed supplemental type certificates (STC) or modifications affecting the wings. Based on the accumulated air time determined from paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and before the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, install access panels as follows:
(i) If the airplane is free of STCs or any other modifications affecting the wings, install additional inspection access panels following the Accomplishment Instructions Part A of Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin No. V3/0002, Revision “C”, dated April 30, 2014.
(ii) If the airplane is fitted with STC SA2009NY (which can be found on the internet at:
STC SA03-50 would be the Canadian equivalent of the United States STC 2A2009NY.
(iii) If there are other STCs or modifications affecting the wings the operator must contact the FAA to request an FAA-approved alternative method of compliance using the procedures in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and 14 CFR 39.19. To develop these procedures, we recommend you contact the STC holder for guidance in developing substantiating data.
(3) Based on the accumulated air time on the wings determined in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, perform initial and repetitive borescope and visual inspections of both the left-hand and right-hand wing box following Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin V3/0002, Revision “C”, dated April 30, 2014, using the inspection schedules specified in Table 1 of paragraph (f)(3) of this AD:
(4) If the total flight cycles have not been kept, multiply the total number of airplane hours time-in-service (TIS) by 2 to calculate the cycles. For the purpose of this AD, some examples are below:
(i) .5 hour TIS x 2 = 1 cycle; and
(ii) 200 hours TIS x 2 = 400 cycles.
(5) If any cracks are found, contact Technical Support at Viking Air Limited for an FAA-approved repair and incorporate the repair before further flight. You can find contact information for Viking Air Limited in paragraph (i) of this AD. The FAA-approved repair must specifically reference this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD No. CF-2015-05, dated March 18, 2015. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Hart/Shelby, MI. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Oceana County Airport. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 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-2015-1835/Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-7740.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
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-2015-1835/Airspace Docket No. 14-AGL-7.” 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 establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.0-mile radius of Oceana County Airport, Hart/Shelby, MI, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace 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 6.0-mile radius of Oceana County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E surface area
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-1136; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-12, 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.
Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home, ID.
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-2015-1136; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removing Class E surface area airspace as an extension as this airspace is no longer needed, at Mountain Home AFB, Mountain Home, ID. The FAA found additional Class D airspace necessary to protect instrument arrival procedures at the airport. Class D airspace would extend upward from the surface to and including 5,500 feet within a 5-mile radius northeast of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 6.5 miles to the southeast and northwest of the airport. Class E surface area airspace would extend upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius northeast of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 6.5 miles to the southeast and northwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 7.7-mile radius northeast of Mountain Home AFB, extending to 12.4 miles to the northeast, and 17.7 miles to the east. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of Mountain Home Municipal Airport.
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 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
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (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 this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 5,500 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Mountain Home AFB, and within 2 miles each side of the 135° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 315° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles northwest of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of the Mountain Home AFB, and within 2 miles each side of the 135° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles southeast of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 315° bearing from the airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 6.5 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 43°06′48″ N., long. 115°28′39″ W.; to lat. 43°02′06″ N., long. 115°31′12″ W.; to lat. 43°03′25″ N., long. 115°36′21″ W.; to lat. 42°54′24″ N., long. 115°48′41″ W.; to lat. 42°54′24″ N., long. 115°56′47″ W.; to lat. 43°00′12″ N., long. 116°04′42″ W.; to lat. 43°06′51″ N., long. 116°01′24″ W.; to lat. 43°09′22″ N., long. 115°57′57″ W.; to lat. 43°12′54″ N., long. 115°42′51″ W., thence to point of beginning.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 43°33′06″ N., long. 116°11′32″ W.; to lat. 42°48′43″ N., long. 115°00′21″ W.; to lat. 42°23′58″ N., long. 115°00′21″ W.; to lat. 42°23′58″ N., long. 115°17′55″ W.; thence clockwise along the 46.0-mile radius of Mountain Home AFB to lat. 43°09′20″ N., long. 116°54′22″ W.; thence to point of beginning.
Department of State.
Proposed rule.
The Department of State proposes to revise its regulations of November 3, 2004 and October 11, 2007 governing the availability to the public of information that is under the control of the Department. There have been several changes in the law and regulations governing disclosure of such information, including the OPEN Government Act of 2007 and the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009. This proposed rule reflects changes in the FOIA and other statutes and consequent changes in the Department's procedures since the last revision of the Department's regulations on this subject.
The Department will consider comments from the public that are received within September 28, 2015.
You may make comments by any of the following methods, and you must include the RIN in the subject line of your message.
•
•
•
• Persons with access to the Internet may view this rule and submit comments by going to
Marianne Manheim, FOIA Public Liaison, Office of Information Programs and Services,
This proposed rule updates 22 CFR part 171. Notably, the former subpart C pertaining to declassification of national security information and access to classified information by historical researchers and certain former government personnel has been removed from Part 171 and incorporated into 22 CFR part 9 on National Security Information (
Administrative practice and procedure, freedom of information, privacy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of State proposes to revise 22 CFR part 171 to read as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a; E.O. 12600 (52 FR 23781); the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. app. 101-505); 5 CFR part 2634.
(a) This subpart contains the rules that the Department of State and the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB), an independent body, follow in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, and the Privacy Act of 1974 (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. Records of the Department shall be made available to the public upon request made in compliance with the access procedures established in this Part, except for any records exempt by law from disclosure. Regulations at 22 CFR 172.1-9 govern,
(b)
(2) For purposes of subparts A, B, C, and D,
Most of the records maintained by the Department pertain to the formulation and execution of U.S. foreign policy. The Department also maintains certain records that pertain to individuals, such as applications for U.S. passports, applications for visas to enter the United States, records on consular assistance given abroad by U.S. Foreign Service posts to U.S citizens and legal permanent residents, and records on Department employees. Further information on the types of records maintained by the Department may be obtained by reviewing the Department's records disposition schedules, which are available on the Department's Web site at
Information that is required to be published in the
(a) Requests for records made in accordance with subparts A, B, and C must be made in writing and may be made by mail addressed to the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS), U.S. Department of State, State Annex 2 (SA-2), 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100, or by fax to (202) 261-8579, or through the Department's FOIA Web site (
(1) Requests for passport records that are covered under PA
(2) Requests for records of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) may be submitted to U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC 20520-0308, ATTN: FOIA officer. In addition, FOIA requests seeking OIG records may be submitted via email to
(3) All other requests for other Department records must be submitted to the Office of Information Programs and Services by one of the means noted above. The Office of Information Programs and Services, the Law Enforcement Liaison Division of the Office of Passport Services, and the OIG are the only Department components authorized to accept FOIA requests submitted to the Department.
(4) Providing the specific citation to the statute under which a requester is requesting information will facilitate the processing of the request by the Department. The Department automatically processes requests for information maintained in a PA system of records under both the FOIA and the PA to provide the requester with the greatest degree of access to the requester. Such information may be withheld only if it is exempt from access under both laws; if the information is exempt under only one of the laws, it must be released.
(b) Although no particular format is required, a request must reasonably describe the Department records that are sought. To the extent that requests are specific and include all pertinent details about the requested information, it will be easier for the Department to locate responsive records. For FOIA requests, such details include the subject, timeframe, names of any individuals involved, a contract number (if applicable), and reasons why the requester believes the Department may have records on the subject of the request.
(c) While every effort is made to guarantee the greatest possible access to all requesters regardless of the statute(s) under which the information is requested, the following guidance is provided for the benefit of requesters:
(1)
(2)
(d) As a general matter, information access requests are processed in the order in which they are received. However, if the request is specific and the search can be narrowed, it may be processed more quickly. Additionally, FOIA requests granted expedited processing will be placed in the expedited processing queue (see section 171.11(f) of this Part for more information). Multi-tracking of FOIA requests is also used to manage requests (see section 171.11(h)).
The Department ordinarily transfers records designated as historically significant to the National Archives when they are 25 years old. Accordingly, requests for some Department records 25 years old or older should be submitted to the National Archives by mail addressed to Special Access and FOIA Staff (NWCTF), 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 5500, College Park, MD 20740; by fax to (301) 837-1864; or by email to
This subpart contains the rules that the Department follows under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. The rules should be read together with the FOIA, which provides additional information about access to records and contains the specific exemptions that are applicable to withholding information, the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Guidelines), and information located at
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from Foreign Service posts or Department offices other than IPS; (ii) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of distinct records; or
(iii) The need to consult with another agency or other agencies that has/have a substantial interest in the records, or among two or more Department components that have a substantial subject-matter interest therein. In the majority of requests received by the Department unusual circumstances exist due to the need to search in multiple bureaus/offices/posts located around the globe.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The Department may make one request to the requester for clarifying information and toll the 20-day period while waiting for the requester's response; or
(2) If necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fees. In either case, the Department's receipt of the information from the requester ends the tolling period.
(f)
(1) Failure to obtain requested information on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual.
(2) The information is urgently needed by an individual primarily engaged in disseminating information in order to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal government activity. Requesters must demonstrate that their primary activity involves publishing or otherwise disseminating information to the public in general, not just to a particular segment or group.
(3) Failure to release the information would impair substantial due process rights or harm substantial humanitarian interests.
(4) A request for expedited processing may be made at the time of the initial
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(2) Whenever the Department refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it shall document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral.
(3)
(4) The Department will make efforts to handle referrals and consultations according to the date that the referring agency initially received the FOIA request .
(5) The standard referral procedure is not appropriate where disclosure of the identity of the agency to which the referral would be made could harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption, such as the exemptions that protect personal privacy or national security interests. In such instances, the Department will coordinate with the originating agency to seek its views on the disclosability of the record(s).
(n)
(2)
(3)
(i) A third-party requester may receive greater access to requested information by submitting information about the subject of the request that is set forth in subsection 171.11(n)(1), and providing proof that that third party is deceased or the third party's authorization to the Department to release information about him- or herself to the requester. The third-party authorization: Should take one of the following forms:
(ii) A signed and notarized authorization by the third party; or
(iii) A declaration by the third party made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 authorizing disclosure pertaining to the third party to the requester. The third-party authorization or declaration should be dated within six months of the date of the request. In addition, the Department's Certification of Identity form, DS-4240, can be used to provide authorization from a third party.
(iv) Please note that if a requester is seeking information about a third party and the information is located in a PA system of records, the requester should review subpart C of this section. By providing verification of identity and authorization under that subpart, the third party is treated as a first party for processing purposes. Without providing the required information listed in that subpart, the request will still be processed under the FOIA procedures in subpart B.
(4)
(5)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4; or
(2) The Department has reason to believe that the information may be exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure under that exemption or any other applicable exemption.
(e)
(1) The Department determines that the information is exempt from disclosure;
(2) The information lawfully has been published or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600; or
(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the Department shall, within a reasonable time prior to a specified disclosure date, give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information.
(f)
(g)
(1) A statement of the reason(s) why each of the submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;
(2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which shall be a reasonable time subsequent to the notice.
(h)
(i)
(a) Any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for Department records under the FOIA may be administratively appealed to the Appeals Review Panel of the Department. This appeal right includes the right to appeal the determination that no records responsive to the request exist in Department files. Appeals must be postmarked within 60 calendar days of the date of the Department's denial letter and sent to: Appeals Officer, Appeals Review Panel, Office of Information Programs and Services, at the address set forth in section 171.4 of this part, or faxed to (202) 261-8571. The time limit for a response to an appeal is 20 working days, which may be extended in unusual circumstances, as defined in 171.11(b). The time limit begins to run on the day the appeal is received by IPS.
(b) Requesters may decide to litigate a request that is in the appeal stage. Once a summons and complaint is received by the Department in connection with a particular request, the Department will administratively close any open appeal regarding such request.
(c) Requesters should submit an administrative appeal, to IPS at the above address, of any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for access to FSGB records under the FOIA. IPS will assign a tracking number to the appeal and forward it to the FSGB, which is an independent body, for adjudication.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) A
(ii)
(A) An
(B) A
(C) A
(iii)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Sending records by special methods such as express mail, overnight courier, etc.
(2) Providing records to a requester in a special format.
(3) Providing duplicate copies of records already produced to the same requester in response to the same request.
(h)
(i)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) It estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250. In such a case, the Department shall notify the requester of the likely cost and obtain satisfactory assurance of full payment where the requester has a history of prompt payment of FOIA fees, or shall, in its discretion, require an advance payment of an amount up to the full estimated charges in the case of requesters with no history of payment; or
(2) A requester has previously failed to pay an assessed fee within 30 days of the date of its billing. In such a case, the Department shall require the requester to pay the full amount previously owed plus any applicable interest and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Department begins to process a new or pending request from that requester.
(3) If a requester has failed to pay a fee properly charged by another U.S. government agency in a FOIA case, the Department may require proof that such fee has been paid before processing a new or pending request from that requester.
(4) When the Department acts under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, the administrative time limits prescribed in the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) (
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a) Fees otherwise chargeable in connection with a request for disclosure of a record shall be waived or reduced where the requester seeks a waiver or reduction of fees and the Department determines, in its discretion, that disclosure is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(1) In deciding whether disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government, the Department shall consider all four of the following factors:
(i) The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.
(ii) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.
(iii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.
(iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.
(2) In order to determine whether disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Department will consider the following factors:
(i) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest,
(ii) The primary interest in disclosure,
(iii) Requests for purposes of writing a book, an article, or other publication will not be considered a commercial purpose.
(b) The Department may refuse to consider waiver or reduction of fees for requesters from whom unpaid fees remain owed to the Department for another FOIA request.
(c) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver or reduction of fees, a waiver or reduction shall be granted for only those records.
(d) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the Department and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.
(e) A decision to refuse to waive or reduce fees may be appealed to the Director of IPS, within 30 calendar days of the date of the Department's refusal letter. See section 171.4 of this subpart for address information. A decision in writing on the appeal shall be issued within 30 working days of the receipt of the appeal.
The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) in the National Archives and Records Administration is charged with offering mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Additionally, the FOIA directs the Department's FOIA Public Liaison to assist in the resolution of disputes. The Department will inform requesters in its agency appeal response letter of services offered by OGIS and the FOIA Public Liaison. Requesters may reach the Department's FOIA Public Liaison at Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS/PP/LA, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-8100, or at (202) 261-8484. Requesters may contact OGIS at Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001; at
The Department shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 14 of the National Archives and Records Administration. Records shall not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
This subpart contains the rules that the Department follows under the Privacy Act of 1974 (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. These rules should be read together with the text of the statute, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals. The rules in this subpart apply to all records in systems of records maintained by the Department that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the Department. If any records retrieved pursuant to an access request under the PA are found to be exempt from access under that Act, they will be processed for possible disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. No fees shall be charged for access to or amendment of PA records.
As used in this subpart, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a) An individual has the right to request that the Department amend a record pertaining to the individual that the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.
(b) Requests to amend records must be in writing and mailed or delivered to
(c) All requests for amendments to records shall be acknowledged within 10 working days.
(d) In reviewing a record in response to a request to amend, the Department shall review the record to determine if it is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
(e) If the Department agrees with an individual's request to amend a record, it shall:
(1) Advise the individual in writing of its decision;
(2) Amend the record accordingly; and
(3) If an accounting of disclosure has been made, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance.
(f) If the Department denies an individual's request to amend a record, it shall advise the individual in writing of its decision and the reason for the refusal, and the procedures for the individual to request further review. See § 171.25.
(a)
(b)
(1) Disclosures made to employees within the Department who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;
(2) Disclosures required under the FOIA.
(a) If the Department denies a request for access to PA records, for amendment of such records, or for an accounting of disclosure of such records, the requester shall be informed of the reason for the denial and of the right to appeal the denial to the Appeals Review Panel. Any such appeal must be postmarked within 60 working days of the date of the Department's denial letter and sent to: Appeals Officer, Appeals Review Panel, Office of Information Programs and Services, at the address set forth in section 171.4.
(b) Appellants should submit an administrative appeal of any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for access to FSGB records under the PA to IPS at the above address. IPS will assign a tracking number to the appeal and forward it to the FSGB, which is an independent body, for adjudication.
(c) The Panel will decide appeals from denials of PA amendment requests within 30 business days, unless the Panel extends that period for good cause shown, from the date when it is received by the Panel.
(d) Decisions on appeals will be made in writing, and appellants will receive notification of the decision. A reversal will result in reprocessing of the request in accordance with that decision. An affirmance will include a brief statement of the reason for the affirmance and will inform the appellant that the decision of the Panel represents the final decision of the Department and of the right to seek judicial review of the Panel's decision, when applicable.
(e) If the Panel's decision is that a record shall be amended in accordance with the appellant's request, the Chairman shall direct the office responsible for the record to amend the record, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance (if an accounting of previous disclosures has been made), and so advise the individual in writing.
(f) If the Panel's decision is that the amendment request is denied on appeal, in addition to the notification required by paragraph (d) of this section, the Chairman shall advise the appellant:
(1) Of the right to file a concise Statement of Disagreement stating the reasons for disagreement with the decision of the Department;
(2) Of the procedures for filing the Statement of Disagreement;
(3) That any Statement of Disagreement that is filed will be made available to anyone to whom the record is subsequently disclosed, together with, at the discretion of the Department, a brief statement by the Department summarizing its reasons for refusing to amend the record;
(4) That prior recipients of the disputed record will be provided a copy of any statement of disagreement, to the extent that an accounting of disclosures was maintained.
(g) If the appellant files a Statement of Disagreement under paragraph (f) of this section, the Department will clearly annotate the record so that the fact that the record is disputed is apparent to anyone who may subsequently access the record. When the disputed record is subsequently disclosed, the Department will note the dispute and provide a copy of the Statement of Disagreement. The Department may also include a brief summary of the reasons for not amending the record. Copies of the Department's statement shall be treated as part of the individual's record for granting access; however, it will not be subject to amendment by an individual under these regulations.
Systems of records maintained by the Department are authorized to be exempt from certain provisions of the PA under both general and specific exemptions set forth in the Act. In utilizing these exemptions, the Department is exempting only those portions of systems that are necessary for the proper functioning of the Department and that are consistent with the PA. Where compliance would not interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement process, and/or where it may be appropriate to permit individuals to contest the accuracy of the information collected, the applicable exemption may be waived, either partially or totally, by the Department or the OIG, in the sole discretion of the Department or the OIG, as appropriate. Records exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) by the originator of the record remain exempt if subsequently incorporated into any Department system of records, provided the reason for the exemption remains valid and necessary.
(a)
(1) Individuals may not have access to records maintained by the Department that are maintained or originated by the Central Intelligence Agency under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(1).
(2) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), individuals may not have access to records maintained or originated by an agency or component thereof that performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of:
(i) Information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status;
(ii) Information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or
(iii) Reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. The reason for invoking these exemptions is to ensure effective criminal law enforcement processes.
(iii) Records maintained by the Department in the following systems of records are exempt from all of the provisions of the PA except paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (e)(7), (e)(9), (e)(10), and (e)(11), and (i) of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent to which they meet the criteria of section (j)(2). The names of the systems correspond to those published in the
Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.
Information Access Program Records. STATE-35.
Risk Analysis and Management. STATE-78.
Security Records. STATE-36.
(b)
(1)
Board of Appellate Review Records. STATE-02.
Congressional Correspondence. STATE-43.
Congressional Travel Records. STATE-44.
Coordinator for the Combating of Terrorism Records. STATE-06.
External Research Records. STATE-10.
Extradition Records. STATE-11.
Family Advocacy Case Records. STATE-75.
Foreign Assistance Inspection Records. STATE-48.
Human Resources Records. STATE-31.
Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.
Intelligence and Research Records. STATE-15.
International Organizations Records. STATE-17.
Law of the Sea Records. STATE-19.
Legal Case Management Records. STATE-21.
Munitions Control Records. STATE-42.
Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-05.
Passport Records. STATE-26.
Personality Cross Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.
Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.
Personnel Payroll Records. STATE-30.
Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.
Records of the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes. STATE-54.
Risk Analysis and Management Records. STATE-78.
Rover Records. STATE-41.
Records of Domestic Accounts Receivable. STATE-23.
Records of the Office of White House Liaison. STATE-34.
Refugee Records. STATE-59.
Security Records. STATE-36.
Visa Records. STATE-39.
(2)
Board of Appellate Review Records. STATE-02.
Coordinator for the Combating of Terrorism Records. STATE-06.
Extradition Records. STATE-11.
Family Advocacy Case Records. STATE-75
Foreign Assistance Inspection Records. STATE-48.
Garnishment of Wages Records. STATE-61.
Information Access Program Records. STATE-35.
Intelligence and Research Records. STATE-15.
Munitions Control Records. STATE-42.
Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-05.
Passport Records. STATE-26.
Personality Cross Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.
Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.
Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.
Risk Analysis and Management Records. STATE-78.
Security Records. STATE-36.
Visa Records. STATE-39.
(3)
Extradition Records. STATE-11.
Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.
Intelligence and Research Records. STATE-15.
Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-05.
Passport Records. STATE-26.
Personality Cross-Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.
Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.
Security Records. STATE-36.
Visa Records. STATE-39.
(4)
Foreign Service Institute Records. STATE-14.
Human Resources Records. STATE-31.
Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.
Overseas Citizens Services Records, STATE-05
Personnel Payroll Records. STATE-30.
Security Records. STATE-36.
(5)
Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights. STATE-09.
Foreign Assistance Inspection Records. STATE-48.
Foreign Service Grievance Board Records. STATE-13.
Human Resources Records. STATE-31.
Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.
Legal Adviser Attorney Employment Application Records. STATE-20.
Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-25.
Personality Cross-Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.
Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.
Records of the Office of White House Liaison. STATE-34.
Risk Analysis and Management Records. STATE-78.
Rover Records. STATE-41.
Security Records. STATE-36.
Senior Personnel Appointments Records. STATE-47.
(6)
Foreign Service Institute Records. STATE-14.
Human Resources Records. STATE-31.
Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.
Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights. STATE-09
Security Records. STATE-36.
(7)
Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-25.
Human Resources Records. STATE-31.
Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.
Personality Cross-Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.
Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.
This subpart sets forth the process by which persons may request access to public financial disclosure reports filed with the Department in accordance with § 101 and § 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. app. 101 and 103(l), as amended by Public Law 112-173, 126 Stat. 1310, Public Law 112-178, 126 Stat. 1408, and Public Law 113-7, 127 Stat. 438, and 5 CFR 2634.202. The retention, public availability, and improper use of these reports are governed by 5 U.S.C. app. 105 and 5 CFR 2634.603.
Requests for access to public financial disclosure reports filed with the Department should be made by submitting a completed Office of Government Ethics request form, OGE Form 201, to
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes a safety zone around the Turritella FPSO system, Walker Ridge 551 on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the safety zone is to protect the facility 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 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.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 27, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0318 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 proposed 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 by using one of the methods specified under
Under the authority provided in 14 U.S.C. 85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, Title 33, CFR part 147 permits the establishment of safety zones for facilities located on the OCS for the purpose of protecting life, property and the marine environment.
Shell Exploration & Production Company requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone around the Turritella FPSO, which is a ship-shaped offshore production facility that stores crude oil in tanks located in its hull. It will attach to a moored turret buoy and move in a 360 degree arc around the position 26°25′38.74″ N., 90°48′45.34″ W. The turret buoy is detachable which allows the FPSO to disconnect while the buoy and turret drop below the water's surface to a predetermined depth. The FPSO has a capacity for storing 900,000 barrels of produced oil and is expected to be offloaded on a weekly basis via a floating hose that connects the FPSO to a shuttle tanker. During offloading operations, a shuttle tanker will connect its bow to the Turritella FPSO and its stern to an attendant tug that will assist with safety spacing and stability of the operations. The facility is manned with a crew of 120 people.
The request for the safety zone was made due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the facility and the environment. Shell Exploration & Production Company indicated that it is highly likely that any allision with the facility would result in a catastrophic event. In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including but not limited to: (1) The level of shipping activity around the facility; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the facility; (3) concerns for the environment; (4) the likeliness that an allision would result in a catastrophic event based on proximity to shipping fairways, offloading operations, production levels, and size of the crew; (5) the volume of traffic in the vicinity of the proposed area; (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the proposed area; and, (7) the structural configuration of the facility. For the purpose of safety zones established under 33 CFR part 147, the deepwater area is considered to be waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the vicinity of the safety zone primarily consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area also includes an extensive system of fairways.
Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of the proposed safety zone. The proposed regulation would reduce significantly the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico by prohibiting entry into the zone unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
Shell Exploration & Production Company requested a safety zone of 500 meters (1640.4 feet) around the stern of the FPSO when it is moored to the turret buoy. The FPSO can swing in a 360
Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of a safety zone of 500 meters (1640.4 feet) around the facility. The proposed safety zone would restrict all vessels from entering into, transiting through, remaining in, or anchoring in the safety zone area. Vessels attending to, servicing, or working with the facility would be exempt from the restrictions in this proposed rule. This proposed safety measure reduces significantly the threat of allisions, collisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas and increases the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. Authorization to deviate from this proposed rule and transit through the safety zone may be requested from the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Such deviation requests would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
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 rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the Turritella FPSO—on the Outer Continental Shelf—and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Additionally, the area covered by this proposed safety zone is limited in scope as it would encompass only the waters within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) around the stern of the FPSO when it is moored to the turret buoy. The FPSO can swing in a 360 degree arc around the center point at 26°25′38.74″ N., 90°48′45.34″ W. If the FPSO detaches from the turret buoy, the safety zone of 500 meters (1640.4 feet) will be measured from the center point of the turret buoy. This is the area where the FPSO vessel operates and vessels servicing the FPSO transit and maneuver, presenting the area most vulnerable to risk of allusion or collision. Vessels traversing waters near the proposed safety zone will be able to safely travel around the zone using alternate routes. Exceptions to this proposed rule include vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in towing. Deviation to transit through the proposed 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 proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor within the area extending 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from the outermost edges of the Turritella FPSO system located in Walker Ridge 551 on the OCS.
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 alternate routes. Based on the limited scope of the safety zone, any delay resulting from using an alternate route is expected to be minimal depending on vessel traffic and speed in the area. Deviation to transit through the proposed 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.
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 submit a comment (see
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under 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
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 rule 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.
We have analyzed this proposed rule 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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone around an OCS facility to protect life, property and the marine environment. This proposed rule is categorical excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and the 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 proposes to amend 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)
(b)
(1) An attending vessel;
(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or
(3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating schedule) that addresses dental and oral conditions. The purpose of these changes is to incorporate medical advances that have occurred since the last amendment, update current medical terminology, and provide clear evaluation criteria for application of this portion of the rating schedule. The proposed rule reflects advances in medical knowledge, recommendations from the Dental and Oral Conditions Work Group (Work Group), which is comprised of subject matter experts from both the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and comments from experts and the public gathered as part of a public forum. The public forum, focusing on revisions to the dental and oral conditions section of the VASRD, was held on January 25—26, 2011.
Comments must be received by VA on or before September 28, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted through
Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Part 4 VASRD Regulations Staff (211C), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
As part of VA's ongoing revision of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating schedule), VA proposes changes to 38 CFR 4.150, which pertains to dental and oral conditions. The proposed changes will (1) update the medical terminology of certain dental and oral conditions, (2) add medical conditions not currently in the rating schedule, and (3) refine evaluation criteria based on medical advances that have occurred since the last revision and current understanding of functional changes associated with or resulting from disease or injury (pathophysiology).
Section 4.150 currently lists 16 diagnostic codes encompassing conditions involving dental and oral injury or disease. VA proposes to revise these codes, through addition, removal, and other revisions to reflect current medical science, terminology, and functional impairment.
VA proposes to add two notes at the beginning of § 4.150 to clarify updated medical terminology used later in the diagnostic codes. The first note would provide guidance to disability rating personnel regarding the evidence necessary to support the objective findings described in various diagnostic codes. The note states that, for VA compensation purposes, diagnostic imaging studies include, but are not limited to, conventional radiography (X-ray), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), radionuclide bone scanning, or ultrasonography. The second note regards rating of residuals that, though part of the disease process for a dental or oral condition, cause functional incapacity which cannot be evaluated within the dental and oral conditions system. The note directs disability rating personnel to evaluate the particular functional impairment separately (
Current diagnostic code 9900 “Maxilla or mandible, chronic osteomyelitis or osteoradionecrosis of,” directs that such conditions be rated as chronic osteomyelitis under diagnostic code 5000. VA proposes to add osteonecrosis of the maxilla or mandible (jaw) as one of the diseases listed under diagnostic code 9900. Osteonecrosis of the jaw, commonly called ONJ, occurs when the jaw bone is exposed (not covered by the gums) and begins to deteriorate from a lack of bloodflow. Without adequate blood flow, the bone begins to weaken, break down, and die, which usually, causes pain. ONJ is associated with cancer treatments, infection, steroid use, or potent antiresorptive therapies that help prevent the loss of bone mass. Examples of potent antiresorptive therapies include bisphosphonates such as alendronate (
Current diagnostic codes 9902 “Mandible, loss of approximately one-half”; 9906 “Ramus, loss of whole or part of”; and 9907 “Ramus, loss of less than one-half the substance of, not involving loss of continuity” address impairments associated with various degrees of mandible loss. Loss of approximately one-half of the mandible, involving temporomandibular articulation, is currently evaluated at 50 percent; if temporomandibular articulation is not involved, it is evaluated at 30 percent. Loss of whole or part of the ramus, involving loss of temporomandibular articulation bilaterally, is currently evaluated at 50 percent; the same disability presented unilaterally is currently evaluated at 30 percent. Without loss of temporomandibular articulation, loss of whole or part of the ramus is evaluated at 30 percent bilaterally and 20 percent unilaterally. Loss of less than one-half the substance of the ramus, not involving loss of continuity, is currently evaluated at 20 percent bilaterally and 10 percent unilaterally.
The mandible is viewed as a single functional unit that consists of the mandibular body and the mandibular rami. The anterior portion of the mandible, called the body, is horseshoe-shaped and runs horizontally. At the posterior ends of the body are two vertical extensions called rami (singular, ramus). The Work Group recognized that, because the ramus is a portion of the mandible, impairments of the ramus should be rated as impairments of the mandible as a whole. Therefore, proposed diagnostic code 9902, “Mandible, loss of, including ramus, unilaterally or bilaterally,” combines evaluations currently done under diagnostic codes 9902, 9906, and 9907 to better reflect the current understanding of anatomy, physiology, and disability due to the disease or injury of the mandible, including the rami. Furthermore, the disabling effect of the loss of different portions of the mandible has been combined in light of its anatomy and the usual reconstruction goals. The proposed rating criteria also reflect the function of the portions of the mandible, providing higher evaluations for the loss of the joint than for areas that do not disrupt continuity. Mehta R.P.
The reconstruction of oromandibular defects (mandibular reconstruction) presents a significant surgical challenge. Mandibular deformities and defects may result from trauma, infections, prior radiation exposure, and neoplasms (tumors); most mandibular deformities result from surgical excision of tumors. The mandible plays a major role in airway protection and support of the tongue, lower dentition (teeth), and the muscles of the floor of the mouth permitting chewing, swallowing, speaking, and respiration. It also defines the contour of the lower third of the face. Interruption of mandibular continuity, therefore, produces both a cosmetic and functional deformity. The resulting dysfunction after loss of part of the mandible varies from minimal to major. In order to achieve successful mandibular reconstruction, the reconstructive surgeon must attempt to restore bony continuity and facial contour, maintain tongue mobility, and attempt to restore sensation to the affected areas. In addition, oral and dental rehabilitation postoperatively is important to improve the patient's ability to manipulate the food bolus, swallow, and articulate speech. Jesse E. Smith et al.,
In light of these disabling effects of mandibular loss and advances in reconstruction of the oral cavity, VA proposes additional levels of disability to recognize greater functional impairment where mandibular loss cannot be replaced by prostheses. VA proposes a 70 percent evaluation for the loss of one-half or more of the mandible, involving temporomandibular articulation, where the loss is not replaceable by prosthesis. VA proposes a 50 percent evaluation for the same anatomical loss, where it is replaceable by prosthesis. VA proposes a 40 percent evaluation for the loss of one-half or more of mandible, not involving temporomandibular articulation, where the loss is not replaceable by prosthesis, and a 30 percent evaluation for the same anatomical loss, where it is replaceable by prosthesis. VA differentiates the evaluations involving one-half or more of the mandible, whether or not involving temporomandibular articulation, on the basis of whether or not they are replaceable by prosthesis because large, complex defects where a prosthesis is not suitable present greater functional and cosmetic impairments.
VA proposes a 70 percent evaluation for the loss of less than one-half of the mandible, involving temporomandibular articulation, where the loss is not replaceable by prosthesis. VA proposes a 50 percent evaluation for the same anatomical loss, where it is replaceable by prosthesis. VA proposes a 20 percent evaluation for the loss of less than one-half of mandible, not involving temporomandibular articulation, where the loss is not replaceable by prosthesis, and a 10 percent evaluation for the same anatomical loss, where it is replaceable by prosthesis. VA differentiates the evaluations involving less than one-half of the mandible, whether or not involving temporomandibular articulation, on the basis of whether or not they are replaceable by prosthesis because large, complex defects where a prosthesis is not suitable present greater functional and cosmetic impairments.
Consequently, VA proposes to delete existing diagnostic codes 9906 “Ramus, loss of whole or part of:” and 9907 “Ramus, loss of less than one-half the substance of, not involving loss of continuity:” while incorporating relevant evaluation criteria into revised diagnostic code 9902 “Mandible, loss of, including ramus, unilaterally or bilaterally.”
Current diagnostic code 9903 addresses impairments associated with nonunion of the mandible. Severe and moderate nonunion of the mandible are currently rated at 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, and evaluation is dependent upon the degree of motion and relative loss of masticatory function. However, the current rating criteria do not reflect modern medical terminology because a nonunion occurs when the mandible does not heal in an appropriate time frame and the result is mobility of the fracture segments present after an adequate healing phase. In addition, if the mandibular fragments are not immobilized properly immediately after fracture, or treatment is delayed, a fibrous union (
Therefore, VA proposes to re-title diagnostic code 9903 as “Mandible, nonunion of, confirmed by diagnostic imaging studies:” and base newly developed rating criteria on a better understanding of anatomy, physiology, and functional impairment of the mandibular nonunion. Under proposed diagnostic code 9903, mandibular nonunion would warrant a 30 percent evaluation with the presence of false motion, which is considered severe, or a 10 percent evaluation if there is no false motion, which is considered moderate. In addition, VA proposes to delete the note under current diagnostic code 9903.
Currently, malunion of mandible where severe, moderate, and slight displacement is present is rated at 20, 10, and 0 percent, respectively, and is dependent upon degree of motion and relative loss of masticatory function. However, the current rating criteria do not reflect modern medical terminology because malunion refers to improper alignment of the healed bony segments where the normal anatomic structure is not restored because of unsatisfactory reduction and the result is abnormal occlusion (
Therefore, VA proposes to base newly developed rating criteria on a better understanding of anatomy, physiology, and functional impairment of the mandibular malunion. Under proposed diagnostic code 9904, mandibular malunion with displacement causing severe or moderate anterior or posterior open bite resulting in displacement would warrant 20 and 10 percent evaluations respectively. A 0 percent evaluation would be assigned for mandibular malunion resulting in displacement that does not cause anterior or posterior open bite. In addition, VA proposes to delete the note under diagnostic code 9904. The proposed rating criteria are based on measurable signs of functional impairment and incorporate all elements of disability evaluation in cases of mandibular malunion.
Diagnostic code 9905 is currently titled “Temporomandibular articulation, limited motion of,” which represents outdated medical terminology. The term TMJ is actually an abbreviation for the longer anatomical term—temporomandibular joint. Unfortunately, over the years, the term
VA proposes to retitle diagnostic code 9905 as “Temporomandibular disorder (TMD),” which is consistent with current medical terminology. TMD refers to a collection of medical and dental conditions affecting the temporomandibular joint and/or the muscles of mastication, as well as contiguous tissue components. Although specific etiologies such as degenerative arthritis and trauma underlie some TMD, as a group these conditions have no common etiology or biological explanation and comprise a diverse group of health problems whose signs and symptoms are overlapping, but not necessarily identical.
Under current diagnostic code 9905, motion limitation for temporomandibular articulation is measured solely as loss of interincisal opening and lateral excursive distance, where ratings for limited interincisal movement are not combined with ratings for limited lateral excursion. Current diagnostic code 9905 provides for the following evaluations: A 40 percent evaluation with interincisal range from 0 to 10 mm (millimeters); a 30 percent evaluation with interincisal range from 11 to 20 mm; a 20 percent evaluation with interincisal range from 21 to 30 mm; a 10 percent evaluation with interincisal range from 31 to 40 mm; and a 10 percent evaluation with lateral excursion of 0 to 4 mm.
The understanding of what constitutes disability due to TMD and how to quantify the contributory components has evolved. Charles F. Guardia et al.,
In addition, VA proposes to revise the rating criteria according to the current indicators of normal range of mouth opening measured by vertical (inter-incisal) opening.
The additional criteria were added to integrate the use of mechanically altered foods that allows for more accurate assessment of functional capacity in cases of temporomandibular disorder that requires texture-modified diets. Furthermore, properly prepared texture-modified diets can help improve or maintain the nutritional status of a patient who requires a texture-modified diet. Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guidelines and Evidence-Based Toolkits developed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietics (formerly American Dietetic Association) defines mechanically altered foods as altered by blending, chopping, grinding or mashing so that they are easy to chew and swallow (
In addition to the existing note, VA proposes to add two notes under diagnostic code 9905 to provide comprehensive guidance to disability rating personnel. The existing note would be redesignated as Note (1). Note (2) would provide that the normal maximum unassisted range of vertical jaw opening is from 35 to 50 mm, which is based on current guidelines to the evaluation of impairment of the oral and maxillofacial region.
Current diagnostic codes 9911 “Hard palate, loss of half or more:” and 9912 “Hard palate, loss of less than half of:” address loss of the hard palate. VA proposes to restructure the current rating criteria and combine evaluations presently done under these two codes
Current diagnostic code 9916 addresses impairments associated with malunion or nonunion of maxilla. Currently, severe displacement due to malunion or nonunion of maxilla warrants a 30 percent evaluation, while moderate and slight displacement warrant 10 and 0 percent evaluations, respectively. However, the current criteria do not reflect modern medical terminology and do not take into account advances in the understanding of anatomy and physiology of maxillary fractures and its residuals. Kris S. Moe et al.,
Therefore, VA proposes to restructure the rating criteria to recognize the various aspects of maxillary fractures and their functional outcomes. Specifically, in cases of nonunion, the mobility of the maxillary fracture segments is the key sign of nonunion; therefore, disability evaluations would be based on the presence or absence of false motion. In cases of malunion, improper alignment of the healed bony segments, which result in abnormal occlusion (
Under proposed diagnostic code 9916, maxillary nonunion with false motion present would warrant a 30 percent evaluation. A 10 percent evaluation would be assigned for maxillary nonunion without false motion.
Under proposed diagnostic code 9916, maxillary malunion with displacement that causes severe or moderate anterior or posterior open bite would warrant 30 and 10 percent evaluations, respectively. A 0 percent evaluation would be assigned for maxillary malunion with displacement that causes mild anterior or posterior open bite. For the sake of clarity for disability rating personnel, VA proposes to insert a new note stating that, for VA compensation purposes, the severity of maxillary nonunion is dependent upon the degree of abnormal mobility of maxilla fragments following treatment (
VA also proposes to add two new diagnostic codes in order to account for impairment due to benign and malignant oral lesions (neoplasms). Nader Sadeghi et al.,
Proposed diagnostic code 9917, titled “Neoplasm, hard and soft tissue, benign,” directs that such conditions be rated as loss of supporting structures (bone or teeth) and/or functional impairment due to scarring. Proposed diagnostic code 9918, titled “Neoplasm, hard and soft tissue, malignant,” directs that such conditions be rated at 100 percent. The note following diagnostic code 9918 would state that the rating of 100 percent shall continue beyond the cessation of any surgical, radiation, antineoplastic chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedure and that, six months after discontinuance of such treatment, the appropriate disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA examination. The note would also state that any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject to the provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(e). Lastly, the note would direct rating personnel to evaluate based on residuals, such as loss of supporting structures and/or functional impairment due to scarring, if there has been no local recurrence or metastasis.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This proposed rule would not affect any small entities. Only certain VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the 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 effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.011, Veterans Dental Care, and 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors, II, Chief of Staff, approved this document on June 30, 2015, for publication.
Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 4, subpart B as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and addtions read as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is proposing rules which establish the Commission's process for developing views to the Secretary of State on certain international mail matters. The proposed rules focus on those proposals concerning international mail that could affect a market dominant rate or classification. The Commission invites public comment on the proposed rules.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
This rulemaking addresses the Commission's process for developing views to the Secretary of State on certain international mail matters pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 407(c)(1).
The Commission develops its views mainly in the context of the United States' membership in the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the Secretary of State's lead role in international mail matters, and UPU procedures for regulating international mail. For purposes of developing its views, the Commission focuses on those proposals that could affect a market dominant rate or classification.
Under section 407(c)(1) of the PAEA, the Secretary of State, before concluding a treaty, convention, or amendment establishing a market dominant rate or classification, shall request the Commission's views on the consistency of such rate or classification with modern rate-setting criteria.
Since enactment of the PAEA, the Secretary of State has requested—and the Commission has transmitted—its views on relevant proposals considered at two UPU Congresses.
The development of the Commission's views entails review and analysis of numerous proposals, which typically are posted on the UPU Web site pursuant to a series of deadlines that begin about 6 months before a Congress convenes. In July 2012, based on an interest in obtaining public input, the Commission established a public inquiry docket to solicit comments on the general principles that should guide the development of its views in response to the anticipated request from the Secretary of State.
The Commission proposes formalizing the general approach it adopted in 2012 by enacting rules providing for establishment of an umbrella public inquiry docket associated with each UPU Congress and related meetings. Each docket will be established on or about 150 days before the date the UPU Congress is scheduled to convene. This timeframe is designed to allow adequate time for commenters to prepare submissions (on general principles or on specific proposals, to the extent such proposals are available). It also should allow the Commission sufficient time to consider the comments and prepare its views.
The proposed rules also reflect the Commission's commitment to having the public inquiry docket serve as a mechanism for handling related matters, such as informing the public about the availability of relevant proposals, the Commission's views, or other documents. It also allows available documents to be incorporated into one
The Commission proposes to establish comment deadlines on a docket-by-docket basis, consistent with timely submission of views to the Secretary of State. Due to time constraints, the Commission does not propose inviting reply comments. The Commission may suspend solicitation of comments if it determines that seeking comments would interfere with timely submission of Commission views.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-14 for consideration of matters raised in this Order. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates Laura Zuber to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) in this proceeding. The Commission invites public comment on the proposed rules. Initial comments are due no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this Order in the
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-14 for consideration of the matters raised in this Order.
2. Comments are due no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Laura Zuber to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
Administrative practice and procedure, International agreements, Postal Service.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
39 U.S.C. 407; 503.
(a)
(b)
The rules in this part are intended to facilitate public participation in, and promote the transparency of, the development of Commission views.
(a) On or about 150 days before a Universal Postal Union Congress convenes, the Commission will establish a public inquiry docket to solicit comments on the general principles that should guide the Commission's development of views on relevant proposals, in a general way, and, if available, on specific relevant proposals.
(b) The public inquiry docket established pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may also include matters related to development of the Commission's views, such as the availability of relevant proposals, Commission views, other documents, or related actions.
(c) The Commission shall arrange for publication in the
(a) The Commission shall establish a deadline for public comments upon establishment of the public inquiry docket that is consistent with timely submission of the Commission's views to the Secretary of State. The Commission may establish other deadlines for public comments as appropriate.
(b) The Commission may suspend or forego solicitation of public comments if it determines that such solicitation is not consistent with timely submission of Commission views to the Secretary of State.
The Commission will review timely filed comments prior to submitting its views to the Secretary of State.
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Linn County Air Quality Ordinance, chapter 10. These proposed revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by August 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0357, by mail to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and
In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a carbon monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for Grants Pass, submitted on April 22, 2015, by the State of Oregon as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). In accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision because it demonstrates that Grants Pass will continue to meet the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a second 10-year period beyond re-designation, through 2025.
Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0322, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Lucy Edmondson at (360) 753-9082,
For further information, please see the direct final rule, of the same title, which is located in the Rules section of this
If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 27, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet in Washington, DC. The Committee is authorized under Section 8005 of 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 meeting will be held on August 4 and 5, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 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 at the American Forest Foundation, 2000 M St. Suite 550 NW., Washington, DC. Members of the public should RSVP to facilitate entry into the American Forest Foundation. Written comments may be submitted as described under
Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Forest Resource Coordinating Committee Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry Staff, by phone at 202-205-1190 or Laurie Schoonhoven, Forest Resource Coordinating Committee Program Coordinator, Cooperative Forestry Staff, by phone at 202-205-0929. 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. Hear updates on new and emerging private forest land topics;
2. Prioritize recommendations; and
3. Develop communication strategy.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by July 30, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before August 1, 2015. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250, or by email to
Rural Business—Cooperative Service, USDA.
Initial notice.
This Notice is to invite applications for grants to provide technical assistance for rural transportation (RT) systems under the Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) program pursuant to 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, 2 CFR chapter IV and 2 CFR part 200 for fiscal year (FY) 2015. Funding shall be made available to qualified national organizations to provide technical assistance for rural
All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.
Completed applications must be received in the USDA Rural Development State Office no later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on August 27, 2015. Applications received at a USDA Rural Development State Office after that date will not be considered for FY 2015 funding.
Submit applications in paper format to the USDA Rural Development State Office for the State where the project is located. A list of the USDA Rural Development State Office contacts can be found at:
Specialty Programs Division, Business Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., MS 3226, Room 4204-South, Washington, DC 20250-3226, or call 202-720-1400. For further information on this Notice, please contact the USDA Rural Development State Office in the State in which the applicant's headquarters is located.
1.
2.
Awards under the RBDG passenger transportation program will be made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, and in accordance with section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Information required to be in the application package includes Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance;” RD 1940-20, “Request for Environmental Information;” Scope of Work Narrative; Income Statement; Balance Sheet or Audit for previous 3 years; AD-1047, “Debarment/Suspension Certification;” AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion;” AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements;” SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;” RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement;” RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement;” a letter stating Board authorization to obtain assistance. For the FRNAT grant, which must benefit FRNATs, at least 75 percent of the benefits of the project must be received by members of FRNATs. The project that scores the greatest number of points based on the RBDG selection criteria and the discretionary points will be selected for each grant.
Applicants must be qualified national non-profit organizations with experience in providing technical assistance and training to rural communities Nation-wide for the purpose of improving passenger transportation service or facilities. To be considered “national,” RBS requires a qualified organization to provide evidence that it operates RT assistance programming Nation-wide. There is not a requirement to use the grant funds in a multi-State area. Grants will be made to qualified national non-profit organizations for the provision of technical assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation services or facilities.
3.
4.
To be considered eligible, an entity must be a qualified national non-profit organization serving rural areas as evidenced in its organizational documents and demonstrated experience, per 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E. Grants will be competitively awarded to qualified national non-profit organizations.
The Agency requires the following information to make an eligibility determination that an applicant is a national non-profit organization. These applications must include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) An original and one copy of SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance (For Non-construction);”
(b) Copies of applicant's organizational documents showing the
(c) A proposed scope of work, including a description of the proposed Project, details of the proposed activities to be accomplished and timeframes for completion of each task, the number of months duration of the Project, and the estimated time it will take from grant approval to beginning of Project implementation;
(d) A written narrative that includes, at a minimum, the following items:
(i) An explanation of why the Project is needed, the benefits of the proposed Project, and how the Project meets the grant eligible purposes;
(ii) Area to be served, identifying each governmental unit,
(iii) Description of how the Project will coordinate Economic Development activities with other Economic Development activities within the Project area;
(iv) Businesses to be assisted, if appropriate, and Economic Development to be accomplished;
(v) An explanation of how the proposed Project will result in newly created, increased, or supported jobs in the area and the number of projected new and supported jobs within the next 3 years;
(vi) A description of the applicant's demonstrated capability and experience in providing the proposed Project assistance, including experience of key staff members and persons who will be providing the proposed Project activities and managing the Project;
(vii) The method and rationale used to select the areas and businesses that will receive the service;
(viii) A brief description of how the work will be performed, including whether organizational staff or consultants or contractors will be used; and
(ix) Other information the Agency may request to assist it in making a grant award determination;
(e) The latest 3 years of financial information to show the applicant's financial capacity to carry out the proposed work. If the applicant is less than 3 years old, at a minimum, the information should include all balance sheet(s), income statement(s) and cash flow statement(s). A current audited report is required if available;
(f) Documentation regarding the availability and amount of other funds to be used in conjunction with the funds from RBDG;
(g) A budget which includes salaries, fringe benefits, consultant costs, indirect costs, and other appropriate direct costs for the Project.
Matching funds are not required.
Applications will only be accepted from qualified national non-profit organizations to provide technical assistance for rural transportation. There are no “responsiveness,” or “threshold” eligibility criteria for these grants. There is no limit on the number of applications an applicant may submit under this announcement. In addition to the forms listed under program description, Form AD-3030 or AD 3031, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” must be completed in the affirmative.”
None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or are missing required elements.
For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the USDA Rural Development State Office provided in the
Applications must be submitted in paper format. Applications submitted to a Rural Development State Office must be received by the closing date and local time deadline.
All applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711 or at
An application must contain all of the required elements. Each application received in a USDA Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 4280.435 must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that
All projects to receive technical assistance through these passenger transportation grant funds are to be identified when the applications are submitted to the USDA Rural Development State Office. Multiple project applications must identify each individual project, indicate the amount of funding requested for each individual project, and address the criteria as stated above for each individual project.
For multiple-project applications, the average of the individual project scores will be the score for that application.
The applicant documentation and forms needed for a complete application are located in the PROGRAM DESCRIPTION section of this notice, and 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E. There are no specific formats required per this notice, and applicants may request forms and addresses from the
(a) There are no specific limitations on the number of pages or other formatting requirements other than those described in the PROGRAM DESCRIPTION section.
(b) There are no specific limitations on the number of pages, font size and type face, margins, paper size, number of copies, and the sequence or assembly requirements.
(c) The component pieces of this application should contain original signatures on the original application.
(d) Since these grants are for technical assistance for transportation purposes, no additional information requirements other than those described in this notice and 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E.
(a)
(b) The deadline date means that the completed application package must arrive and be received in the USDA Rural Development State Office by the deadline date established above. All application documents identified in this Notice are required.
(c) If completed applications are not received by the deadline established above, the application will neither be reviewed nor considered under any circumstances. (d) The Agency will determine the application receipt date based on the actual date the U.S. Post Office delivers the completed application package.
(e) This notice is for rural transportation technical assistance grants only and therefore, intergovernmental reviews are not required.
(f) These grants are for rural transportation technical assistance grants only, no construction or equipment purchases are permitted. If the grantee has a previously approved indirect cost rate, it is permissible, otherwise, the applicant may elect to charge the 10 percent indirect cost permitted under 2 CFR 200.414(f) or request a determination of its Indirect Cost Rate. Due to the time required to evaluate Indirect Cost Rates, it is likely that all funds will be awarded by the time the Indirect Cost Rate is determined. No foreign travel is permitted. Pre-Federal award costs will only be permitted with prior written approval by the Agency.
(g) Applicants must submit applications in hard copy format as previously indicated in the APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION section of this notice. If the applicant wishes to hand deliver its application, the addresses for these deliveries can be located in the
(h) If you require alternative means of communication for program information (
All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated and scored based on the selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR 4280.435 and will select grantees subject to the grantees' satisfactory submission of the additional items required by 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. Failure to address any one of the criteria by the application deadline will result in the application being determined ineligible, and the application will not be considered for funding. The amount of an RT grant may be adjusted, at RBS's discretion, to enable RBS to award RT grants to the applications with the highest priority scores in each category.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements contained in 7 CFR 4280.416 and 4280.417. If determined eligible, your application will be submitted to the National Office. Funding of projects is subject to the applicant's satisfactory submission of the additional items required by that subpart and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. The Agency reserves the right to award additional discretionary points under 7 CFR 4280.435(k).
In awarding discretionary points, the Agency scoring criteria regularly assigns points to applications that direct loans or grants to projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent. This emphasis will support Rural Development's mission of improving the quality of life for Rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.
Successful applicants will receive notification for funding from the USDA Rural Development State Office. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applications will receive notification by mail.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR 4280.408, 4280.410 and 4280.439. Awards are subject to USDA grant regulations at 2 CFR Chapter IV which incorporates the new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations 2 CFR part 200.
All successful applicants will be notified by letter which will include a letter of conditions, and a letter of intent to meet the conditions. This letter is not an authorization to begin performance. If the applicant wishes to consider beginning performance prior to the grant being officially closed, all pre-award costs must be approved in writing and in advance by the Agency. The grant will be considered officially awarded when all conditions in the letter of conditions have been met and the Agency obligates the funding for the project.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). More information on these requirements can be found at
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
(a) Form RD 4280-2 “Rural Business and Cooperative Service Grant Agreement.”
(b) Letter of Conditions.
(c) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(d) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(e) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
(f) Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
(g) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”
(h) Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.
(i) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
(j) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
(k) Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”
(a) A Financial Status Report and a project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis until initial funds are expended and yearly thereafter, if applicable, based on the Federal fiscal year. The grantee will cause the project to be completed within the total sums available to it in accordance with the Scope of Work and any necessary modifications thereof prepared by the grantee and approved by the Agency. A final project performance report will be required with the final Financial Status Report. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report. The final report must provide complete information regarding the jobs created and supported as a result of the grant if applicable. Grantees must continuously monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved. Grantees must submit an original of each report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the end of the quarter. The project performance reports must include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
(2) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
(3) Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
(4) Any special reporting requirements, such as jobs supported and created, businesses assisted, or economic development which results in improvements in median household incomes, and any other specific requirements, should be placed in the reporting section in the Letter of Conditions.
(5) Within 90 days after the conclusion of the project, the grantee will provide a final project evaluation report. The last quarterly payment will be withheld until the final report is received and approved by the Agency. Even though the grantee may request reimbursement on a monthly basis, the last 3 months of reimbursements will be withheld until a final project, project performance, and financial status report are received and approved by the Agency.
For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA Rural Development State Office provided in the
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden has been cleared by OMB.
All applicants, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, must have a DUNS number, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711 or online at
The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment, or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at
Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and wish to file either an EEO or program complaint may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).
Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of planning meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Maine Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 p.m. at on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, at Lewiston City Hall, 27 Pine Street, Lewiston, Maine 04240. The purpose of the subcommittee meeting is to review projects completed during the committee's appointment term and discuss recruitment efforts for the committee's upcoming term.
Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Friday, September 4, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Tuesday, August 4, 2015 (EDT).
Lewiston City Hall, 27 Pine Street, Lewiston, Maine 04240.
Ivy L. Davis at
On March 23, 2015, Xylem Water Systems USA LLC, operator of Subzone 37D, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility located in Auburn, New York.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (2015) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”),
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”), signed a TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO also named as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (“Blue Airways of Armenia”), as well as the “Balli Group Respondents,” namely, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The TDO was issued
The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d), including most recently on January 16, 2015.
On June 19, 2015, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO. The written request was made more than 20 days before the scheduled expiration of the current TDO, which issued on January 16, 2015.
Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.”
OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the initial TDO and the TDO renewals in this matter and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating a blatant disregard of U.S. export controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a
As discussed in the September 17, 2008 renewal order, evidence presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1-3 continued to be flown on Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in violation of the Regulations and the TDO itself.
The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order also noted that a court in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) had found Mahan Airways in contempt of court on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's December 21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1-3. In a letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways' Chairman indicated,
The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan Airways' violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin aircraft and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft. In February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), in violation of both the TDO and the Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acted as Mahan Airways' sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE.
Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways asserted that Aircraft 1-3 were not being used, but stated in pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran especially “in an airworthy condition” and that, depending on the outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft “could immediately go back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.” Mahan Airways' January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110. This clearly stated intent, both on its own and in conjunction with Mahan Airways' prior misconduct and statements, demonstrated the need to renew the TDO in order to prevent imminent future violations. Two of these three 747s subsequently were removed from Iran and are no longer in Mahan Airway's possession. The third of these 747s, with Manufacturer's Serial Number (“MSN”) 23480 and Iranian tail number EP-MNE, remained in Iran under Mahan's control. Pursuant to Executive Order 13324, it was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“SDGT”) by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) on September 19, 2012.
In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter, Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways' livery and logo, on flights into and out of Iran.
The August 2012 renewal order also found that Mahan Airways had acquired another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to the Regulations, with MSN 499 and Iranian tail number EP-VIP, in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.
The February 4, 2013 Order laid out further evidence of continued and additional efforts by Mahan Airways and other persons acting in concert with Mahan, including Kral Aviation and another Turkish company, to procure U.S.-origin engines—two GE CF6-50C2 engines, with MSNs 517621 and 517738, respectively—and other aircraft parts in violation of the TDO and the
On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added to BIS's Entity List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations.
The July 31, 2013 Order detailed additional evidence obtained by OEE showing efforts by Mahan Airways to obtain another GE CF6-50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the United States via Turkey. Multiple Mahan employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, were involved in or aware of matters related to the engine's arrival in Turkey from the United States, plans to visually inspect the engine, and prepare it for shipment from Turkey.
Mahan sought to obtain this U.S.-origin engine through Pioneer Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (“Pioneer Logistics”), an aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey, and its director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a Turkish national who previously had conducted Mahan related business with Mehdi Bahrami and Ali Eslamian. Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 2013 Order, a sworn affidavit by Kosol Surinanda, also known as Kosol Surinandha, Managing Director of Mahan's General Sales Agent in Thailand, stated that the shares of Pioneer Logistics for which he was the listed owner were “actually the property of and owned by Mahan.” He further stated that he held “legal title to the shares until otherwise required by Mahan” but would “exercise the rights granted to [him] exactly and only as instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/or decisions [would] only and exclusively reflect the wills and demands of Mahan[.]”
The January 24, 2014 Order outlined OEE's continued investigation of Mahan Airways' activities and detailed an attempt by Mahan, which OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian aircraft parts supplier, two U.S.-origin Honeywell ALF-502R-5 aircraft engines (MSNs LF5660 and LF5325), items subject to the Regulations, from a U.S. company located in Texas. An invoice of the Indonesian aircraft parts supplier dated March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways as the purchaser of the engines and included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE also obtained a Mahan air waybill dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.-origin aircraft parts subject to the Regulations—including, among other items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a transmitter, and a power control unit—being transported by Mahan from Turkey to Iran in violation of the TDO.
The July 22, 2014 Order discusses open source evidence from the March-June 2014 time period regarding two BAE regional jets, items subject to the Regulations, that were painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP-MOK and EP-MOI, respectively. In addition, aviation industry resources indicated that these aircraft were obtained by Mahan Airways in late November 2013 and June 2014, from Ukrainian Mediterranean Airline, a Ukrainian airline that was added to BIS's Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations) on August 15, 2011, for acting contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
The January 16, 2015 Order details evidence of additional attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject the Regulations in further violation of the TDO. Specifically, in March 2014, OEE became aware of an inertial reference unit bearing serial number 1231 (“the IRU”) that had been sent to the United States for repair. The IRU is subject to the Regulations, classified under ECCN 7A103, and controlled for missile technology reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was determined that IRU came from or had been installed on an Airbus A340 aircraft bearing MSN 056. Further investigation revealed that as of approximately February 2014, this aircraft was registered under Iranian tail number EP-MMB and had been painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways.
The January 16, 2015 Order described related efforts by the Departments of Justice and Treasury to further thwart Mahan's illicit procurement efforts. Specifically, on August 14, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland filed a civil forfeiture complaint for the IRU pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b) that resulted in the court issuing an Order of Forfeiture on December 2, 2014. EP-MMB remains listed as active in Mahan Airways' fleet.
Additionally, on August 29, 2014, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of Asian Aviation Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan Airways affiliate or front company, pursuant to Executive Order 13224. In doing so, OFAC described Mahan Airway's use of Asian Aviation Logistics to evade sanctions by making payments on behalf of Mahan for the purchase of engines and other equipment.
The May 21, 2015 modification order detailed the acquisition of two aircraft, specifically an Airbus A340 bearing MSN 164 and an Airbus A321 bearing MSN 550, that were purchased by Al Naser Airlines in late 2014/early 2015 and are currently located in Iran under the possession, control, and/or ownership of Mahan Airways.
The June 19, 2015 renewal request demonstrates that Al Naser Airlines' attempts to acquire aircraft on behalf of Mahan Airways extend beyond MSNs 164 and 550. BIS obtained a press release dated May 9, 2015, that appeared on Mahan's Web site and stated that Mahan “added 9 modern aircraft to its air fleet.”
Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that Mahan Airways has repeatedly violated the EAR and the TDO, that such knowing violations have been significant, deliberate and covert, and that there is a likelihood of future violations. OEE's on-going investigation continues to reveal or discover additional attempts involving Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading to acquire items subject to the Regulations as part of or through Mahan Airways' extensive network of agents and affiliates in third countries. Therefore, renewal of the TDO is necessary to prevent imminent violation of the EAR and to give notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad that they should continue to cease dealing with Mahan Airways and the other denied persons under the TDO in connection with export transactions involving items subject to the EAR.
Pursuant to Sections 766.23 and 766.24(c) of the Regulations, OEE has requested that Sky Blue Bird Group and Issam Shammout be added to the TDO as related persons to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, and/or Ali Abdullah Alhay in order to prevent evasion of the TDO.
Section 766.23 of the Regulations provides that “[i]n order to prevent evasion, certain types of orders under this part may be made applicable not only to the respondent, but also to other persons then or thereafter related to the respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business. Orders that may be made applicable to related persons include those that deny or affect export privileges, including temporary denial orders . . . .” 15 CFR 766.23(a).
Via notice letters sent in accordance with Section 766.23 of the Regulations on June 2, 2015, OEE provided Sky Blue Bird Group and its chief executive officer Issam Shammout with notice of its intent to seek an order adding them to the TDO as related persons to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, and/or Ali Abdullah Alhay in order to prevent evasion. No response has been received from Sky Blue Bird or Issam Shammout.
OEE has presented evidence that Sky Blue Bird Group, via Mr. Shammout, was actively involved in Al Naser Airlines' acquisition of MSNs 164 and 550, and the attempted acquisition of MSNs 82 and 99 (which were detained by OEE). Moreover, on May 21, 2015, OFAC designated Sky Blue Bird and Issam Shammout as SDGTs pursuant to Executive Order 13324 for “providing support to Iran's Mahan Air.”
In sum, I find pursuant to Section 766.23 that Sky Blue Bird Group and Issam Shammout are connected to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, and/or Ali Abdullah Alhay in the conduct of trade or business and that their addition to the TDO as related persons is necessary to prevent evasion of the TDO.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
FIRST, that MAHAN AIRWAYS, Mahan Tower, No. 21, Azadegan St., M.A. Jenah Exp. Way, Tehran, Iran; PEJMAN MAHMOOD KOSARAYANIFARD A/K/A KOSARIAN FARD, P.O. Box 52404, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; MAHMOUD AMINI, G#22 Dubai Airport Free Zone, P.O. Box 393754, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and P.O.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
SECOND, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
THIRD, that, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the EAR, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.
FOURTH, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the EAR where the only items involved that are subject to the EAR are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or Issam Shammout may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be opposed by Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and each related person, and shall be published in the
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before August 17, 2015. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Terrie Williams, Ph.D., University of California at Santa Cruz, Long Marine Lab, Center for Ocean Health, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on captive marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 27, 2015.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant is requesting a permit to continue activities authorized under Permit No. 13602. This research compares the energetic and cardiovascular responses and diving physiology of odontocetes and pinnipeds to determine key physiological factors. Captive bottlenose dolphins (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (Responsible Party: Teri Rowles, D.V.M., Ph.D.), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, to take, import, and export marine mammals and marine mammal parts for research and enhancement purposes.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
On May 1, 2015, notice was published in the
Permit No. 18786 authorizes the MMHSRP to: (1) Carry out response, rescue, rehabilitation and release of threatened and endangered marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction (Cetacea and Pinnipedia [excluding walrus]), and disentanglement of all marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction, pursuant to sections 109(h), 112(c), and Title IV of the MMPA; and, carry out such activities as enhancement pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA; (2) Conduct health-related, bona fide scientific research studies on marine mammals and marine mammal parts under NMFS jurisdiction pursuant to sections 104(c) and Title IV of the MMPA and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, including research related to emergency response that may involve compromised animals, and research on healthy animals that have not been subject to emergency response (
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities on the human environment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, issuance of this permit was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Briana Witteveen, Ph.D., University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, 118 Trident Way, Kodiak, AK 99615, has been issued a minor amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 14296-01.
The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Courtney Smith or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The original permit (No. 14296), issued on July 14, 2010 (74 FR 58243) through July 31, 2015 authorized scientific research on cetaceans year-round in the Gulf of Alaska, with an emphasis on examining prey use and foraging patterns of gray (
The current minor amendment (No. 14296-02) extends the duration of the permit through July 31, 2016, but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000, Attn: CECW-CO-R, or call Department of the Army Reports clearance officer at (703) 428-6440.
The Corps of Engineers is required by three federal laws, passed by Congress, to regulate construction-related activities in waters of the United States. This is accomplished through the review of applications for permits to do this work.
Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce two days of meetings of the National Commission on the Future of the Army (“the Commission”). The meetings will be partially closed to the public.
Date of the Closed Meeting: Monday, August 17, 2015, from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Date of the Open Meeting: Tuesday, August 18, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Address of Closed Meeting, August 17, 2015: Rm 12110, 5th Floor, Zachary Taylor Building, 2530 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
Address of Open Meeting, August 18, 2015: Polk Conference Room, Room 12158, James Polk Building, 2521 S. Clark St., Arlington, VA 22202.
Mr. Don Tison, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on the Future of the Army, 700 Army Pentagon, Room 3E406, Washington, DC 20310-0700, Email:
This meeting will be held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory
During the closed meeting on Monday, August 17, 2015, the Commission will hear classified testimony from individual witnesses, members from two subcommittees and engage in discussion on the roles the Army fills in Combatant Commands, Current and Future operational environment and threats to the land forces in the Area of Responsibly.
During the open meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, the Commission will hear comments from a panel of representatives from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Joint Staff, representatives from the RAND Corporation, the Public will have the opportunity to provide verbal comments, and immediately afterwards the Commission will discuss topics raised during the organizational and public comment session.
August 17, 2015—Closed Hearing: The Commission will hear comments from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Combatant Commanders and representatives from the Operational and the Aviation Sub Committees. The Combatant Commanders have been asked to address: The current and future operational environment and threats for land forces in Area of Responsibility, Roles that Army forces fulfill in COCOM including Executive Agency missions, Army forces contribution to Theater Security Cooperation including State Partnership for Peace activities, Current and Future operational and strategic network threats and Multi Composition Integration.
Speakers include, but are not limited to; Deputy Secretary of Defense, representatives from U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Cyber Command. All presentations and resulting discussion are classified.
August 18, 2015—Open Hearing: The Commission will hear verbal comments from representatives from the United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps, and the Joint Staff on Department interdependence. The RAND corporation will present an analysis of Risk as it relates to the size of the Army. Time will be allocated for public comment and immediately afterwards the Commission will discuss topics raised during the Organizational and public comments session.
In accordance with applicable law, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the portion of the meeting scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2015, from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Assistant Deputy Chief Management Officer, with the coordination of the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public because it will discuss matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and the availability of space, the meeting scheduled for August 18, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the James Polk Building is open to the public. Seating is limited and pre-registration is strongly encouraged. Media representatives are also encouraged to register. Members of the media must comply with the rules of photography and video filming in the James Polk Building. The closest public parking facility is located in the basement and along the streets. Visitors will be required to present one form of photograph identification. Visitors to the James Polk Office Building will be screened by a magnetometer, and all items that are permitted inside the building will be screened by an x-ray device. Visitors should keep their belongings with them at all times. The following items are strictly prohibited in the James Polk Office Building: Any pointed object,
Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Commission in response to the stated agenda of the open and/or closed meeting or the Commission's mission. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) will review all submitted written statements. Written comments should be submitted to Mr. Donald Tison, DFO, via facsimile or electronic mail, the preferred modes of submission. Each page of the comment must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. All comments received before Friday, August 14, 2015, will be provided to the Commission before the August 18, 2015, meeting. Comments received after Friday, August 14, 2015, will be provided to the Commission before its next meeting. All contact information may be found in the
In addition to written statements, twenty minutes will be reserved for individuals or interest groups to address the Commission on August 18, 2015. Those interested in presenting oral comments to the Commission must summarize their oral statement in writing and submit with their registration. The Commission's staff will assign time to oral commenters at the meeting; no more than five minutes each for individuals. While requests to make an oral presentation to the Commission will be honored on a first come, first served basis, other opportunities for oral comments will be provided at future meetings.
Individuals and entities who wish to attend the public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2015 are encouraged to register for the event with the DFO using the electronic mail and facsimile contact information found in the
The DoD sponsor for the Commission is the Deputy Chief Management Officer. The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by February 1, 2016 to the President of the United States and the Congressional defense committees. The report will contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions it may consider appropriate in light of the results of the study. The comprehensive study of the structure of the Army will determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in a manner consistent with available resources.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 27, 2015.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Mr. Josh Brammer, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. Sarah A. Ragan or Ms. Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546 or (703) 607-5339.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-40 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Lebanon has requested possible sale of One thousand (1000) BGM-71E-4B-RF Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wireless-guided (TOW) 2A Anti-Armor Radio-Frequency missiles, five hundred (500) BGM-71-H-1-RF TOW Bunker Buster Radio Frequency (RF) missiles, fifty (50) M220A2 TOW launchers, containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics and technical support services, and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated cost is $245 million.
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale of TOW missiles will improve Lebanon's capability to meet current and future threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. Lebanon will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense. Lebanon will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Raytheon Company in Andover, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Lebanon.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The TOW 2A Radio-Frequency (RF) missile (BGM-71E-4B-RF) is a direct attack missile designed to defeat targets such as armored vehicles and reinforced urban structures. The TOW 2A RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as the existing wire-guided TOW 2A missile without modification to the launcher. The TOW 2A missile (both wire & RF) contains two tracker beacons (xenon and thermal) for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by an RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware, software, and technical publications provided with the sale are Unclassified.
2. The TOW Bunker Buster (BB) Radio Frequency (RF) missile (BGM-71H-1-RF) is used to defeat field fortifications, bunkers, and urban structures. The TOW BB Aero RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as the existing wire-guided TOW 2A missiles without modification to the launcher. The TOW BB missile (both wired and RF) contains two tracker beacons (xenon and thermal) for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by an RF link contained within the missile case. The hardware, software, and technical publications provided with the sale are Unclassified.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Government of Lebanon can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the technology being released as the U.S. Government. The sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives as outlined in the Policy Justification of the notification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Lebanon.
Department of Navy (DON), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05C), 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue SE., STOP 1340, Washington Navy Yard, ATTN: Denitra Carter, Washington, DC 20376-1340, at (202) 781-5069.
Respondents are businesses involved in shipbuilding and/or ship repair who provide NAVSEA and MARAD with information and a list of facilities available for the construction or repair of ships that is utilized in a database for assessing the production capacity of the individual shipyards.
Institute of Education Science (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 27, 2015.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, (202) 502-7411.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 27, 2015.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Ell, 202-502-7779.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 28, 2015.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Braden Goetz, (202) 245-7405.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:00 p.m.
Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this
Saturday, August 22, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
The Tremont Lodge, 7726 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Townsend, Tennessee 37882.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
The EIA has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Uranium Data Program, OMB Control Number 1905-0160. The proposed collection will continue the use of Form EIA-851A “Domestic Uranium Production Report (Annual),” Form EIA-851Q “Domestic Uranium Production Report (Quarterly),” and the Form EIA-858 “Uranium Marketing Annual Survey.” EIA proposed no changes to Forms EIA-851A, EIA-851Q, and EIA-858.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 27, 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, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to Douglas Bonnar, Operations Research Analyst, Fax at 202-586-3045, Email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to Douglas Bonnar,
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Solar Star Colorado III, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 10, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of closed meeting.
This notice announces a closed meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of meetings be announced in the
August 13, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and August 14, 2015, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Loretta Martin, Office of RDT&E (NA-113), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7996.
The DPAC provides advice and recommendations to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs on the stewardship and maintenance of the Nation's nuclear deterrent.
The minutes of the meeting will not be available.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2056.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0486), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0090, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw its requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registration has been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0452, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Donna Kamarei.
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Donna Kamarei, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0443; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental and human health advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel 171 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.
Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests,
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
None of the registrations in Table 1 of Unit II. are for minor agricultural use. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Thursday, September 24th, 2015 in the Commission Meeting Room, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Thursday, September 24th, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, 202-418-0807;
At the September 24th meeting, the FCC Technological Advisory Council will discuss progress on and issues involving its work program agreed to at its initial meeting on April 1st, 2015. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 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 27, 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 <
Section 54.703 states that industry and non-industry groups may submit to the Commission for approval nominations for individuals to be appointed to the USAC Board of Directors.
Sections 54.719 through 54.725 describes the procedures for Commission review of USAC decisions including the general filing requirements pursuant to which parties may file requests for review.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:02 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding the extension of a previously existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Environmental Conservation, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before: August 27, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0205 by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
•
Mr. Kevin Funk, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, at telephone 215-446-4860 or via email to
The Federal Hazardous Substance Act and Hazardous Material Transportation Act prescribe standards for packaging of hazardous substances. To meet the requirements of the Acts, the General Services Administration Regulation prescribes provision 552.223-72, Hazardous Material Information, to be inserted in solicitations and contracts that provides for delivery of hazardous materials on a Free On Board (FOB) origin basis.
This information collection will be accomplished by means of the provision which requires the contractor to identify for each National Stock Number (NSN), the DOT Shipping Name, Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazards Class, and whether the item requires a DOT label. Contracting Officers and technical personnel use the information to monitor and ensure contract requirements based on law and regulation.
Properly identified and labeled items of hazardous material allows for appropriate handling of such items throughout GSA's supply chain system. The information is used by GSA, stored in an NSN database and provided to GSA customers. Non-Collection and/or a less frequently conducted collection of the information resulting from GSAR provision 552.223-72 would prevent the Government from being properly notified. Government activities may be hindered from apprising their employees of; (1) All hazards to which they may be exposed; (2) Relative symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment; and (3) Proper conditions and precautions for safe use and exposure.
Public Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0205, Environmental Conservation, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace, in all correspondence.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comments on a proposed CDC-funded information collection entitled “Capacity Building Assistance Assessment for HIV Prevention”. This request is for a one-year Office of Management and Budget approval to assess the capacity of each community-based organizations (CBOs) and their partnership who receive federal funds to implement their Comprehensive High-Impact HIV Prevention activities.
Written comments must be received on or before September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0057 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 of the proposed 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Capacity Building Assistance Assessment for HIV Prevention—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
For over 30 years, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) has been an epidemic, affecting millions globally. According to the CDC, by the end of 2010 an estimated 1,144,500 persons aged 13 years and older were living with HIV infection in the U.S., including 180,900 (15.8%) persons who are unaware of their infection. Over the past 10 years, deaths among persons in the U.S. living with HIV have declined, the number of people living with HIV has increased, and the number of new HIV infections has remained stable with approximately 50,000 new infections annually.
Some groups are disproportionately affected by this epidemic. For example, between 2006 and 2009, there was an almost 50% increase in the number of new HIV infections among young Black men who have sex with men (MSM). In order to address these health disparities, the CDC is funding 90 CBOs and their collaborative partners (Partnerships) to address the national HIV epidemic by reducing new infections, increasing access to care, and promoting health equity; particularly for people living with and at greatest risk of HIV infection. This includes African Americans/Blacks; Latinos/Hispanics; all races and ethnicities of gay, bisexual, and other MSM; IDUs; and transgender persons.
Building the capacity of the funded organizations to conduct HIV programs and services is a priority to ensure effective and efficient delivery of HIV prevention treatment and care services. Since the late 1980s, CDC has been working with CBOs to broaden the reach of HIV prevention efforts. Over time, the CDC's program for HIV prevention has grown in size, scope, and complexity, responding to changes in approaches to addressing the epidemic, including the introduction of new guidance, effective behavioral, biomedical, and structural interventions, and public health strategies.
The Capacity Building Branch within the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (D provides national leadership and support for capacity building assistance (CBA) to help improve the performance of the HIV prevention workforce. One way that it accomplishes this task is by funding CBA providers to work with CBOs, health departments, and communities to increase their knowledge, skills, technology, and infrastructure to implement and sustain science-based, culturally appropriate interventions and public health strategies.
Applicants selected for funding must work with the CDC-funded CBA providers to develop and implement a Capacity Building Assistance Strategic Plan (CBASP). The information collected via this process will be used to construct a CBASP for each funded organization in collaboration with CDC's Capacity Building Branch (CBB). CBA Providers will provide technical assistance and training to ensure that the CBOs and Partnerships have the skills and support they need to successfully implement their CDC-funded HIV High Impact Prevention program.
CBA providers will conduct face-to-face field visits with the CBOs and partners utilizing the structured organizational needs assessment tool. This comprehensive tool consists of two Parts, (Part I and Part II). Part I will be completed by all organizations and Part II will be completed only by the lead organizations of a Partnership. The tool offers a mixed-methods data collection approach consisting of checklists, close-ended (quantitative) questions, and open-ended (qualitative) questions. CBOs will be asked to complete the tool prior to the field visits in order to maximize time during the visits for discussion and strategic planning.
Findings from this project will be used by the participating CBOs and Partnerships, the CBA providers, and the Capacity Building Branch. By the end of the project, the participating CBOs and Partnerships will have tailored CBA strategic plans that they can use to help sustain their programs across and beyond the life of their funding. Based on these plans, the CBA providers in collaboration with CDC will be able to better identify and address those needs most reported by CBOs. Finally, the Capacity Building Branch will be able to refine its approach to conceptualizing and providing CBA on a national level in the most cost-effective manner possible.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
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
Investigating the Implementation and Evaluation of Top-ranked HSMS Elements—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, techniques, and approaches dealing with occupational safety and health problems.
This project seeks to understand the best practices for developing, implementing, and maintaining a robust risk management system (
Previous research considered the sheer number of possible choices to be a barrier to HSMS adoption. Therefore, NIOSH began to understand what the most fundamentally important elements were that support the development, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive, effective risk-based HSMS. NIOSH surveyed practicing health and safety executives, managers, and professionals (9 total) from a variety of mining commodities to determine if they agreed on which HSMS elements and practices were most important. The results of this study suggested that the following areas require consistent focus and attention: Leadership Development; Accountability; Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Development; System Coordination; Culture Enhancement; Behavior Optimization; and Risk Management. To date, little empirical research has been conducted to address practical research questions related to each.
Therefore, the current research task is designed to investigate research questions related to the practical purpose, implementation, and evaluation of each element: (1) How is each of these HSMS elements best executed within mining organizations?; (2) how do you know an element has been successfully implemented within the organization?; and (3) what are the barriers to implementing these HSMS elements within mining organizations?
This study employs a strictly qualitative approach to answer the research questions. A qualitative approach allows researchers to probe participants and learn about their specific experiences through in-depth examples. A protocol that will be used during an interview and/or focus group was developed. The subject matter in the protocol is focused on implementing and evaluating specific elements within managers' HSMS and possible barriers to implementation and evaluation.
NIOSH is seeking a three-year approval for this project which will target mine sites for participation by reaching out to organizational leaders/managers of health and safety at respective mines for their participation. Data collection, in the form of interviews and/or focus groups will occur to answer the questions for this study.
Respondents targeted for this study include corporate or site mine managers (also referred to in some cases as leaders, executives, coordinators or supervisors). These individuals are responsible for the day-to-day administration and/or implementation of the HSMS. In some cases, more than one individual is responsible for certain aspects of the HSMS. Therefore, depending on how these responsibilities are designated at mine sites and how many of these leaders are interested at each mine site, researchers will either facilitate a single interview or a focus group with mine site leadership.
Participants will be recruited through members of mine management using a mine recruitment script. It is estimated that a sample of up to 100 individuals (approximately 34 per year) will agree to participate among a variety of mine sites. Participants will be between the ages of 18 and 75, currently employed, and living in the United States. Participation will require no more than 60 minutes of workers' time. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Upon collection of the data, researchers will analyze and determine the effect that each element has on a mine's ability to develop, implement or maintain an HSMS. With that said, lines of theoretical inquiry will be used to inform the thinking behind the practical guidance ultimately provided to mining organizations. Essentially, best practices can be provided that are applicable across an HSMS, not respective to just one aspect or element. Therefore, the findings will be used to make an HSMS more feasible and applicable for the mining industry.
The total estimated burden hours are 32.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection entitled
Written comments must be received on or before September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0058 by any of the following methods:
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Monitoring and Reporting System for the Prescription Drug Overdose Prevention for States Cooperative agreement—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Drug overdose is the leading cause of injury death in the United States. Opioid-prescribing behaviors are associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality. While opioid pain relievers can play an important role in the management of some types of pain, the overprescribing of these powerful drugs has fueled a national epidemic of prescription drug abuse and overdose. To reverse this complex epidemic and prevent future overdose, abuse, and misuse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides support to states to improve surveillance. Support and guidance for these programs have been provided through cooperative agreement funding and technical assistance administered by CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC).
The goal of this ICR is to collect information from awardees funded under the Prescription Drug Overdose Prevention for States (CDC-RFA-CE15-1501) cooperative agreement, for program monitoring and improvement among funded state health departments.
Information to be collected will provide crucial data for program performance monitoring and budget tracking, and provide CDC with the capacity to respond in a timely manner to requests for information about the program from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House, Congress, and other sources. Awardees will report progress and activity information to CDC on an annual schedule using an Excel-based fillable electronic templates, pre-populated to the extent possible by CDC staff, to be submitted via Grant Solutions. Each awardee will submit an Annual reporting Progress Report Tool. The estimated burden per response is 4 hours for each Annual reporting Progress Report Tool. In addition, each awardee will submit an Annual reporting Evaluation Plan Tool. The estimated burden per response is 3 hours for each Annual reporting Evaluation Plan Tool.
In Year 1, each awardee will have additional burden related to initial collection of the reporting tools. Initial Collection Annual Progress Report Tool is estimated to be 20 hours per response, Initial population of the tools is a one-time activity which is annualized over the 3 years of the information collection request. After completing the initial population of the tools, pertinent information only needs to be updated for each annual report. The same instruments will be used for all information collection and reporting.
CDC will use the information collected to monitor each awardee's progress and to identify facilitators and challenges to program implementation and achievement of outcomes. Monitoring allows CDC to determine whether an awardee is meeting performance and budget goals and to make adjustments in the type and level of technical assistance provided to them, as needed, to support attainment of their performance measures.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in the information collection is required as a condition of funding. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
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
Examining How Local Health Departments Can Leverage Age-Friendly Cities Initiatives to Build Resilience in Elderly Populations—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Despite considerable progress in efforts to define and build community resilience (CR), critical gaps remain in addressing the needs of older adults (age 60+), which is expected to rise to 25% by 2050. Age Friendly Initiatives (AFIs), including Senior Villages (SV) represent a promising strategy for U.S. communities and cities to support older adults aging in place, and could potentially build CR. However, few AFIs have wholly incorporated the critical element of emergency preparedness and
The Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response proposes to conduct a new information collection,
The study will outline where current AFIs and CR efforts align; conduct interviews in AFIs and SVs across the U.S. to understand relationships with LHDs; clarify the process through which policymakers can incorporate CR into AFIs; survey test sites in a quasi-experimental design of AFIs currently underway; and develop a toolkit to help LHDs identify the need for AFIs, evaluate and monitor AFIs ability to improve resilience, develop effective and efficient partnerships with AFIs to expand AFI-LHD efforts across the U.S to build community resilience.
OMB approval is requested for two years. Participation in the survey is voluntary. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 302. A summary of annualized burden hours is below.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Extension of temporary moratoria.
This document announces the extension of temporary moratoria on the enrollment of new ambulance suppliers and home health agencies, subunits, and branch locations in specific locations within designated metropolitan areas in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to prevent and combat fraud, waste, and abuse.
Belinda Gravel, (410) 786-8934.
News media representatives must contact CMS' Public Affairs Office at (202) 690-6145 or email them at
Section 6401(a) of the Affordable Care Act added a new section 1866(j)(7) to the Social Security Act (the Act) to provide the Secretary with authority to impose a temporary moratorium on the enrollment of new Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP providers and suppliers, including categories of providers and suppliers, if the Secretary determines a moratorium is necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, or abuse under these programs. For a more detailed explanation of these authorities, please see the July 31, 2013 notice (78 FR 46339) or February 4, 2014 extension and establishment of a temporary moratoria document (hereinafter referred to as the February 4, 2014 moratoria document or notice) (79 FR 6475).
Based on this authority and our regulations at § 424.570, we initially imposed moratoria to prevent enrollment of new home health agencies, subunits, and branch locations
In imposing these enrollment moratoria, CMS considered both qualitative and quantitative factors suggesting a high risk of fraud, waste, or abuse. CMS relied on law enforcement's longstanding experience with ongoing and emerging fraud trends and activities through civil, criminal, and administrative investigations and prosecutions. CMS' determination of a high risk of fraud, waste, or abuse in these provider and supplier types within these geographic locations was then confirmed by CMS' data analysis, which relied on factors the agency identified as strong indicators of risk. (For a more detailed explanation of this determination process and of these authorities, see the July 31, 2013 notice (78 FR 46339) or February 4, 2014 moratoria document (79 FR 6475)).
In consultation with the HHS-Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), CMS identified two provider and supplier types in nine geographic locations that warrant a temporary enrollment moratorium. For a more detailed discussion of this consultation process, see the July 31, 2013 notice (78 FR 46339) or February 4, 2014 moratoria document (79 FR 6475).
Beneficiary access to care in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP is of critical importance to CMS and its state partners, and CMS carefully evaluated access for the target moratorium locations. Prior to imposing these moratoria, CMS reviewed Medicare data for these areas and found no concerns with beneficiary access to HHAs or ground ambulance suppliers. CMS also consulted with the appropriate State Medicaid Agencies and with the appropriate State Departments of Emergency Medical Services to determine if the moratoria would create access to care concerns for Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries in the targeted locations and surrounding counties. All of CMS' state partners were supportive of CMS analysis and proposals, and together with CMS, determined that these moratoria would not create access to care issues for Medicaid or CHIP beneficiaries.
In accordance with § 424.570(b), a temporary enrollment moratorium imposed by CMS will remain in effect for 6 months. If CMS deems it necessary, the moratorium may be extended in 6-month increments. CMS will evaluate whether to extend or lift the moratorium before any subsequent moratorium periods. If one or more of the moratoria announced in this document are extended or lifted, CMS will publish a document to that effect in the
Once a moratorium is lifted, the provider or supplier types that were unable to enroll because of the moratorium will be designated to CMS' high screening level under § 424.518(c)(3)(iii) and § 455.450(e)(2) for 6 months from the date the moratorium is lifted.
As noted earlier, we previously imposed moratoria on the enrollment of new HHAs in the Florida counties of Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe; the Illinois counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will; the Michigan counties of Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne; and the Texas counties of Brazoria, Chambers, Collin, Fort Bend, Galveston, Dallas, Harris, Liberty, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, Montgomery, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Waller. Further, we previously imposed moratoria on the enrollment of new ground ambulance suppliers in the Texas counties of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller; the Pennsylvania counties of Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia; and the New Jersey counties of Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester. These moratoria became effective upon publication in the
As provided in § 424.570(b), CMS may deem it necessary to extend previously-imposed moratoria in 6-month increments. Under this authority, CMS is extending the temporary moratoria on the Medicare enrollment of HHAs and ground ambulance suppliers in the geographic locations discussed herein. Under regulations at § 455.470 and § 457.990, these moratoria also apply to the enrollment of HHAs and ground ambulance suppliers in Medicaid and CHIP. Under § 424.570(b), CMS is required to publish a document in the
CMS consulted with the HHS-OIG regarding the extension of the moratoria on new HHAs and ground ambulance suppliers in all of the moratoria counties, and HHS-OIG agrees that a significant potential for fraud, waste, and abuse continues to exist in these geographic areas. The circumstances warranting the imposition of the moratoria have not yet abated, and CMS has determined that the moratoria are still needed as we monitor the indicators and continue with administrative actions, such as payment suspensions and revocations of provider/supplier numbers. (For more information regarding the monitored indicators, see the February 4, 2014 moratoria document (79 FR 6475)).
Based upon CMS' consultation with the relevant State Medicaid Agencies, CMS has concluded that extending these moratoria will not create an access to care issue for Medicaid or CHIP beneficiaries in the affected counties at this time. CMS also reviewed Medicare data for these areas and found there are no current problems with access to HHAs or ground ambulance suppliers. Nevertheless, the agency will continue to monitor these locations to make sure that no access to care issues arise in the future.
Based upon our consultation with law enforcement and consideration of the factors and activities described previously, CMS has determined that the temporary enrollment moratoria should be extended for an additional 6 months.
CMS is executing its authority under sections 1866(j)(7), 1902(kk)(4), and 2107(e)(1)(D) of the Act to extend these moratoria in the following counties for these providers and suppliers:
Section 1866(j)(7)(B) of the Act states that there shall be no judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise, of a temporary moratorium imposed on the enrollment of new providers of services and suppliers if the Secretary determines that the moratorium is necessary to prevent or combat fraud, waste, or abuse. Accordingly, our regulations at 42 CFR 498.5(l)(4) state that for appeals of denials based on a temporary moratorium, the scope of review will be limited to whether the temporary moratorium applies to the provider or supplier appealing the denial. The agency's basis for imposing a temporary moratorium is not subject to review. Our regulations do not limit the right to seek judicial review of a final agency decision that the temporary moratorium applies to a particular provider or supplier. In the preamble to the February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5918) final rule with comment period establishing this regulation, we explained that “a provider or supplier may administratively appeal an adverse determination based on the imposition of a temporary moratorium up to and including the Department Appeal Board (DAB) level of review.” We are clarifying that providers and suppliers that have received unfavorable decisions in accordance with the limited scope of review described in § 498.5(l)(4) may seek judicial review of those decisions after they exhaust their administrative appeals. We reiterate, however, that section 1866(j)(7)(B) of the Act precludes judicial review of the agency's basis for imposing a temporary moratorium.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CMS has examined the impact of this document as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major regulatory actions with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This document will prevent the enrollment of new home health providers and ambulance suppliers in Medicare and new home health providers and ambulance suppliers in Medicaid and CHIP. Though savings may accrue by denying enrollments, the monetary amount cannot be quantified. After the imposition of the moratoria on July 31, 2013, 848 HHAs and 14 ambulance companies in all geographic areas affected by the moratoria had their applications denied. We have found the number of applications that are denied after 60 days declines dramatically, as most providers and suppliers will not submit applications during the moratoria period. Therefore, this document does not reach the economic threshold, and thus is not considered a major action.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $7.0 million to $35.5 million in any one year. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. CMS is not preparing an analysis for the RFA because it has determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this document will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if an action may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, CMS defines a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. CMS is not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because it has determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this document will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any regulatory action whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed regulatory action (and subsequent final action) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Because this document does not impose any costs on state or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget reviewed this document.
Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh) and 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8), which was signed into law in 2011, provides federal guidance and planning procedures under established phases—protection, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The data collection addresses response, and recovery for ACF programs with a statutory preparedness planning requirement and other programs without that requirement.
ACF/Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (OHSEPR) has a requirement under PPD-8, the National Response Framework, and the National Disaster Recovery Framework to report impacts of disasters to ACF-supported human services programs to the HHS Secretary's Operation Center (SOC). ACF/OHSEPR works in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure that impacted ACF programs are returned to their normal or close to normal operations.
The primary purpose of the information collection pertains to ACF's initiative to provide real time updates during the response and recovery phases of a disaster; the information will be used to respond to inquiries about human services response and recovery efforts, specifically for individuals, children, and families that need support from ACF programs. Further, the information collection will be used to support ACF/OHSEPR's goal to quickly identify critical gaps, resources, needs, and services to support State, local and non-profit capacity for disaster case management and to augment and build capacity where none exists.
The estimate is based on a single disaster per year. The estimate is for one state administrator to go through all the applicable questions with the Regional and Central Office staff, if applicable.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Notice of Tribal Consultation.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), will host a Tribal Consultation to consult on ACF programs and tribal priorities.
September 14, 2015.
901 D Street SW., Washington, DC.
Lillian A. Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, at 202-401-5590, by email at
On November 5, 2009, President Obama signed the “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Tribal Consultation.” The President stated that his Administration is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications, including, as an initial step, through complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175.
The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. In recognition of that special relationship, pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, executive departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.
HHS has taken its responsibility to comply with Executive Order 13175 very seriously over the past decade; including the initial implementation of a Department-wide policy on tribal consultation and coordination in 1997, and through multiple evaluations and revisions of that policy, most recently in 2010. ACF has developed its own agency-specific consultation policy that complements the Department-wide efforts.
The ACF Tribal Consultation Session will begin on the morning of September 14, 2015, and continue throughout the day until all discussions have been completed. To help both tribal officials and the ACF Principals prepare for this consultation, planning teleconference calls will be held on:
The call-in number is: 866-769-9393. The passcode is: 4449449#.
The purpose of the planning calls will be to identify individuals who will provide oral testimony to ACF, solicit for tribal moderators and identify specific topics of interest so we can ensure that all appropriate individuals are present.
Testimonies are to be submitted no later than September 8, 2015, to: Lillian Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447,
To facilitate the security process when entering our building, we would appreciate if participants register for the session by sending an email to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 27, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 301
Section 905(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387e(b)), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, requires that “every person who owns or operates any establishment in any State engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products . . .” register with FDA the name, places of business, and all establishments owned or operated by that person. Every person must register by December 31 of each year. Section 905(c) of the FD&C Act requires that first-time persons “engaging in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products shall register with the Secretary the name, places of business, and all such establishments of that person.” Section 905(d) states that persons required to register under section 905(b) or (c) shall register any additional establishment that they own or operate in any State which begins the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products. Section 905(h)
FDA issued guidance documents on both: (1) Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments and (2) listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products to assist persons making such submissions to FDA under the Tobacco Control Act. While electronic submission of registration and product listing information and ingredient listing information are not required, FDA is strongly encouraging electronic submission to facilitate efficiency and timeliness of data management and collection. To that end, FDA designed electronic submission applications to streamline the data entry process for registration and product listing and for ingredient listing. These tools allow for importation of large quantities of structured data, attachment of files (
FDA also developed paper forms (Form FDA 3741—Registration and Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments, and Form FDA 3742—Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products) as an alternative submission tool. Both the electronic submission application and the paper forms can be accessed at
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
On April 21, 2015, the FDA published a 60-day notice (80 FR 22202) requesting public comments in the
The burden estimates have been updated to fully incorporate the use of FDA's new electronic system known as FURLS for submitting registration and product listing information to FDA. This system allows companies to enter information quickly and easily. For example, product label pictures can be uploaded directly into the system and FDA anticipates that most, if not all companies already have electronic versions of their labels for printing, sales, or marketing purposes. FDA anticipates that the initial entry registration and initial product listing will each take 2 hours per entity.
Under section 905, once information is entered into FURLS, the twice yearly conformation or updates to product lists are expected to be simplified as all information previously entered is maintained and visible in the system. Therefore, FDA expects that ongoing maintenance of the product listing information will take 30 minutes twice a year, or a total of 1 hour annually. This is broken down into 12 minutes for recurring Registration and Listing each year, and 24 minutes twice a year for recurring Product Ingredient Listings, or a total of 48 minutes annually.
Based on data shared by another Federal Agency, FDA estimates that 135 establishments will initially submit one report, and then will submit confirmation or update reports on a semiannual basis.
FDA estimates that the confirmation or updating of registration information as required by section 905 will take 12 minutes annually per confirmation or update per establishment.
FDA estimates that the submission of product listings required by section 905 for each establishment will take 2 hours initially. FDA also estimates that the confirmation or updating of product listing information required by section 905 will take 48 minutes annually for two confirmations or updates per establishment.
FDA estimates that obtaining an optional Dun and Bradstreet D-U-N-S number will take 0.5 hours, and that 8 respondents (1 percent × 135 = 1.35 of establishments required to register under section 905, and 5 percent × 135 = 6.75 of submitters required to list ingredients under section 904) will not already have a Dun and Bradstreet D-U-N-S number.
FDA estimates that the submission of ingredient listing information as required by section 904 of the act will take 3 hours per tobacco product.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting; notice of draft guidance availability, request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Request for Quality Metrics” and a public meeting regarding the Agency's plans associated with a quality metrics reporting program. The draft guidance and public meeting are intended to gain stakeholders' perspectives on various aspects of the development and planned implementation of a quality metrics program launched under the authority of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). The guidance includes an explanation of how FDA intends to use quality metrics data to further develop the FDA's risk-based inspection scheduling, to identify situations in which there may be a risk for drug supply disruption, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of establishment inspections, and to improve FDA's evaluation of drug manufacturing and control operations. FDA expects that the initial use of the metrics will be to consider a decreased surveillance inspection frequency for certain establishments. For example, establishments that have highly controlled manufacturing processes have the potential to be inspected less often (as a lower priority for inspection) than similar establishments that demonstrate uncontrolled processes (as a higher priority for inspection). In addition, FDA intends to consider whether these metrics may provide a basis for FDA to use improved risk-based principles to determine the appropriate reporting category for postapproval manufacturing changes. FDA intends to consider the input from this public meeting as we finalize this guidance and the planned implementation of this program, including FDA's initial set of requests for quality metrics data.
The meeting will be held on August 24, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting may be extended or end early depending on the level of public participation. Register to attend or present at the meeting by August 7, 2015, (see section V.C. for information on how to register or make a presentation at the meeting). If you cannot attend in person, information about how you can access a live Web cast will be located at
Submit either electronic or written comments concerning the draft guidance and collection of information proposed in the draft guidance by September 28, 2015.
The meeting will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503 Section B/C), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
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, or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Althea Cuff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4061, email:
More than a decade ago, FDA launched an initiative to encourage the implementation of a modern, risk-based pharmaceutical quality assessment system. As part of this initiative, and in recognition of the increasing complexity of pharmaceutical manufacturing, FDA developed a 21st century vision for manufacturing and quality with input from academia and industry. The desired state was described as follows: “A maximally efficient, agile, flexible pharmaceutical manufacturing sector that reliably produces high-quality drug products without extensive regulatory oversight.”
There has been significant progress toward this vision in the intervening
Despite these achievements, however, we have not fully realized our 21st century vision for manufacturing and quality—there continue to be indicators of serious product quality defects. The Agency has found that the majority of drug shortages stem from quality concerns—substandard manufacturing facilities or processes are discovered, or significant quality defects are identified in finished product, necessitating remediation efforts to fix the issue, which in turn, may interrupt production, and cause a shortage of drugs.
The continued existence of product quality issues may point to increased complexities in the supply chain, a lack of innovation in manufacturing, a failure to adopt modern manufacturing technologies and robust quality management systems, or other factors. Title VII of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) amended the FD&C Act to provide FDA with a number of new authorities to drive safety and quality throughout the drug supply chain. Section 706 of FDASIA amended section 704(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374(a)) by adding section 704(a)(4), under which FDA may require the submission of any records or other information that FDA may inspect under section 704 of the FD&C Act, in advance or in lieu of an inspection, by requesting the records or information from a person that owns or operates an establishment that is engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug. As described in the draft guidance, under this authority, FDA intends to make an initial set of requests for quality metrics data to owners and operators of certain human drug establishments. FDA intends to make its requests at the time the guidance is finalized and to provide notice of its requests in the
FDA used the following criteria for the selection of the quality metrics described in the guidance: Objective, subject to inspection under section 704 of the FD&C Act, and valuable in assessing the overall state of quality of the product and process, commitment to quality by the manufacturer, and the health (
CGMP regulations for human drugs expect an ongoing program to maintain and evaluate product and process data that relate to product quality (21 CFR 211.180(e)). Manufacturers are expected to use a quality program in order to support process validation, and the metrics described in this guidance could be a part of such a program. As discussed in the guidance, FDA encourages manufacturers to routinely use additional quality metrics beyond the metrics described in this guidance in performing these evaluations.
FDA intends to use quality metrics data to further develop the FDA's risk-based inspection scheduling, to identify situations in which there may be a risk for drug supply disruption, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of establishment inspections, and to improve FDA's evaluation of drug manufacturing and control operations. FDA expects that the initial use of the metrics will be to consider a decreased surveillance inspection frequency for certain establishments. For example, establishments that have highly controlled manufacturing processes have the potential to be inspected less often (as a lower priority for inspection) than similar establishments that demonstrate uncontrolled processes (as a higher priority for inspection). In addition, FDA intends to consider whether these metrics may provide a basis for FDA to use improved risk-based principles to determine the appropriate reporting category for postapproval manufacturing changes.
In the context of developing this program, to identify some types of mutually useful and objective quality metrics, FDA has consulted with stakeholders through various trade and professional association meetings, and a
As described in the guidance, FDA intends to collect and use quantitative quality metrics data to calculate four quality metrics. Notably, FDA has considered requesting data on the “Right First Time” metric, which is a measure of the rework/reprocessing rate or the number of lots released without any processing deviations. We believe that a Right First Time metric can be a useful metric for establishments to measure as part of their own quality metrics program and a leading indicator for product quality. However, as part of our stakeholder consultation, we have also received mixed industry feedback on how to define this metric, whether this metric may be less relevant for finished dosage forms than for active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing (where rework is more common), and whether this metric is suitably robust for use in our program. We are requesting further input on this topic (see section V.B.).
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 request for quality metrics. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
In addition to comments on the guidance generally, FDA is requesting comments and related supporting information on the following topics, as described in the draft guidance: (1) Optional metrics related to quality culture and process capability/performance, (2) frequency of quality metrics data reporting, (3) an alternative approach to reduce the reporting burden based on the data collection timeframe, and (4) an alternative approach that would allow inclusion of a limited text field for data points or metrics. FDA has described these potential alternative approaches in the draft guidance and is
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
The draft guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The title, description, and respondent description of the information collection are given under this section with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
We invite comments on these topics: (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 704(a)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act, added by section 706 of FDASIA, authorizes FDA to request from a person that owns or operates an establishment that is engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug in advance or in lieu of an inspection any records or other information that we may inspect under section 704 of the FD&C Act, provided that we request submission of the information within a reasonable time frame, within reasonable limits, and in a reasonable manner. The draft guidance is intended to describe a set of requests for data under section 704(a)(4) of the FD&C Act that FDA intends to give notice of in the
FDA intends to request quality metrics data from owners and operators of certain establishments registered under section 510 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360), as described in the draft guidance. FDA intends to request that such establishments compile reports containing the following quality metrics data, segregated by quarter, by product, and establishment:
• The number of lots attempted of the product.
• The number of specification-related rejected lots of the product, rejected during or after manufacturing.
• The number of attempted lots pending disposition for more than 30 days.
• The number of out-of-specification (OOS) results for the product, including stability testing.
• The number of lot release and stability tests conducted for the product.
• The number of OOS results for lot release and stability tests for the product which are invalidated due to lab error.
• The number of product quality complaints received for the product.
• The number of lots attempted which are released for distribution or for the next stage of manufacturing the product.
• If the associated annual product reviews (APRs) or product quality reviews (PQRs) were completed within 30 days of annual due date for the product.
• The number of APRs or PQRs required for the product.
In addition to the baseline metrics described previously, FDA is requesting public comment on whether to include the option of submitting additional, optional metrics as evidence of manufacturing robustness and a commitment to quality:
• Senior Management Engagement—Was each APR or PQR reviewed and approved by the following: (1) The head of the quality unit, (2) the head of the operations unit, (3) both, or (4) neither?
• Corrective Action and Preventive Action (CAPA) Effectiveness—What percentage of your corrective actions involved re-training of personnel (
• Process Capability/Performance—A “yes” or “no” value of whether the establishment's management calculated a process capability or performance index for each critical quality attribute as part of that product's APR or PQR.
• Process Capability/Performance—A “yes” or “no” value of whether the establishment's management has a policy of requiring a CAPA at some lower process capability or performance index.
• Process Capability/Performance—If “yes” to the previous question—What is the process capability or performance index that triggers a CAPA? If “no” to the previous question—please do not respond.
We estimate the submission of approximately 63,000 product reports to FDA containing the 15 quality metrics data outlined in this document and described in the draft guidance (“Total Annual Reponses” in table 1). We estimate that approximately 6,300 establishments will compile and submit these reports, including covered
Our estimate of 63,000 reports is based on the following: Approximately 25,000 reports for drugs subject to approved applications (that is, drugs subject to either approved applications under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355) or under section 351 of the PHS Act, or covered by a submission to a drug master file that is intended to support an application, and approximately 38,000 reports for drugs not subject to approved applications (that is, drugs not subject to either approved applications under section 505 of the FD&C Act or under section 351 of the PHS Act (
Our estimate of 6,300 establishments is based on data from FDA's Document Archiving, Reporting & Regulatory Tracking System and the Electronic Drug Registration and Listing System. We estimate that reporting the quality metrics data described previously for each affected product will take approximately 10.6 hours (“Average Burden per Response” in table 1). This is a weighted average of the estimate for “drugs subject to approved applications” (finished product and API) (15.75 hours) and “drugs not subject to approved applications” (finished product and API) (7 hours). The time estimate for application and non-application products differs because the groupings are different (
The burden hour estimate includes the time for compiling information that we understand is currently developed and maintained in the course of manufacturing drugs in compliance with part 211 and section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, and the time for populating spreadsheet(s) for reporting to FDA. The estimate does not include burden hours currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0139 for information collection under part 211. In table 2, we have calculated the burden for information collection for APIs as currently required under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act but not currently included under OMB control number 0910-0139.
The draft guidance requests that all reports be submitted through the FDA Electronic Submission Gateway (ESG). We are not estimating any additional burden associated with accessing the ESG because reporting establishments, which are subject to FDA's establishment registration and drug listing regulations (21 CFR part 207), are required to use the ESG to submit information, and the burdens associated with these submissions are approved under OMB control number 0910-0045. To date, we have not identified any reporting establishments that are not already reporting to the ESG.
In table 1, we estimate the reporting burden for the information collection in the draft guidance.
In table 2, we estimate the recordkeeping burden for preparing and maintaining CGMP records for APIs that are not currently included under OMB control number 0910-0139.
The information collection associated with the public meeting is exempt from OMB regulations on the PRA as follows: 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(8) (exemption from the definition of “information”): Facts or opinions obtained or solicited at or in connection with public hearings or meetings. 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4) (exemption from the definition of “information”): Facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
The purpose of this meeting and public docket is for CDER and CBER to hear from stakeholders any questions, concerns, and suggestions regarding the proposed plans for the scope and implementation of the quality metrics reporting program proposed in this guidance.
FDA seeks input from stakeholders and other members of the public on the following meeting questions:
1. Are there other objective metrics that FDA should request in advance of or in lieu of an inspection that FDA should collect to improve our understanding of products and establishments for purposes of more informed, risk-based inspection scheduling and identification of potential product shortages?
2. Are the definitions of the metrics and associated data requests selected adequate and clear?
3. Are the metrics requested from each business segment/type clear and appropriate?
4. Should the Agency explore collecting metrics from high-risk excipient producers, and if so, which excipients should be considered high-risk and what metrics should apply?
5. Should the Agency explore collecting metrics from the medical gas manufacturing industry?
6. Should the Agency add the “Right First Time” metric (see section I.), and if so, should the definition be a rework/reprocessing rate or a measure of lots manufactured without processing deviations?
7. What data standards/mechanisms would be useful to aid reporting and how should the submissions be structured?
8. Are there reporting hurdles to collecting metrics by reporting establishment/product (segmented by site) versus by site (segmented by product), and how can they be overcome?
9. FDA may consider whether to require the submission of quality metrics on a recurring basis. How frequently should metrics be reported and/or segmented within the reporting period (
The FDA Conference Center at the White Oak location is a Federal facility with security procedures and limited seating. Attendance will be free and on a first-come, first-served basis. If you wish to attend (either in person or by Web cast (see
FDA will try to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation. Individuals wishing to present should identify the number of the topic, or topics, they wish to address (see section V.B.). This will help FDA organize the presentations. FDA will notify registered presenters of their scheduled presentation times. The time allotted for each presentation will depend on the number of individuals who wish to speak. Once FDA notifies registered presenters of their scheduled times, they are encouraged to submit an electronic copy of their presentation to Althea Cuff at
Persons registered to make an oral presentation are encouraged to arrive at the meeting room early and check in at the onsite registration table to confirm their designated presentation time. An agenda for the meeting and other background materials will be made available 3 days before the meeting at
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., ET and Wednesday, August 19, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., ET.
Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 800, Washington, DC 20201. For a map and directions to the Hubert H. Humphrey building, please refer to
Any questions about meeting registration or public comment sign-up should be directed to
CFSAC was established on September 5, 2002 to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on a broad range of topics including: (1) The current state of knowledge and research and the relevant gaps in knowledge and research about the epidemiology, etiologies, biomarkers, and risk factors relating to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and identifying potential opportunities in these areas; (2) impact and implications of current and proposed diagnosis and treatment methods for ME/CFS; (3) development and implementation of programs to inform the public, health care professionals, and the biomedical research communities about ME/CFS advances; and (4) strategies to improve the quality of life of ME/CFS patients.
The agenda for this meeting is being developed and will be posted on the CFSAC Web site,
Individuals who plan to attend in-person on one or both days will need to register in advance so that information can be provided to government security officials to facilitate entrance to the building. A registration form should be downloaded from the CFSAC Web site (
Attendance by visitors who are not U.S. citizens is welcome, but prior approval is required. A form for non-U.S. citizens can be downloaded from the CFSAC Web site (
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide public comment at the meeting or via telephone. International calls cannot be accommodated. Individuals wishing to provide public comment in-person or via phone will be required to request time for public comment by Monday, August 10, 2015 at the following link:
You are not required to submit a written copy of your testimony unless you wish to have it included in the public record. Individuals wishing to submit written comment for the public record should send an electronic copy of their written testimony to:
Requests to participate in the public comment and provide written testimony will not be accepted at
Only written testimony submitted for public record and received by August 13, 2015 are part of the official meeting record; this testimony will be posted to the CFSAC Web site within 60 days after the meeting. Materials submitted should not include sensitive personal information, such as social security number, birthdates, driver's license number, state identification or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, credit or debit card number. If you wish to remain anonymous the document must specify this.
Persons who wish to distribute printed materials in person (at their own expense) to CFSAC members during the meeting should submit one copy for approval to the Designated Federal Officer at
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of meeting.
The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (the Commission) will conduct its twenty second meeting on September 2, 2015. At this meeting, the Commission will continue to discuss the role of deliberation and deliberative methods to engage the public and inform consideration in bioethics, and how to integrate pubic dialogue into the bioethics conversation; bioethics education as a forum for fostering deliberative skills, and preparing students to participate in public dialogue in bioethics; goals and methods of bioethics education; and integrating bioethics education across a range of professional disciplines and educational levels.
The meeting will take place on September 2, 2015, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m.
Renaissance Washington Hotel, 999 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Lisa M. Lee, Executive Director, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 1425 New York Avenue NW., Suite C-100, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-233-3960. Email:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given of the twenty second meeting of the Commission. The meeting will be open to the public with attendance limited to space available. The meeting will also be webcast at
Under authority of Executive Order 13521, dated November 24, 2009, the President established the Commission. The Commission is an expert panel of not more than 13 members who are drawn from the fields of bioethics, science, medicine, technology, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, or other areas of the humanities or social sciences. The Commission advises the President on bioethical issues arising from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology. The Commission seeks to identify and promote policies and practices that ensure scientific research, health care delivery, and technological innovation are conducted in a socially and ethically responsible manner.
The main agenda items for the Commission's twenty second meeting are to continue discussing the role of deliberation and deliberative methods to engage the public in bioethics, and how to integrate pubic dialogue into the bioethics conversation; bioethics education as a forum for fostering deliberative skills, and preparing students to participate in public dialogue in bioethics; goals and methods of bioethics education; and integrating bioethics education across a range of professional disciplines and educational levels. The draft meeting agenda and other information about the Commission, including information about access to the webcast, will be available at
The Commission welcomes input from anyone wishing to provide public comment on any issue before it. Respectful consideration of opposing views and active participation by citizens in public exchange of ideas enhances overall public understanding of the issues at hand and conclusions reached by the Commission. The Commission is particularly interested in receiving comments and questions during the meeting that are responsive to specific sessions. Written comments will be accepted at the registration desk and comment forms will be provided to members of the public in order to write down questions and comments for the Commission as they arise. To accommodate as many individuals as possible, the time for each question or comment may be limited. If the number of individuals wishing to pose a question or make a comment is greater than can reasonably be accommodated during the scheduled meeting, the Commission may make a random selection.
Written comments will also be accepted in advance of the meeting and are especially welcome. Please address written comments by email to
Anyone planning to attend the meeting who needs special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Esther Yoo by telephone at (202) 233-3960, or email at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service is hereby giving notice that the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) will be holding a meeting to continue discussions and possibly develop recommendations regarding People Living with HIV/AIDS. PACHA members will hear panels on performance measures, HIV and the youth, the National AIDS Housing Coalition and other issues related to people living with HIV. Additionally, PACHA members will discuss the updated National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on September 15, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. (ET) and September 16, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 12:30 p.m. (ET).
The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center is located at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Ms. Caroline Talev, Public Health Analyst, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 443H, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 205-1178. More detailed information about PACHA can be obtained by accessing the PACHA Web page on the AIDS.Gov Web site at
PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. The Council was established to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies to promote effective prevention and cure of HIV disease and AIDS. The functions of the Council are solely advisory in nature.
The Council consists of not more than 25 members. Council members are selected from prominent community leaders with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV and AIDS, public health, global health, philanthropy, marketing or business, as well as other national leaders held in high esteem from other sectors of society. Council members are appointed by the Secretary or designee, in consultation with the White House Office on National AIDS Policy. The agenda for the upcoming meeting will be posted on the AIDS.gov Web site at
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Caroline Talev at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
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.
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.
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 a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) as part of an interagency agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides a toolkit to be used for the purposes of collecting data on the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP). The CCP provides supplemental funding to states and territories for individual and community crisis intervention services during a federal disaster.
The CCP has provided disaster mental health services to millions of disaster survivors since its inception and, as a result of 30 years of accumulated expertise, it has become an important model for federal response to a variety of catastrophic events. Recent State CCPs include programs in New Jersey and New York following 2012 Hurricane Sandy; two programs in Colorado, one related to a wildfire and the second to a flood; a program in Oklahoma in the aftermath of severe storms and tornadoes in 2013; and programs in Washington and Alaska related to flooding and mudslides in 2014. These programs have primarily addressed the short-term mental health needs of communities through (a) outreach and public education, (b) individual and group counseling, and (c) referral. Outreach and public education serve primarily to normalize reactions and to engage people who might need further care. Crisis counseling assists survivors to cope with current stress and symptoms in order to return to predisaster functioning. Crisis counseling relies largely on “active listening,” and crisis counselors also provide psycho-education (especially about the nature of responses to trauma) and help clients build coping skills. Crisis counseling typically continues no more than a few times. Because crisis counseling is time-limited, referral is the third important functions of CCPs. Counselors are expected to refer clients to formal treatment if the person has developed more serious psychiatric problems.
Data about services delivered and users of services will be collected throughout the program period. The data will be collected via the use of a toolkit that relies on standardized forms. At the program level, the data will be entered quickly and easily into a cumulative database to yield summary tables for quarterly and final reports for the program. Additionally, we are in the process of developing and testing the feasibility of using mobile devices for data entry purposes. Because the data will be collected in a consistent way from all programs, they can be uploaded or linked into an ongoing national database that likewise provides CMHS and FEMA with a way of producing summary reports of services provided across all programs funded.
The components of the tool kit are listed and described below:
• Encounter logs. These forms document all services provided. Completion of these logs is required by the crisis counselors. There are three types of encounter logs: (1) Individual/Family or Household Crisis Counseling Services Encounter Log; (2) Group Encounter Log; and (3) Weekly Tally Sheet.
○ Individual/Family or Household Crisis Counseling Services Encounter Log. Crisis counseling is defined as an interaction that lasts at least 15 minutes and involves participant disclosure. This form is completed by the Crisis Counselor for each service recipient, defined as the person or persons who actively participated in the session (
○ Group Encounter Log. This form is used to identify either a group crisis counseling encounter or a group public education encounter. A check at the top identifies the class of activities (
○ Weekly Tally Sheet. This form documents brief educational and supportive encounters not captured on any other form. Information collected includes service characteristics, daily tallies and weekly totals for brief educational or supportive contacts, and material distribution with no or minimal interaction.
• Assessment and Referral Tools. This tool provides descriptive information about intense users of services either child/youth or adults, defined as all individuals receiving a third individual crisis counseling visit. This tool will be used beginning three months postdisaster and will be completed by the crisis counselor.
• Participant Feedback. These surveys are completed by and collected from a sample of service recipients, not every recipient. A time sampling approach (
• CCP Service Provider Feedback. These surveys are completed by and collected from the CCP service providers anonymously at six months and one year postevent. The survey will be coded on several program-level as well as worker-level variables. However, the program itself will be identified and shared with program management only if the number of individual workers was greater than 20.
The table below is the estimates of annualized hour burden.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by August 27, 2015 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
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 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.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ) are proposing to conduct qualitative data collection activities (
This project seeks to expand data necessary to inform the Agency's strategic initiative that focuses on fostering the adoption of health information technologies in community behavioral health services. The qualitative activities will elicit success stories, challenges to adopting health information technologies, and lessons learned regarding SAMHSA grantee access to and use of health information technology and will provide valuable information to inform the behavioral health information technology literature.
Approval of this data collection effort by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will allow SAMHSA to identify the current status of health information technology adoption and use among a select group of grantees who have demonstrated success in at least one of the identified health information technology categories: Certified electronic health records, telehealth technologies, mobile health, and social media-based consumer engagement tools. Data from the focus groups and site visits will allow SAMHSA to enhance the health information technology-related programmatic activities among its
Ten (10) respective focus groups and site visit sessions will collect qualitative data to provide a snapshot view of the current state of health information technology adoption. The focus groups will include up to six participations per session and will be representative of the ten Department of Health and Human Services Regions. Site visit participants will be selected from among SAMHSA-funded grant programs and non-profit community behavioral health providers nominated by Project Officers as exemplars in the field of health information technologies, with recognized success in at least one of the four health information technology domain categories.
The proposed ten (10) in-person focus group sessions will not exceed 90-minutes in duration and will be limited to no less than six (6) and no more than (8) participants. The proposed ten (10) in-person site visit sessions will not exceed eight (8) hours in duration and will include, on average two (2) participants at any one time during the visit. The focus group and site visit sessions are expected to occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and will allow sufficient time for food and personal breaks. The total estimated burden to participate in the focus groups is 120 hours. The total estimated burden to participate in the site visits is 160 hours. The following table summarizes the estimated participation burden:
Focus Group and Site Visit Estimated Annual Hour Burden:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) intends to conduct a test to collect biometric and biographic information from certain aliens who are departing the United States on selected flights from up to ten identified U.S. airports. This notice describes the test, its purpose, how it will be implemented, the individuals covered, the duration of the test, where the test will take place, and the privacy considerations. This test will not apply to U.S. citizens.
The test will begin no earlier than July 6, 2015, and will run for approximately one year. The test will be rolled out over this one-year period at up to ten of the following airports: Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California; San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California; Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida; Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois; Newark Liberty International Airport, Newark, New Jersey; John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York; Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas, Texas; George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, Texas; and Washington Dulles International Airport, Sterling, Virginia.
Edward Fluhr, Assistant Director, Entry/Exit Transformation Office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, by phone at (202) 344-2377 or by email at
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program in accordance with several federal statutory mandates requiring DHS to create an integrated, automated entry and exit system that records the arrival and departure of aliens, verifies the aliens' identities, and authenticates aliens' travel documents through the comparison of biometric identifiers. Under these various federal statutory mandates, certain aliens may be required to provide biometrics (including digital fingerprint scans, photographs, facial and iris images, or other biometric identifiers
On March 16, 2013, US-VISIT's entry and exit operations, including deployment of a biometric exit system, were transferred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). See Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Public Law 113-6, 127 Stat. 198 (2013). The Act also transferred the US-VISIT Program's overstay analysis function to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its biometric identity management services to the Office of Biometric Management (OBIM), a newly-created office within the National Protection and Programs Directorate. CBP assumed responsibility for operating biometric entry and implementing biometric exit programs on April 1, 2013.
Since the transfer of US-VISIT's entry and exit operations to CBP, CBP has continued to consider ways to collect
The federal statutes that mandate DHS to create a biometric entry and exit system to record the arrival and departure of certain aliens include, but are not limited to:
• Section 2(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA), Public Law 106-215, 114 Stat. 337 (2000);
• Section 205 of the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act of 2000, Public Law 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637, 1641 (2000);
• Section 414 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 353 (2001);
• Section 302 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Border Security Act), Public Law 107-173, 116 Stat. 543, 552 (2002);
• Section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, 3817 (2004); and
• Section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110-52, 121 Stat. 266 (2007).
Section 7208 of the IRTPA, as codified at 8 U.S.C. 1365b, specifically requires that DHS's entry and exit data system collect biometric exit data for all categories of individuals who are required to provide biometric entry data.
On January 5, 2004, DHS published an interim final rule (IFR) in the
The second phase of US-VISIT was implemented on August 31, 2004 when DHS published an IFR in the
Pursuant to the authority in 8 CFR 215.8, on June 3, 2009, DHS published a notice in the
In the second pilot program, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) collected biometric and biographic information from certain aliens at the security checkpoint at the Atlanta/Hartsfield International Airport. Aliens departing the United States for foreign destinations who were subject to biometric screening requirements were directed to an area within the checkpoint where the biographic and biometric information was collected. The biometric collection consisted of one or more electronic fingerprints captured using a mobile or portable device. TSA also collected biographic information, including travel document information, such as name, date of birth, document issuance type, country and number from these aliens. TSA stored and forwarded the departure records collected to a DHS database daily.
These pilot programs concluded on July 2, 2009. Although the technology used in these pilot programs worked,
The BE-Mobile Air Test is designed to test both a new biometric exit concept of operations at selected airports with CBP officers using a wireless handheld device at the departure gate to collect biometric and biographic data and CBP's outbound enforcement policies and workforce distribution procedures. This test will significantly differ from the 2009 pilot conducted by CBP in that the BE-Mobile Air Test will use improved technology, will enable CBP officers to receive real time information, will test a different concept of operations since law enforcement officers can perform checks in real time, and will be less resource intensive because CBP will conduct the test on fewer flights per week than during the 2009 pilot. Through the test, CBP will be able to conduct a statistically valid survey of the air outbound environment that will assist DHS in determining how to effectively implement an air biometric exit system. The BE-Mobile Air Test is one of CBP's key steps in developing the capability to fulfill DHS' mandate to collect biometric information from certain arriving and departing aliens.
CBP will conduct the BE-Mobile Air Test at up to ten of the following airports:
• Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California;
• San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California;
• Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida;
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, Georgia;
• Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois;
• Newark Liberty International Airport, Newark, New Jersey;
• John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York;
• Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas, Texas;
• George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, Texas;
• Washington Dulles International Airport, Sterling, Virginia.
The airports selected for the BE-Mobile Air Test will be identified on the CBP Web site,
Currently, certain aliens seeking admission into the United States may be required to provide fingerprint and photographic biometric data at ports of entry, including at the ten identified airports. This data is used by CBP to verify the aliens' identities. (Certain aliens, including individuals traveling on A or G visas and others as specified in 8 CFR 235.1(f)(1)(iv), are exempt from this requirement).
The BE-Mobile Air Test will be conducted at the identified airports on pre-selected outbound international flights. Flights will be pre-selected on a random basis or chosen to correspond with existing outbound enforcement operations. For the selected flight, CBP officers will deploy to the departure gate and position themselves near the departing passenger loading bridge to collect certain data from certain departing travelers. Once travelers begin the departure process, CBP officers will review the traveler's travel document (passport, visa, lawful permanent resident card, or other qualifying travel document) to determine if the traveler is an alien who is required to submit biometric information at the time of departure as described in the next section, entitled “Aliens Covered.” If so, the CBP officers will obtain biographic data from these select aliens by swiping or inputting the information from the alien's travel document on a wireless handheld device.
The primary mission of any biometric exit program is to provide assurance of traveler identity on departure, giving CBP the opportunity to match the departure with a prior arrival record. This capability enhances the integrity of the immigration system and the ability to accurately detect travelers that have overstayed their lawful period of admission to the United States.
CBP will analyze and evaluate the test's performance based on a number of criteria, including the occurrence of watchlist matches based on biometric data, the occurrence of biometric-identified fraud, the occurrence of inaccurate APIS manifests, how overstay calculations are impacted, the transaction times for exit processing per traveler, the rate of successful transactions, the occurrence of law enforcement hits, including those requiring referral to secondary inspection, the observations from the CBP officers performing the test, and system performance. CBP will use the results of the BE-Mobile Air Test to determine strategic programmatic requirements for a comprehensive biometric exit solution.
For the duration of the test, aliens must provide the biometric information described above at the time of departure of the selected international flights at one of the selected airports, except for aliens exempt pursuant to 8 CFR 215.8(a)(2) provided that the alien is in exempted status on the date of departure.
(1) Canadian citizens who under section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act are not otherwise required to present a visa or have been issued Form I-94 (see § 1.4) or Form 1-95 upon arrival at the United States;
(2) Aliens admitted on A-1, A-2, C-3 (except for attendants, servants, or personal employees of accredited officials), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, or NATO-6 visas, and certain Taiwan officials who hold E-1 visas and members of their immediate families who hold E-1 visas who are maintaining such status at time of departure, unless the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security jointly determine that a class of such aliens should be subject to this notice;
(3) Children under the age of 14;
(4) Persons over the age of 79;
(5) Classes of aliens the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State jointly determine shall be exempt; or
(6) An individual alien whom the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Director of Central Intelligence determines shall be exempt.
CBP will collect biographic information and fingerprint data from select non-exempt aliens departing on selected international flights from the identified airports for a period of approximately one year from the start of the test. The information collected will constitute a departure record for that alien and will be maintained in the CBP and DHS databases for recording entries and departures.
CBP will ensure that all Privacy Act requirements and applicable policies are adhered to during the implementation of this test. Additionally, CBP will be issuing a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), which will outline how CBP will ensure compliance with Privacy Act protections. The PIA will examine the privacy impact of the BE-Mobile Air Test as it relates to DHS's Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs). The FIPPs account for the nature and purpose of the information being collected in relation to DHS's mission to preserve, protect and secure the United States. The PIA will address issues such as the security, integrity, and sharing of data, use limitation and transparency. Once issued, the PIA will be made publicly available at:
CBP requires aliens subject to this notice to provide biometric and biographic data at the airports selected for the test in the circumstances described above. This requirement is considered an information collection requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is a renewable preferential trade program that allows the eligible products of designated beneficiary developing countries to directly enter the United States free of duty. The GSP program expired on July 31, 2013, but has been renewed through December 31, 2017, effective July 29, 2015, with retroactive effect between August 1, 2013 to July 28, 2015, by a provision in the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. This document provides notice to importers that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will again accept claims for GSP duty-free treatment for merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption and that CBP will process refunds on duties paid, without interest, on GSP-eligible merchandise that was entered during the period that the GSP program was lapsed. Formal and informal entries that were filed electronically via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) using Special Program Indicator (SPI) Code “A” as a prefix to the tariff number will be automatically processed by CBP and no further action by the filer is required to initiate the refund process. Non-ABI filers, and ABI filers that did not include SPI Code “A” on the entry, must timely submit a duty refund request to CBP. CBP will continue conducting verifications to ensure that GSP benefits are available to eligible entries only.
Effective July 29, 2015, the filing of GSP-eligible entry summaries may be resumed without the payment of estimated duties, and CBP will initiate the automatic liquidation or reliquidation of formal and informal entries of GSP-eligible merchandise that was entered on or after August 1, 2013 through July 28, 2015 and filed via ABI with SPI Code “A” notated on the entry. Requests for refunds of GSP duties paid on eligible non-ABI entries, or eligible ABI entries filed without SPI Code “A,” must be filed with CBP no later than December 28, 2015.
Instructions for submitting a request to CBP to liquidate or reliquidate entries of GSP-eligible merchandise that was entered on or after August 1, 2013 through July 28, 2015 are located at
General questions concerning this notice should be directed to Maggie Gray, Office of International Trade, Trade Agreements Branch, 202-863-6621. For operational questions regarding: Formal/Informal Entries and Baggage Declarations: Celestine Harrell, 202-863-6937; Mail Entries: Katherine Changes, 202-344-1767 or Robert Woods, 202-344-1236; Non-ABI Informal Entries: contact the port of entry where goods were entered. Questions from filers regarding ABI transmissions should be directed to their assigned ABI client representative.
Section 501 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2461), authorizes the President to establish a Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to provide duty-free treatment for eligible articles imported directly from designated beneficiary countries for specific time periods. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2465, as amended by section 1011(a) of Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, duty-free treatment under the GSP program expired on July 31, 2013. On June 29, 2015, the President signed the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (Publ. L. 114-27). Section 201 of Public Law 114-27 pertains to the extension of duty-free treatment and the retroactive application for certain liquidations and reliquidations under the GSP. Section 201(b)(1) provides that GSP duty-free treatment will be applied to eligible articles from designated beneficiary countries that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 29, 2015 through December 31, 2017. Section 201(b)(2) provides that for entries made on or after August 1, 2013 through July 28, 2015, to which duty-free treatment would have applied if GSP had been in effect during that time period (“covered entries”), any duty paid with respect to such entry will be refunded provided that a request for liquidation or reliquidation of that entry, containing sufficient information to enable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to locate the entry or to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located, is filed with CBP by December 28, 2015 (180 days after enactment of Pub. L. 114-27). Section 201(b)(2)(C) provides that any amounts owed by the
Field locations will not issue GSP refunds except as instructed to do so by CBP Headquarters. The processing of retroactive GSP duty refunds will be administered by CBP according to the terms set forth below.
Effective July 29, 2015, filers may resume filing GSP-eligible entry summaries without the payment of estimated duties.
CBP will automatically liquidate or reliquidate formal and informal entries of GSP-eligible merchandise that were entered on or after August 1, 2013 through July 28, 2015 and filed electronically via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) using Special Program Indicator (SPI) Code “A” as a prefix to the listed tariff number. Such entry filings will be treated as a conforming request for a liquidation or reliquidation pursuant to section 201(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 114-27, and no further action by the filer will be required to initiate a retroactive GSP duty refund. CBP expects to begin processing automatic refunds for these entries shortly after July 29, 2015.
CBP will not automatically process GSP duty refunds for formal covered entries that were not filed electronically via ABI, nor for formal and informal covered entries that were filed electronically via ABI with payment of estimated duties, but without inclusion of the SPI Code “A” as a prefix to the listed tariff number. In both situations, requests for liquidation or reliquidation of covered entries must be made by December 28, 2015 pursuant to the procedures set forth in
For merchandise that was imported via the mail, addressees must request liquidation or reliquidation of covered entries by December 28, 2015 pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Travelers/importers must request liquidation or reliquidation of covered entries by December 28, 2015 pursuant to the procedures set forth in
The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 reauthorization of GSP provides retroactive benefits only to goods from a country that is a beneficiary of the GSP program as of July 29, 2015. As such, this excludes countries such as Bangladesh
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This request seeks approval for the following items:
1. Revision of form HUD-50080-SCMF;
2. Elimination of the standard form (SF) 425 “Federal Financial Report” and form HUD-96010 “Logic Model” for Service Coordinator in Multifamily Housing grant recipients, and
3. Grant application intake submission requirements for the Upcoming Notice of Funding availability (NOFA) for the Seniors and Services Demonstration program. The eligible applicant pool for this demonstration will be aligned with the Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing program.
As a result, this request will reduce the number of respondents, responses per annum, frequency of Responses, and total Estimated Burden hours.
The collection of information is necessary to ensure efficient and proper use of funds for eligible activities. Without this information, HUD staff cannot assess the need for funds and effectively monitor grantees' program performance and administration. In addition, the information collection will assist applicants in better determining their need for funds. The information will also enable grantees to more effectively evaluate their program performance; account for funds, and maintain appropriate program records.
Grant funds are taken to pay costs previously incurred and are obtained through use of the electronic Line of Credit Control System (eLOCCS). Grantees are required to draw down from eLOCCS monthly or quarterly.
Grantees will submit the revised form HUD-50080-SCMF on a semi-annual basis. Grantees will complete one worksheet per draw down. Each worksheet will list every expense incurred during that month or quarter. Grantees will be required to maintain detailed expense documentation in their files. HUD may request copies of such documentation if additional program review is warranted.
The data reported will allow HUD staff to track expenses and drawdown of funds for eligible costs at intervals within the grant term. The modified form and submission schedule are designed to reduce burden and collect valid and relevant data.
HUD proposes to substitute the revised form HUD-50080-SCMF for the SF-425, “Federal Financial Report”. The SF-425 does not provide HUD with any data that is not already available in LOCCS or that will be reported in the revised HUD-50080-SCMF. The revised HUD-50080-SCMF provides the most essential information HUD needs to determine whether federal funds have been used properly.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Fiscal Year 2014 (FY 2014) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) Program. This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of this year's award recipients under the ICDBG.
For questions concerning the ICDBG Program awards, contact the Area Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) serving your area or Glenda Green, Director, Office of Native Programs, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-6329. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
This program provides grants to Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages to develop viable Indian and Alaska Native communities, including the creation of decent housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities primarily for persons with low and moderate incomes as defined in 24 CFR 1003.4.
The FY 2014 awards announced in this Notice were selected for funding in a competition posted on HUD's Web site on June 12, 2014. Applications were scored and selected for funding based on the selection criteria in those notices and Area ONAP geographic jurisdictional competitions.
The amount appropriated in FY 2014 to fund the ICDBG was $70,000,000. Of this amount $3,960,000 was retained to fund imminent threat grants. Of the amount appropriated for single purpose competitive grants, $10,000,000 was available for a national competition for grants for mold remediation and prevention in tribally owned or operated housing. The allocations for the Area ONAP geographic jurisdictions for the non-mold grants were as follows:
In accordance with Section 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 97 awards made in Appendix A to this document. The awards made pursuant to the regional competitions are listed as are the nine grants awarded in the national competition for mold remediation and prevention.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact taking effect.
This notice publishes the Indian Gaming Compact between the State of New Mexico and the Pueblo of Isleta governing Class III gaming (Compact) taking effect.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of extension.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces a reopening of the comment period for the Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Revisions and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Western Oregon. The original notice published in the
The comment period for the notice published April 24, 2015 (80 FR 23046) is resopened until August 21, 2015.
Copies of the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS have previously been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies and to other stakeholders. Copies of the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon are available for public inspection at the Oregon State Office at the address below. Interested persons may also review the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS on the internet at:
You may submit comments related to the Draft RMP Revisions, Draft EIS for Western Oregon by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Mark Brown, RMPs for Western Oregon Project Manager; telephone: 503-808-6233; address: 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, or P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208; or email at
The BLM prepared the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon encompassing approximately 2,550,000 acres of BLM-administered lands and 69,000 acres of split-estate lands in western Oregon. The documents address a range of alternatives focused on providing a sustained yield of timber, contributing to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species, providing for clean water, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, coordinating management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe, and providing for recreation opportunities. The Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS propose to revise the RMPs for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts and the Lakeview District's Klamath Falls Resource Area. These six RMPs, completed in 1995, incorporated the land use allocations and standards and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan.
In 2012, the BLM conducted an evaluation of the 1995 RMPs in accordance with its planning regulations and concluded that a plan revision was necessary to address the changed circumstances and new information that had led to a substantial, long-term departure from the timber management outcomes predicted under the 1995 RMPs.
The original Notice of Availability asking for comments on the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon was published in the
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, on August 27, 2015.
Protests of the survey must be filed before August 27, 2015 to be considered.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5003,
These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management, Dillon Field Office, and were necessary to determine Federal interest lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
The plat only, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 4 South, Range 8 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted May 18, 2015 and
T. 2 S., R. 3 W.
The plat only, in one sheet, representing the remonumentation of Corner No. 4 of Mineral Survey No. 6594, Alice Lode, Township 2 South, Range 3 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, was accepted May 18, 2015.
We will place a copy of the plats only, in two sheets, we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against these surveys, as shown on these plats only, in two sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file these plats only, in two sheets, until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service has prepared and approved a Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Wilderness Management Plan for Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Approval of the Wilderness Management Plan concludes an extensive conservation planning and environmental impact analysis effort that began during 2006. The requisite no-action “wait period” was initiated on February 27, 2015, with the Environmental Protection Agency's
Those wishing to review the Record of Decision may obtain a copy by request to the Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada 89005 or via telephone request at (702) 293-8978.
Jim Holland, Senior Outdoor Recreation Planner, (702) 293-8986.
The National Park Service (NPS), in collaboration with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), prepared the Wilderness Management Plan (WMP), which will guide management actions in eight wilderness areas located in Nevada, as follows: The Black Canyon, Bridge Canyon, Jimbilnan, Nellis Wash, and Pinto Valley areas (managed by NPS), and the Eldorado, Ireteba Peaks, and Spirit Mountain areas (jointly managed by NPS and BLM). These areas were designated wilderness in 2002 through the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act (Pub. L. 107-282).
The EIS process was jointly conducted pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and the regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2). The BLM has prepared a separate Record of Decision for those portions of the three wilderness areas that it manages.
Three alternatives, all including mitigation measures, were evaluated during the EIS/WMP process. The “agency preferred” Alternative B has been selected for implementation. The approved WMP will preserve the wilderness character, natural resources, and cultural resources in the eight designated wilderness areas within Lake Mead National Recreation Area, while also providing for the use and enjoyment of the wilderness areas. The WMP provides guidelines to NPS wilderness managers for maintaining desirable conditions in the wilderness areas, and is intended to provide for consistency and continuity for the undertaking of future NPS and BLM wilderness management activities and programs. The WMP does not entail any changes to the NPS or BLM wilderness boundaries set forth in the Clark County wilderness legislation. All primary components of the selected alternative will be implemented as NPS staffing and funding allow.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Long-term Recapture and Recirculation of San Joaquin River Restoration Program Flows. The San Joaquin River Restoration Program is being implemented pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement in
Submit written comments on scope of the EIS by August 27, 2015.
Reclamation will hold four scoping meetings to solicit public input on alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the EIS:
1. Monday, August 10, 2015, 1 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Sacramento, CA.
2. Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Tulare, CA.
3. Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Fresno, CA.
4. Thursday, August 13, 2015, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Los Banos, CA.
Oral and written comments will be accepted during the scoping meetings.
Send written comments to Ms. Kellye Kennedy, Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, SJRRP, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-170, Sacramento, CA 95825; or email at
The four scoping meetings will be held at the following locations:
1. Sacramento—Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
2. Tulare—Tulare International Agriculture Center, 4500 S. Laspina Street, Tulare, CA 93274.
3. Fresno—Fresno Hotel and Conference Center, 2233 Ventura Street, Fresno, CA 93721.
4. Los Banos—College Greens Rental, 1815 Scripps Drive, Los Banos, CA 93635.
Ms. Kellye Kennedy at (916) 978-4640; TY 1-800-877-8339; or email at
Reclamation is the lead Federal agency in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We will invite the following agencies to participate as cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EIS in accordance with NEPA:
In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project Friant Division Long-Term Contractors (Friant Contractors). After more than 18 years of litigation, NRDC, et al., v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., a settlement was reached. On September 13, 2006, the Settling Parties, including NRDC, Friant Water Users Authority (now represented by the Friant Water Authority [FWA]), and the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Commerce, agreed on the terms and conditions of the Settlement, which was subsequently approved by the U.S. Eastern District Court of California (Court) on October 23, 2006. The Settlement establishes two primary goals:
1. Restoration Goal. To restore and maintain fish populations in “good condition” in the main stem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish.
2. Water Management Goal. To reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Contractors that may result from the interim flows and restoration flows provided for in the Settlement. The Settlement and SJRRS Act identify the need for a plan for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange or transfer of restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to Friant Contractors. The SJRRP Program Environmental Impact Statement/Impact Report (PEIS/R) was finalized in July 2012 and the corresponding Record of Decision (ROD) was issued on September 28, 2012. The PEIS/R and ROD analyzed at a project-level the reoperation of Friant Dam to release restoration flows to the San Joaquin River, making water supplies available to Friant Contractors at a pre-established rate, and the recapture of interim and restoration flows at existing facilities within the restoration area (the San Joaquin River and bypass channels from Friant Dam to the Merced confluence) and the Delta. The PEIS/R and ROD also include program-level actions, which are identified as actions that may require the completion of additional analysis pursuant to NEPA and/or the California Environmental Quality Act, as appropriate. One of the program-level actions identified in the PEIS/R and ROD is the recirculation of recaptured restoration flows. This EIS will analyze and disclose any impacts to the human environment potentially occurring from the proposed alternatives beyond those already analyzed and disclosed in the PEIS/R.
As described in the PEIS/R, changes to the operation of Friant Dam and release of SJRRP flows in support of the Restoration Goal have the potential to adversely affect water deliveries to Friant Contractors. As identified in the Settlement and SJRRS Act, the Water Management Goal includes a requirement for the development and implementation of a plan for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange or transfer of SJRRP flows for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts to water deliveries to all of the participating Friant Contractors.
The study area may include potentially affected recapture areas in the SJRRP Restoration Area, the lower San Joaquin River, and the Delta; the Friant Service Area, recirculation conveyance areas, and other State Water Project and Central Valley Project service areas potentially affected by transfers or exchanges evaluated in the EIS. The study area analyzed in the EIS will be refined as the alternative development process proceeds and comments received during the public scoping period will be considered.
Reclamation will develop a reasonable range of alternatives for analysis in the EIS based on previous studies, public scoping and stakeholder input. Both physical and operational modifications may be included in efforts to recapture and recirculate SJRRP flows. Recirculation of water could occur through the execution of direct deliveries, transfers or exchanges utilizing existing and expanded or new facilities for conveyance. As described in the PEIS/R, long-term recapture and recirculation actions may include modifications to existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. The water may be delivered directly back to the Friant Contractors, or may be made available to others through transfers, exchanges or sales. Action alternatives analyzed in the EIS could include expansion or construction of new facilities for the recapture of SJRRP water, the direct delivery of SJRRP water to Friant Contractors and, the
Implementation of the Settlement, including this proposed action, is authorized by the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Title X of Public Law 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. In accordance with NEPA, Reclamation will analyze in the EIS the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives, which may include, but are not limited to, the following areas of potential impact:
a. Water resources, including groundwater;
b. Flood control;
c. Hydrology/water quality;
d. Biological resources, including fish, wildlife, and plant species;
e. Land use, including agricultural resources;
f. Cultural resources;
g. Air quality;
h. Power/energy and natural resources;
i. Public services and utilities;
j. Hazards and hazardous materials;
k. Geology, soils, and mineral resources;
l. Visual, scenic, or aesthetic resources;
m. Socioeconomics;
n. Environmental justice;
o. Global climate change/greenhouse gas emissions;
p. Indian trust assets;
q. Noise;
r. Population and housing;
s. Transportation; and
t. Recreation.
The purposes of this notice are:
• To advise other agencies, potentially affected local governments, tribes, and the public of our intention to gather information to support the preparation of an EIS;
• To obtain suggestions and information from other agencies, interested parties, and the public on the scope of alternatives and issues to be addressed in the EIS; and,
• To identify important issues raised by the public related to the development and implementation of the proposed action.
We invite comments from interested parties to ensure that the full range of alternatives and issues related to the development of the proposed action are identified. Written comments may be submitted by mail, electronic mail, facsimile transmission or in person (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
If special assistance is required at one of the scoping meetings, please contact Reclamation's Public Affairs Office at (916) 978-5100 (TYY 1-800-877-8339) at least five working days before the meetings. Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative formats upon request.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in 80 FR 29748 on May 22, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until August 27, 2015.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• 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,
(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of an existing collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Transactions Among Licensees/Permittees and Transactions Among Licensees and Holders of User Permits.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 50,000 respondents will take 30 minutes to comply with the information.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 25,000 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 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 28, 2015.
If you have additional comments on the estimated burden to facilities covered by the standards to comply with the regulation's reporting requirements, suggestions, or need additional information, please contact Emily Niedzwiecki, Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (phone: 202-305-9317).
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.
On July 22, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed modification to a Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the lawsuit entitled
The original Consent Decree resolves alleged Clean Air Act New Source Review violations at a cement plant owned and operated by CalPortland Company (“CalPortland”) and located in Mojave, Kern County, California. The Consent Decree requires CalPortland to propose for EPA approval final emission limits for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide that are achievable based on the plant's operation with newly-installed control technology. Under the original Consent Decree, the final emission limit for SO
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed modifications to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Modification to Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $2.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the 80 FR 29746 on May 22, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until August 27, 2015.
If you have 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 Tracey Robertson at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• 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,
(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., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in 80 FR 29750 on May 22, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until August 27, 2015.
If you have 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 Tracey Robertson at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• 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,
(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of an existing collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for an Amended Federal Firearms License.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:
Form number: ATF Form 5300.38.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: None.
Abstract: ATF F 5300.38 is used by existing Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to change the business address of the license and certify compliance with the provisions of the law for the new address. Licensees are required to notify ATF of the intent to move any business premises no later than 30 days prior to the intended move. The form is also used for changes of trade or business name, changes of mailing address, changes of contact information, changes of hours of operation/availability, and allows for licensees to indicate any changes of business structure.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 18,000 respondents will take 30 minutes to complete the form.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 9,000 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in 80 FR 29747 on May 22, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until August 27, 2015.
If you have 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 Christopher Reeves, Bureau of
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4)
(5)
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 170 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 28, 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 Carolyn King, Firearms Industry Programs Branch at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: ATF Form 4473 (5300.9).
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Individuals or households.
Other: Business or other for-profit.
Abstract: The form is used to determine the eligibility, under the Gun Control Act (GCA), of a person to receive a firearm from a Federal firearms licensee and to establish the identity of the buyer/transferee. It is also used in law enforcement investigations/inspections to trace firearms and confirm that licensees are complying with their recordkeeping obligations under the GCA.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in 80 FR 29747 on May 22, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until August 27, 2015.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
Form number: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4)
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: Farms, State, local or Tribal Governments, and Individuals or households.
Abstract: The information is necessary for the safety of emergency response personnel responding to fires at sites where explosives are stored. The information is provided both orally and in writing to the authority having jurisdiction for fire safety in the locality in which explosives are stored.
(5)
(6)
The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 513 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Request for Earnings Information Report,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 27, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Request for Earnings Information Report information collection. The Request for Earnings Information Report, Form LS-426, gathers information regarding an employee's average weekly wage. The OWCP uses this information to determine compensation benefits in accordance with Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act section 10. Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act sections 8 and 10 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collections described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before August 27, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167; or electronically mailed to
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-713-7409.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27189 and 27190). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collections to OMB for approval.
In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; (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 the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collections:
1.
2.
3.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Indirect transfer of license; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an Order approving the indirect transfer of license (change of control) for NRC Source and Byproduct Materials License SUA-1597 (SUA-1597), docket number 040-09067, for the Nichols Ranch
The Order was issued on June 18, 2015, and is effective for one year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0126 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:
•
•
•
Ron C. Linton, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301-415-7777; email:
The NRC is providing notice of consent to the indirect transfer (change of control) of SUA-1597. This license authorizes Uranerz to possess uranium and 11.e(2) byproduct materials at its Nichols Ranch ISR Project, which consists of two separate properties known as the Nichols Ranch Unit and the Hank Unit, in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming. Uranerz is authorized for operations at the Nichols Ranch Unit to produce uranium-laden resins but is not authorized for further processing (elution, precipitation and drying of yellowcake) at the Nichols Ranch Unit or production at the Hank Unit.
By letter dated March 12, 2015, and supplemented on June 5, 2015, Uranerz submitted an application to the NRC requesting approval of the change of control of SUA-1597. The change of control involves a share purchase agreement whereby Energy Fuels will acquire all shares of Uranerz common stock resulting in Uranerz merging with EFR Nevada Corporation, an existing Nevada Corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels. The merged corporations will adopt the Uranerz name and Uranerz will remain the licensee for SUA-1597.
The NRC's receipt of the request to take this licensing action was previously noticed on the NRC's public Web site on April 9, 2015, and in the
By Order dated June 18, 2015, the NRC approved the indirect transfer. The Order was accompanied by a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) documenting the basis for the NRC staff's approval. In the SER, the NRC staff has reached the following conclusions: after the transaction, Uranerz and its parent
These actions comply with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's rules and regulations.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through the ADAMS Public Documents collection.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption from certain emergency planning requirements in response to a May 27, 2014, request from Zion
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0168 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:
•
•
•
John B. Hickman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3017, email:
In section 50.47 of Title 10 of the
Zion Nuclear Power Station (ZNPS), Units 1 and 2 were permanently shut down in February 1998, for economic reasons. The licensee placed the plant in SAFSTOR, which means that the licensee deferred dismantling and decontamination of the facility while maintaining and monitoring the facility in a condition that allowed radioactivity to decay. The licensee isolated the spent fuel pool (SFP) within its Fuel Building and established a spent fuel pool nuclear island with SFP-dedicated support systems. In 1999, the NRC issued an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR part 50 for the ZNPS licensee to discontinue offsite emergency planning activities and to reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning. In September 2010, the licensed ownership, management authorities, and decommissioning trust fund of the permanently shutdown facility was transferred to ZionSolutions (ZS), a subsidiary of EnergySolutions, for the purpose of completing all decommissioning activities with the end goal of full site restoration. Active decommissioning is currently underway. As of January 12, 2015, all of the spent fuel at the ZNPS had been transferred to the ZNPS ISFSI.
By letter dated May 27, 2014, (ADAMS Accession No. ML14148A295), ZS submitted a “License Amendment Request for Proposed Revision to Zion Nuclear Power Station Defueled Station Emergency Plan and Request for Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E.” The amendment request was addressed separately by the NRC in a letter dated May 14, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15092A380).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and determined that exemptions should be granted, or continue to be granted, from the following requirements: The requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10); the requirement: “By June 20, 2012, nuclear power reactor,” and “within 15 minutes,” and to protect public health and safety provided that any delay in declaration does not deny the State and local authorities the opportunity to implement measures
The exemption request was reviewed against the acceptance criteria included in 10 CFR 50.47, appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, 10 CFR 72.32 and Spent Fuel Project Office Interim Staff Guidance—16, “Emergency Planning” (ADAMS Accession No. ML003724570). The review considered the permanently shutdown and defueled status of the reactor with all fuel transferred to the ISFSI, and the low likelihood of any credible accident resulting in radiological releases requiring offsite protective measures. These evaluations are documented in the NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML15140A563). The staff concludes that the Defueled Station Emergency Plan for ZNPS provides: (1) An adequate basis for an acceptable state of emergency preparedness, and (2) in conjunction with arrangements made with offsite response agencies, provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the ZNPS Site.
The Commission has concluded that the licensee's request for an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV as specified above are acceptable in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current plant status as permanently shutdown with all spent fuel in the ISFSI.
The NRC has determined that other requirements from which ZS requested exemptions were not applicable to the ZNPS or are being met by the ZNPS Defueled Station Emergency Plan, or that an exemption was not appropriate. Therefore, an exemption was not necessary or was denied for those requirements.
The NRC has found that ZS meets the criteria for an exemption in 10 CFR 50.12. The NRC has determined that granting the exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
In the Safety Evaluation Report, the NRC staff explains that ZS's implementation of the ZNPS Defueled Station Emergency Plan, with the exemptions, will continue to provide this reasonable assurance of adequate protection. In addition, the requested exemptions only involve EP requirements under 10 CFR part 50. Physical security measures at ZNPS will not be affected by the requested EP exemptions, and granting the exemptions will not adversely affect ZS's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Thus, granting the exemptions will not present an undue risk to public health or safety and is not inconsistent with the common defense and security.
For the Commission to grant an exemption, special circumstances must exist. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when “[a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.” These special circumstances exist here, given the current plant status as permanently shutdown with all spent fuel in the ISFSI. The NRC has determined that ZS's compliance with the regulations listed above is not necessary for the licensee to demonstrate that, under its emergency plan, there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Consequently, special circumstances are present because requiring ZS to comply with the regulations listed above is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the EP regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact related to this exemption was published in the
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's submittals and concludes that the licensee's request for an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and appendix E to10 CFR part 50 as specified above are acceptable in view of the greatly reduced offsite radiological consequences associated with the current plant status as permanently shut down.
The Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, are consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present in that compliance with the specified regulations is not necessary for reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the ZNPS facility based on its permanently shut-down condition.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Request for Information Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Event.”
Submit comments by September 28, 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 on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0043 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-2015-0043 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions 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.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an additional Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 2 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On July 20, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 2 (GREP 2) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).
To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-106 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than July 29, 2015. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-106 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than July 29, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to obvious errors. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(additions are
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web
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 is seeking to amend its rules related to obvious errors. Specifically, the Exchange is seeking to add Interpretation and Policy .06 to provide the Exchange the ability to nullify or adjust transactions arising out of a verifiable disruption or malfunction of Exchange systems.
Similar to Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE”) Rule 6.25.05, the proposed rule would allow an Exchange Official to nullify or adjust a transaction that arises out of a verifiable disruption or malfunction in the use or operation of any Exchange automated quotation, dissemination, execution, or communication system.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide the flexibility and authority provided for in the proposed rule so as not to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond to unforeseen systems problems or malfunctions. The proposed rule change would provide the Exchange with the same authority that other Exchanges have to nullify or adjust trades in the event of a “verifiable disruption or malfunction” in the use or operation of its systems.
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 that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system and promote a fair and orderly market because it would provide authority for the Exchange to nullify or adjust trades that may have resulted from a verifiable systems disruption or malfunction. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide the flexibility and authority provided for in the proposed rule so as not to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond to unforeseen systems problems or malfunctions that may result in harm to the public. Allowing for the nullification or modification of transactions that result from verifiable disruptions and/or malfunctions of Exchanges systems will offer market participants on C2 a level of relief presently not available. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based on CBOE rules and is substantially similar to rules of Phlx, and Arca.
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive because it will align the Exchange's rules with the rules of other markets, including CBOE, Arca, and Phlx. By adopting the proposed rule, the Exchange will be in a position to treat transactions that are a result of a verifiable systems issue or malfunction in a manner similar to other exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Friday, July 31, 2015, at 1 p.m., in the Auditorium (L-002) at the Commission's headquarters building, to hear oral argument in an appeal by the Respondents Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (“RJLC”) and Raymond J. Lucia, Sr. (“Lucia”), and a cross-appeal by the Division of Enforcement, from an initial decision of an administrative law judge.
On December 6, 2013, the law judge found that RJLC violated Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by misleading prospective clients about its Buckets of Money retirement wealth management strategy, and that Lucia aided and abetted and caused RJLC's violations. For these violations, the law judge barred Lucia from associating with an investment adviser, broker, or dealer; revoked RJLC's and Lucia's investment adviser registrations; ordered RJLC and Lucia to cease and desist from further violations of the Advisers Act; and imposed civil penalties of $250,000 on RJLC and $50,000 on Lucia. The law judge also found that RJLC did not violate, and Lucia did not aid and abet and cause a violation of, Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) concerning fraudulent advertisements by investment advisers.
The Respondents appealed the law judge's findings of violation and the sanctions imposed, and the Division cross-appealed the law judge's Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) findings. The issues likely to be considered at oral argument include, among other things, whether Respondents violated the antifraud provisions as alleged and, if so, the extent to which they should be sanctioned for those violations.
For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 8.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of OKLAHOMA (FEMA-4222-DR), dated 05/26/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of OKLAHOMA, dated 05/26/2015 is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 05/05/2015 and continuing through 06/22/2015.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 10.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated 05/29/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 05/29/2015 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 4.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated 05/29/2015.
07/21/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Texas, dated 05/29/2015, is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 05/04/2015 and continuing through 06/22/2015.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4217-DR), dated 05/01/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155,
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated 05/01/2015, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 6.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4222-DR), dated 06/04/2015.
07/21/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oklahoma, dated 06/04/2015, is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 05/05/2015 and continuing through 06/22/2015.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 9.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated 05/29/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 05/29/2015 is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 05/04/2015 and continuing through 06/22/2015.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to George Weber, who may be reached on 202-485-7637 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This form collects contact information, current employment information, and previous work experience information from aliens applying for nonimmigrant visas to enter the United States. The information collected is necessary to determine eligibility for certain visa classifications.
Applicants may fill out the DS-158 online or print the page and fill it out by hand and submit it in person at the time of interview.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Taylor Mauck, who may be reached on 202-485-7635 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
DS-1884 solicits information from petitioners claiming employment-based immigrant visa preference under section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the basis of qualification as a special immigrant described in INA section 101(a)(27)(D). A petitioner may file the DS-1884 petition within one year of notification by the Department of State that the Secretary has approved a recommendation that such special immigrant status be accorded to the alien. DS-1884 solicits information that will assist the consular officer in ensuring that the petitioner is statutorily qualified to receive such status, including meeting the years of service and exceptional service requirements.
The form can be obtained from posts abroad or through the Department's eForms intranet site. The application available through eForms allows the applicant to complete the application online and then print the application. Most applicants are current federal government employees abroad and have access to the internet system. Once the form is printed, it is submitted to post.
In notice document 2015-17569, appearing on pages 42602 through 42603 in the issue of Friday, July 17, 2015, make the following correction:
On page 42602, in the
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed in the
Submit comments on or before August 27, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0088. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TAURI is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0088 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 27, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0090. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PARAISO is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0090 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed in the
Submit comments on or before August 27, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0089. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BAYADERE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0089 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1955 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2015.
Danielle Bennett, 202-366-5296, Office of Maritime Labor and Training, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimated burden of the proposed information collection; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will enable MARAD to determine whether the vessel proposed for transfer will initially require retention under the U.S.-flag statutory regulations. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-200X-XXXX] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Deveeda Midgett, (202) 366-2354, Office of Sealift Support, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 27, 2015.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2015-0092. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SORTILEGE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2015-0092 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
BNSF has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on August 27, 2015, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicant's representative: Karl Morell, Karl Morell & Associates, Suite 225, 655 Fifteenth St. NW., Washington, DC 20005.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
BNSF has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by July 31, 2015. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), BNSF shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by filing of a notice of consummation by July 28, 2016, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the
Written comments should be received on or before September 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Kerry Dennis at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The burden is reflected in the burden for Form W-2.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 97-22, Examination of returns and claims for refund, credits or abatement; determination of correct tax liability.
Written comments should be received on or before September 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie A. Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments regarding excise tax relating to structured settlement factoring transactions.
Written comments should be received on or before September 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8832, Entity Classification Election.
Written comments should be received on or before September 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8811, Information Return for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs) and Issuers of Collateralized Debt Obligations.
Written comments should be received on or before September 28, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie A. Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, amended its regulations at 8 CFR part 293 on the payment of interest on cash bond deposits to state that “Interest on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per centum per annum or be less than zero.” For the purposes of this provision, Treasury is providing notice that interest on the bonds will accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per annum, but in no case less
This notice is effective October 1, 2015.
You can download this notice at the following Internet addresses:
Colleen McLoughlin, Office of Federal Program Finance, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, (202) 622-5447.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.” 8 U.S.C. 1363(a). Since 1971, this rate has been set at a fixed 3 per centum per annum. Beginning October 1, 2015, cash bond deposits will pay a variable rate of interest that changes quarterly based on 91-day Treasury bills. This change will better reflect market conditions and the true time value of the cash placed on deposit.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 that the Special Medical Advisory Group (SMAG) will meet via teleconference on August 25, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is open to the public. Call-in access is 1-800-767-1750; access code 07245. Members of the public may join the virtual conference call to listen to the discussion; there will be no participation in the discussion by members of the public. Participants will be asked to identify themselves to gain access to the meeting.
The purpose of the SMAG is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of disabled Veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Department's Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
The agenda for the August 25, 2015, meeting will include the review of the minutes and key points from the May 13, 2015, SMAG meeting and further discussion of the key elements of the VHA Blueprint for Excellence.
Although no time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public, members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee to Barbara Hyduke, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Patient Care Services (10P4), Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or by email at
If you plan to listen to the meeting, please call in at least 15 minutes the start of the meeting; callers will not be given access after 9:00 a.m. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should contact Ms. Hyduke at (202) 461-7800 or by the email address noted above.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt new equity trading rules relating to Orders and Modifiers and the Retail Liquidity Program to reflect the implementation of Pillar, the Exchange's new trading technology platform. 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.
On April 30, 2015, the Exchange filed its first rule filing relating to the implementation of Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets operated by NYSE Arca and its affiliates, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”).
This is the second filing to support Pillar implementation and is intended to be read together with the Pillar I Filing. Specifically, as described in the Pillar I Filing, new rules to govern trading on Pillar would have the same numbering as current rules, but with the modifier “P” appended to the rule number. For example, Rule 7.31, governing Orders and Modifiers, would remain unchanged and continue to apply to any trading in symbols on the current trading platform. Proposed Rule 7.31P would govern Orders and Modifiers for trading in symbols migrated to the Pillar platform. In addition, the proposed new rules to support Pillar in this filing would use the terms that were proposed in the Pillar I Filing,
In this filing, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Pillar rules relating to:
• Orders and Modifiers (NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31P (“Rule 7.31P”)); and
• Retail Liquidity Program (NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.44P (“Rule 7.44P”))
Rule 7.31 governs orders and modifiers.
• Primary Order Types (Rule 7.31(a));
• Time in Force Modifiers (Rule 7.31(b));
• Auction-Only Orders (Rule 7.31(c));
• Working Orders (7.31(d));
• Orders with Instructions not to Route (7.31(e));
• Orders with Specific Routing Instructions (7.31(f));
• Additional Order Instructions and Modifiers (7.31(g)); and
• Q Orders (7.31(h)).
The Exchange proposes new Rule 7.31P to reflect orders and modifiers in Pillar and would structure new Rule 7.31P in a manner similar to Rule 7.31. Because Pillar would be a new trading platform, the Exchange proposes a new rule set to describe how orders and modifiers in Pillar would be priced, ranked, traded, and/or routed, using the terminology that was proposed in the Pillar I Filing, such as the terms “Away Market,” “working price,” “display price,” “limit price,” and the priority categories, as defined in proposed Rule 7.36P in the Pillar I Filing. Accordingly, all orders and modifiers will have new rule text in Rule 7.31P as compared to Rule 7.31. Proposed Rule 7.31P would have the following general non-substantive differences from current Rule 7.31:
• Renaming the category of orders currently described as “Working Orders” as “Orders with a Conditional or Non-Displayed Price and/or Size,” which would reflect the proposed new terms set forth in the Pillar I Filing;
• Moving Tracking Orders from the category “Orders with Instructions not to Route” to the category “Orders with
• Creating new, stand-alone categories for Cross Orders and Pegged Orders;
• Using the terms “quantity” instead of “portion,” “will” instead of “shall,” and “trade” instead of “execute”; and
• Stylistic differences to eliminate use of terms such “contra-side” or “better than” with respect to NBBO or PBBO and instead referring to an order to buy (sell) and then, as appropriate for defining how an order type operates, referring to the contra-side order with which it is trading or being priced off of with more specificity,
The Exchange proposes a number of substantive differences to the orders and modifiers that would be available in Pillar as compared to what is available on the current trading platform. The following provides a high-level summary of proposed substantive differences to orders and modifiers in Pillar, which are discussed in greater detail below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Exchange is not proposing at this time to offer the following orders and modifiers in Pillar, and therefore they would not be included in proposed Rule 7.31P: Open Modifiers (Rule 7.31(b)(2)(A) (Good Til Cancelled (“GTC”) Modifier) and (B) (Good Till Date (“GTD”) Modifier); Fill-or-Kill (“FOK”) Modifier (Rule 7.31(b)(4)); Discretionary Orders (Rule 7.31(d)(1)); PNP Order (Rule 7.31(e)(f)); and the Auto Q Order (Rule 7.31(h)(2)). Because the Exchange is not proposing to offer Open Modifiers in Pillar, the Exchange is also not proposing to include the Do Not Reduce Modifier (Rule 7.31(g)(3)) and Do Not Increase Modifier (Rule 7.31(g)(4)) in proposed Rule 7.31P.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a) would set forth the Exchange's primary order types in Pillar. As with Rule 7.31(a), proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(1) would provide for Market Orders, proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2) would provide for Limit Orders, and proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(3) would provide for Inside Limit Orders.
Current Rule 7.31(a)(1)(A)-(C) sets forth Trading Collars for Market Orders. Rule 7.31(a)(1)(A) provides that during Core Trading Hours, including the Market Order Auction, a Market Order
Proposed Rule 7.31P would define Market Orders in Pillar with one substantive difference relating to how Trading Collars function, described in greater detail below. The Exchange is not proposing any other substantive differences with respect to how Market Orders operate in Pillar. However, because of the additional terminology available in Pillar and because ranking and execution requirements in Pillar would be set forth in proposed Rules 7.36P and 7.37P, the Exchange proposes new rule text to describe Market Orders.
As proposed, Rule 7.31P(a)(1) would provide that a Market Order is an unpriced order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security that is to be traded at the best price obtainable without trading through the NBBO. As further proposed, a Market Order would be required to be designated Day and would be rejected on arrival, or cancelled if resting, if there is no contra-side NBBO. This proposed rule text describes the same functionality as is described in current Rule 7.31(a)(1).
The Exchange is not proposing to include in Rule 7.31P(a)(1) the rule text in Rule 7.31(a)(1) that a Market Order would not trade through the NBBO or Protected Quotations because this general order execution requirement is proposed to be set forth in Rule 7.37P(a)(2) and (a)(4).
The Exchange proposes to further provide in new Rule 7.31P(a)(1) that unexecuted Market Orders would be ranked Priority 1—Market Orders. This text reflects current functionality because, if an unexecuted Market Order is held at a Trading Collar or the NBBO, it is available to trade against incoming contra-side orders. In such case, resting Market Orders have priority over other orders at that price. Because the Exchange proposes this priority category in the Pillar I Filing in new Rule 7.36P,
The Exchange proposes to add text in Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(A) to use Pillar terminology to describe how a Market Order would be priced, traded, or routed consistent with the requirement not to trade through the NBBO. As proposed, on arrival, a Market Order to buy (sell) would be assigned a working price of the NBO (NBB) and would trade with all sell (buy) orders on the NYSE Arca Book
Proposed new Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) would set forth Trading Collars in Pillar. The proposed rule text includes both non-substantive and substantive differences from Rule 7.31(a)(1). The proposed substantive difference relates the price at which a Market Order would not trade or route. Currently, a Market Order to buy (sell) will not trade or route at a price above (below) the Trading Collar. As proposed in new Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(B), a Market Order to buy (sell) would not trade or route to an Away Market at a price
The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences for Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) to streamline the rule text that is currently set forth in Rule 7.31(a)(1)(B) and (C). The proposed rule would not include text in Rule 7.31(a)(1)(A) that specifies that Trading Collars are available during the Market Order Auction. The current rule text is necessary because the Market Order Auction does not occur during the Core Trading Session. However, as proposed in the Pillar I Filing, the Core Open Auction would occur on the Pillar trading platform during the Core Trading Session.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(B)(i) would set forth the “Calculation of a Trading Collar” functionality that is currently in Rule 7.31(a)(1)(B), with non-substantive differences to update the cross reference to proposed Rule 7.31P and to add that when the consolidated last sale price is either increased or decreased by the specified percentage, it would be
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(B)(ii) would provide for the same functionality as in current Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(C)(i) with a substantive difference to reflect the proposal that Market Orders would not trade or route at the Trading Collar price, and non-substantive differences to use new Pillar terminology. As proposed, the rule would provide that if a Trading Collar is triggered, the unexecuted quantity of a Market Order to buy (sell) would be held undisplayed and assigned a working price one MPV below (above) the Trading Collar. Currently, Market Orders are held undisplayed at the Trading Collar. To reflect the proposed new functionality, Market Orders would be assigned a working price one MPV inside the Trading Collar. Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(B)(ii) would further provide that the Market Order to buy (sell) would be available to trade with incoming orders to sell (buy) at that working price but would not trade with interest on the NYSE Arca Book or route until (i) additional opportunities to trade consistent with the Trading Collar restriction become available, either on the Corporation
The Exchange does not propose to include the following rule text from current Rule 7.31(a)(1)(C)(ii) in new Rule 7.31P:
• The statement that multiple Market Orders that become restricted by the Trading Collar will be ranked in time priority because such priority is now set forth in proposed new Rule 7.36P(e)(1) and (f), which define the Priority 1—Market Orders category and that within each priority category, orders would be ranked based on time priority.
• The text that provides that a Market Order that becomes restricted by the Trading Collar will not be displayed because this functionality would now be set forth in the first sentence of proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(1)(B)(ii), described above.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2) would define Limit Orders in Pillar and would have one substantive difference from Rule 7.31(a)(2) relating to the price at which resting Limit Orders would be displayed if they were to become a BBO that would lock or cross the PBBO. Because of the additional terminology proposed to be available in the rules applicable to the Pillar trading platform, including new definitions and ranking and execution requirements set forth in proposed Rules 7.36P and 7.37P, the Exchange proposes new rule text to describe Limit Orders.
The Exchange proposes to define Limit Orders in proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2) as an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a specified price or better, which is the same as the first sentence of current Rule 7.31(a)(2). The Exchange does not propose to include the second sentence of current Rule 7.31(a)(2) in proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2) because defining how a Limit Order is marketable is duplicative of the definition of “Marketable” in Rule 1.1.
To reflect Pillar terminology, proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2) would provide that unless otherwise specified, the working price and the display price of a Limit Order would equal the limit price of the order, it would be eligible to be routed, and it would be ranked Priority 2—Display Orders. Additional order types in Pillar would be based on a Limit Order, in that they are orders with a specified price, but as described in greater detail below, these additional order types may not be displayed, may have a display price that differs from its working price, or may not route.
The Exchange is not proposing to include in new Rule 7.31P(a)(2) the text in current Rule 7.31(a)(2)(A) because the requirement that a Limit Order not trade through, lock or cross a protected quotation would be set forth in proposed Rules 7.37P(a)(2), (a)(3), and (e)(2).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(B) would set forth Limit Order Price Protection, and is based on Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B). As proposed, a Limit Order to buy (sell) would be rejected if it is priced at or above (below) the specified percentage away from the NBO (NBB). Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(B) would further
The last two sentences of proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(B) would provide that Limit Order Price Protection would be applied when an order is eligible to trade and that a Limit Order entered before the Core Trading Session that is designated for the Core Trading Session only would become subject to the Limit Order Price Protection after the Core Open Auction. This proposed rule text is based on the last sentence of Rule 7.31(a)(2)(B), but with differences to incorporate the proposed changes to Rule 7.34P in the Pillar I Filing that the Core Open Auction would occur during the Core Trading Session. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text would promote transparency of when the Limit Order Price Protection would be applicable to an incoming Limit Order on the Pillar trading platform. For example, a Limit Order designated for the Late Trading Session only that is entered during the Core Trading Session would not be subject to Limit Order Price Protection on arrival, but would be subject to the price test once the order becomes eligible to trade.
The Exchange proposes to add new Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(C) to provide for new functionality in Pillar that would re-price resting Limit Orders in order to prevent those orders from becoming a BBO that would lock or cross the PBBO. As proposed, if the current BB (BO) is locked or crossed by an Away Market PBO (PBB), then the current BB (BO) is cancelled, executed, or routed and the next best-priced resting Limit Order(s) to buy (sell) on the NYSE Arca Book that would become the new BB (BO) would have a display price that would lock or cross the PBO (PBB), such Limit Order(s) to buy (sell) would be assigned a display price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB) and a working price equal to the PBO (PBB). For example, assume the Exchange BB is 10.00 and there is a resting, displayed Limit Order to buy at 9.99. Next, an Away Market displays a PBO priced at 9.99, which crosses the Exchange's 10.00 BB, and the Exchange bid of 10.00 is cancelled. In this scenario, under proposed Pillar rules, the Limit Order to buy priced at 9.99 would be displayed at 9.98, but would have a working price and be eligible to trade at 9.99.
If a resting Limit Order is re-priced as described above, it would be re-priced again in one of two circumstances. First, if a Day ISO to buy (sell) arrives before the PBO (PBB) is updated, such re-priced resting Limit Order(s) to buy (sell) would be re-priced again to the lower (higher) of the display price of the Day ISO or the original price of the Limit Order(s). As discussed in greater detail below, a Day ISO represents current functionality, set forth in Rule 7.31(e)(3), of a PNP Order designated ISO, which may lock or cross a Manual or Protected Quotation. In the example above, if while the PBO is at 9.99, the Exchange receives a Day ISO to buy priced at 9.99, the Exchange would display that Day ISO and assign a new display price of 9.99 to the Limit Order that was previously displayed at 9.98.
The second circumstance when a resting Limit Order that was re-priced would be re-priced again would be when the PBBO moves such that the original limit price of the order would no longer lock or cross the PBBO. Accordingly, the proposed rule would provide that when the PBO (PBB) is updated, the Limit Order(s) to buy (sell) would be re-priced consistent with the original terms of the order. In the example above, once the PBO changes to 10.00 or higher, the Limit Order to buy priced at 9.99 would be displayed at 9.99, which is its limit price.
Current Rule 7.31(a)(3)(A) provides that an Inside Limit Order is “marketable” when it is priced to buy (sell) at or above (below) the NBBO for the security.
Current Rule 7.31(a)(3)(B) provides that an Inside Limit Order designated as a Primary Until 9:45 Order or a Primary After 3:55 Order will follow the order processing of an Inside Limit Order only when the order is on the NYSE Arca Book. Current Rule 7.31(a)(3)(C) provides that an Inside Limit Order will not trade through the NBBO or Protected Quotations. Finally, current Rule 7.31(a)(3)(D) provides that an Inside Limit Order may not be designated as a Discretionary Order or as IOC, but may be designated as NOW.
The Exchange is not proposing any functional differences to Inside Limit Orders in Pillar. However, the Exchange is proposing non-substantive differences for the rule text defining Inside Limit Orders in order to use Pillar terminology to describe how Inside Limit Orders would be priced, traded, and routed on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(3) would define an Inside Limit Order as a Limit Order that is to be traded at the best price obtainable without trading through the NBBO. Because an Inside Limit Order functions similarly to a Market Order in that it is priced based on the NBBO and not the PBBO, the Exchange proposes to use terminology similar to the proposed rule text for Market Orders to describe how Inside Limit Orders would be priced, traded or routed on the Pillar trading platform consistent with the requirement not to trade through the NBBO.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(3)(A) would provide that on arrival, a marketable Inside Limit Order to buy (sell) would be assigned a working price of the NBO (NBB) and would trade with all sell (buy) orders on the NYSE Arca Book priced at or below (above) the NBO (NBB) before routing to the NBO (NBB)
The Exchange is not proposing to keep the text from Rule 7.31(a)(3)(A) in proposed new Rule 7.31P(a)(3). As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to define the term marketable just once in the Pillar rules, in Rule 1.1, as amended. Similarly, the Exchange is not proposing to keep the text from Rule 7.31(a)(3)(C) in proposed new Rule 7.31P(a)(3) because the requirement that an Inside Limit Order not trade through the NBBO or protected quotations is set forth in proposed Rules 7.37P(a)(2) and (4)
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(3)(B) would provide that an Inside Limit Order designated as a Primary Until 9:45 Order or a Primary Until 3:55 Order would follow the order processing of an Inside Limit Order only when the order is on the NYSE Arca Book. This rule text is based on Rule 7.31(a)(3)(B) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(3)(C) would provide that an Inside Limit Order may not be designated as a Limit IOC Order but may be designated as a Limit Routable IOC Order. This rule text is based on current Rule 7.31(a)(3)(D), but with non-substantive differences to use the proposed Pillar definitions, described in more detail below, to replace the term IOC with “Limit IOC Order,” and “NOW Modifier” with “Limit Routable IOC Order.” Finally, as noted above, because the Exchange is not proposing to offer Discretionary Order functionality in Pillar, the Exchange is not proposing to include references to Discretionary Orders in proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(3)(C).
In order to use Pillar terminology to describe how orders are priced, traded, or routed on the Pillar trading platform, proposed Rule 7.31P(a)(3)(C) would provide that an Inside Limit Order to buy (sell) designated as a Limit Routable IOC Order would trade with sell (buy) orders on the NYSE Arca Book priced at or below (above) the NBO (NBB) and the quantity not traded would be routed to the NBO (NBB). To reflect that the remaining quantity of the order would be cancelled after that first route, the proposed rule would further provide that any unfilled quantity not traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace or an Away Market would be cancelled. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text would promote transparency in Exchange rules regarding how Inside Limit Orders designated as a Limit Routable IOC Order would function on the Pillar trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(b) would set forth the Exchange's Time in Force Modifiers available in Pillar. As with Rule 7.31(b), the time-in-force modifiers would include the Day and IOC Modifiers. As noted above, at this time, the Exchange is not proposing to offer Open Modifiers (GTD or GTD) or the FOK Modifier in Pillar, and therefore these modifiers are included in proposed Rule 7.31P(b).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(b)(1) would provide that any order to buy or sell designated Day, if not traded, would expire at the end of the designated session on the day on which it was entered. This proposed text is based on current Rule 7.31(b)(1) but uses Pillar terminology and stylistic terms to reflect when the order would expire.
The Exchange proposes to describe its IOC modifiers in proposed Rule 7.31P(b)(2). As proposed, the Exchange would offer two forms of IOC modifiers on the Pillar trading platform, a Limit IOC Order, which is based on the current IOC modifier functionality and would not route, and a Limit Routable IOC Order, which is based on the current NOW Modifier and would be eligible to route.
As proposed, new Rule 7.31P(b)(2) would describe the general requirements of an IOC Modifier on the Pillar trading platform and would provide that a Limit Order designated IOC is to be traded in whole or in part as soon as such order is received, and the quantity not so traded is cancelled. Proposed Rule 7.31P(b)(2) would further provide that the IOC Modifier would override any posting or routing instructions of orders that include the IOC Modifier. This text is based on current Rule 7.31(b)(3) with non-substantive differences to use to term “traded” instead of “executed,” “quantity” instead of “portion,” and not use the term “Modifier” in the first sentence of the rule text. Proposed Rule 7.31(b)(2) would further provide that a Limit Order designated IOC would not be eligible to participate in any auctions
Proposed Rule 7.31(b)(2)(A) would set forth the definition for a Limit IOC Order, which would be a Limit Order to be traded in whole or in part as soon as such order is received without routing, and the quantity not so traded would be cancelled. This proposed rule is based on Rule 7.31(b)(3).
The Exchange proposes to add new functionality in Pillar so that a Limit IOC Order to buy (sell) may be designated with an MTS. A Limit IOC Order to buy (sell) designated with an MTS would trade against sell (buy) orders in the NYSE Arca Book that in the aggregate, meet its MTS. A Limit IOC Order with an MTS that cannot be immediately traded at its minimum size would be cancelled in its entirety. This proposed functionality is based on existing NYSE Rule 13 governing Immediate or Cancel (“IOC”) Orders, which describe an IOC-MTS Order.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(b)(2)(B) would describe the Limit Routable IOC Order, which as noted above, is intended to replace the rule text describing the NOW Modifier, with non-substantive differences. As proposed, a Limit Routable IOC Order would be a Limit Order to be traded in whole or in part as soon as the order is received, and the quantity not so traded would be routed to Away Market(s). Any quantity not immediately traded either on the NYSE Arca Marketplace or an Away Market would be cancelled. The rule would further provide that a Limit Routable IOC Order may not be designated with an MTS, which is current functionality for the NOW Modifier.
The Exchange believes proposed Rule 7.31(b)(2) would promote transparency regarding how the IOC Modifiers would function on the Pillar trading platform by defining the two available IOC modifiers—one that routes and one that does not—using Pillar terminology.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(c) would set forth the Exchange's Auction-Only Orders available in Pillar. Current Rule 7.31(c) defines an Auction-Only Order as a Limit or Market Order that is to be executed within an Auction, and if not executed in the auction in which it participates, the balance of the order is cancelled.
Current Rule 7.31(c)(1) defines a Limit-on-Open Order (“LOO Order”) as a Limit Order that is to be executed only during the Market Order Auction. Current Rule 7.31(c)(2) defines a Market-on-Open (“MOO Order”) as a Market Order that is to be executed only during the Market Order Auction. Current Rule 7.31(c)(3) defines a Limit-on-Close Order (“LOC Order”) as a Limit Order that is to be executed only during the Closing Auction. Current Rule 7.31(c)(4) defines a Market-on-Close (“MOC Order”) as a Market Order that is to be executed only during the Closing Auction.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(c) would define Auction-Only Orders in Pillar, with the following substantive differences from Rule 7.31(c):
• The Exchange would accept Auction-Only Orders in securities that are not eligible for an auction on the Exchange. Currently, the Exchange accepts Auction-Only Orders in securities that are not eligible for an auction on the Exchange only if such orders include a Primary Only Order instruction. As proposed, the Exchange would accept such orders and route them to the primary listing market without the Primary Only Order instruction.
• MOO and LOO Orders would be eligible to participate in a Trading Halt Auction.
To reflect that the Exchange would accept Auction-Only Orders in securities not eligible for an auction on the Exchange, proposed Rule 7.31P(c) would provide that an Auction-Only Order is a Limit or Market Order that is to be traded only within an auction pursuant to Rule 7.35P or routed pursuant to Rule 7.34P.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(c) would further provide that any quantity of an Auction-Only Order that is not traded in the designated auction would be cancelled. This rule text is based on current rule text, with non-substantive differences to use the terms “quantity” and “traded” instead of “balance of order” and “executed. The Exchange would not include in proposed Rule 7.31P(c) the current rule text that it would reject Auction-Only Orders if a security is suspended pursuant to Rule 7.35(g). The Exchange will be submitting a separate rule filing to adopt proposed Rule 7.35P to govern auctions in Pillar, and will address in that rule how the Exchange would handle orders if an auction were suspended.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(c)(1)-(4) would set forth LOO, MOO, LOC and MOC Orders in Pillar and are based on current Rule 7.31(c)(1)-(4) with non-substantive differences to use the terms “traded” instead of “executed” and “Core Open Auction” instead of “Market Order Auction.” The Exchange is not proposing any substantive differences for the operation of LOO, MOO, LOC or MOC Orders with respect to the Core Open Auction or Closing Auction.
The Exchange proposes substantive differences for how LOO and MOO Orders would function in Pillar. Currently, the Exchange does not accept LOO or MOO Orders for Trading Halt Auctions. In Pillar, the Exchange would accept LOO and MOO Orders for Trading Halt Auctions. Accordingly, proposed Rules 7.31P(c)(1) and (c)(2) would provide that LOO and MOO Orders are orders that are to be traded only during the Core Open Auction or a Trading Halt Auction. As further proposed, LOO and MOO Orders intended for a Trading Halt Auction would be accepted only during a trading halt.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d) would set forth the Exchange's orders that would include a conditional instruction or an undisplayed size and/or price. Proposed Rule 7.31P(d) is similar to current Rule 7.31(d) with both non-substantive and substantive differences. As noted above, because the Exchange will not be using the term “Working Order” in Pillar, the Exchange proposes to describe this category as orders with a conditional or undisplayed price and/or size, which is descriptive of the type of orders that would be included in this category.
Current Rule 7.31(d) provides for five types of Working Orders:
• Discretionary Order (Rule 7.31(d)(1));
• Reserve Order (Rule 7.31(d)(2));
• Passive Liquidity Order (Rule 7.31(d)(3));
• Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Order (Rule 7.31(d)(4)); and
• MPL Order immediate-or-cancel (Rule 7.31(d)(5)).
As discussed above, the Exchange is not proposing to offer Discretionary Orders in Pillar and therefore proposed Rule 7.31P(d) would not include Discretionary Orders. In addition, the Exchange proposes to include Tracking Orders in proposed Rule 7.31P(d) because a Tracking Order is a conditional order with an undisplayed price and size.
• Current Rule 7.31(d)(2) defines a Reserve Order as a Limit Order with a portion of the size displayed and with a reserve portion of the size (“reserve size”) that is not displayed on the Corporation. The rule further provides that the display quantity of a Reserve Order must be in round lots, a Reserve Order cannot be combined with an order type that could never be displayed on the Corporation, may not be designated IOC, and a Reserve Order shall not lock, cross, or trade-through a Protected Quotation.
• Rule 7.36(a)(1)(B) further provides that if the displayed portion of a Reserve Order is decremented such that 99 shares or fewer are displayed, the displayed portion of the Reserve Order shall be refreshed for (i) the displayed amount; or (ii) the entire reserve amount, if the remaining reserve amount is smaller than the displayed amount. Rule 7.36(a)(2)(A) provides that the reserve portion of Reserve Orders are ranked on the specified limit price and the time of original order entry and after the displayed portion of a Reserve Order is refreshed from the reserve portion, the reserve portion remains ranked based on the original time of order entry, while the displayed portion is sent to the Display Order process with a new time-stamp.
• Finally, current Rule 7.37(a)(1) provides that the size of an incoming Reserve Order includes the displayed and reserve size and the size of the portion of the Reserve Order resident in the Display Order Process is equal to its displayed size.
For Pillar, the Exchange proposes to consolidate the description of Reserve Orders into proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(1), with both substantive and non-substantive differences from current rules. The proposed substantive difference in Pillar would be that the non-display quantity of a Reserve Order would replenish the display quantity any time an execution of the displayed interest reduces the display. This proposed change is not novel and is based on how Minimum Display Reserve Orders function on NYSE.
As proposed, Rule 7.31P(d)(1) would provide that a Reserve Order is a Limit or Inside Limit Order with a quantity of the size displayed and with a reserve quantity of the size (“reserve interest”) that would not be displayed, which is based on the first sentence of current Rule 7.31(d)(2). A Reserve Order in Rule 7.31(d)(1) is defined only as a Limit Order. However, because an Inside Limit Order is a Limit Order, and a Reserve Order can currently be combined with an Inside Limit Order, the definition of a Reserve Order in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(1), includes Inside Limit Orders, is not substantively different from current Exchange rules. In addition, to reflect proposed Pillar terminology set forth in proposed Rule 7.36P and to replace text currently set forth in Rules 7.36 and 7.37, the Exchange proposes to provide that the displayed quantity of a Reserve Order would be ranked Priority 2—Display Orders and the reserve interest would be ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders. These proposed ranking priorities are the same as under current Exchange rules. Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(1) would further provide that both the display quantity and the reserve interest of an arriving marketable Reserve Order would be eligible to trade with resting interest in the NYSE Arca Book or route to Away Markets, which is current functionality set forth in Rule 7.37(a)(1), which provides that the size of an incoming Reserve Order includes the displayed and reserve size.
Consistent with Rule 7.31(d)(2), proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(1)(A) would provide that on entry, the display quantity of a Reserve order must be entered in round lots. In addition, this paragraph would also set forth the new functionality in Pillar that the displayed portion of a Reserve Order would be replenished following any execution. Further, the Exchange proposes to include in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(1)(A) that the Exchange would display the full size of the Reserve Order when the unfilled quantity is less than the minimum display size for the order. This functionality does not represent a change from current rules, which is reflected in current Rule 7.36(a)(1)(B)(ii), but with non-substantive differences to reflect proposed Pillar terminology.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(1)(B) would provide that each time a Reserve Order is replenished from reserve interest, a new working time would be assigned to the replenished quantity of the Reserve Order, while the reserve interest would retain the working time of original order entry. This proposed rule text reflects that same functionality set forth in current Rule 7.36(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2)(A), that each time reserve interest replenishes a Reserve Order, it receives a new time, while the reserve portion remains ranked based on the original order entry time. The proposed new rule text would use the new Pillar “working time” terminology proposed Rule 7.36P.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(1)(C) would provide that a Reserve Order must be designated Day and may be combined with the following orders only: Arca Only Order, Primary Pegged Order, or Q Order. Because Limit Orders, Inside Limit Orders, Arca Only Orders, Primary Pegged Orders, and Q Orders are all orders that are displayed, this proposed rule text is based on current rule text in Rule 7.31(d)(1)(2) that provides that a Reserve Order cannot be combined with an order type that could never be displayed on the Corporation.
Finally, unlike Rule 7.31(d)(2), the Exchange does not propose to include text in new Rule 7.31P(d) that a Reserve Order would not lock, cross, or trade-through a Protected Quotation. As noted above, for trading on the Pillar platform, proposed Rule 7.37P(a) would set forth the general requirements that orders not lock, cross, or trade-through Protected Quotations. Further, Reserve Orders would be Limit Orders or Inside Limit Orders and proposed Rules 7.31P(a)(2) and (a)(3) would set forth how Limit Orders and Inside Limit Orders, respectively, would be priced or routed to avoid locking, crossing or trading through the PBBO.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes that for trading on Pillar, the Passive Liquidity Order would be renamed a Limit Non-Displayed Order. Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(2) would define a Limit Non-Displayed Order as a Limit Order that would not be displayed and would not route, which is current functionality set forth in current Rule 7.31(d)(3). As described in the 2015 Order Type Filing, the reference to Inside Limit Order in Rule 7.31(d)(3) refers to the identifier associated with entering Passive Liquidity Orders. The description of how Passive Liquidity Orders operate is in Rule 7.31(d)(3).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(2) would further provide that a Limit Non-Displayed Order must be designated Day, would be valid for any trading session, and would not participate in any auctions. This proposed rule text is based on rule text in current Rule 7.31(d)(3) that provides that a Passive Liquidity Order designated IOC shall be rejected, rule text in current Rule 7.34(d)(1)(F) that provides that Limited Priced Orders are eligible for execution in the Opening Session, and rule text in current Rule 7.34(d)(3)(A) that orders eligible for the Working Order Process are eligible for execution in the Late Trading Session.
The Exchange proposes two substantive differences for how Limit Non-Displayed Orders would function in Pillar.
• First, Limit Non-Displayed Orders would be ranked together with all other orders in the same priority category, and would not be ranked behind other non-displayed interest. To reflect this proposed substantive difference, proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(2) would provide that a Limit Non-Displayed Order would be ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders, which would mean that such orders would be ranked together with all other interest in that priority category.
• Second, the Exchange would make available optional functionality for a Limit Non-Displayed Order to be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier, which would provide that an order so designated would trade with an incoming ALO Order. To reflect this proposed substantive difference, proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(2)(B) would provide that a Limit Non-Displayed Order may be designated with an optional Non-Display Remove Modifier and, if so designated, a Limit Non-Displayed Order to buy (sell) would trade as the liquidity-taking order with an incoming ALO Order to sell (buy) that has a working price equal to the working price of the Limit Non-Displayed Order. The Exchange proposes to add this functionality in Pillar to allow an ETP Holder that enters a Limit Non-Displayed Order the option to trade with an incoming ALO Order and to correlate to the proposed new functionality for ALO Orders, discussed in more detail below, which would provide that ALO Orders would not be rejected on arrival if marketable.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to use Pillar terminology in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(2)(A) to describe how Limit Non-Displayed Orders would be priced so that they would not trade at prices that would trade through the PBBO, as provided for in proposed Rule 7.37P(c)(2).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3) would define Mid-Point Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders in Pillar. The Exchange proposes a number of non-substantive differences for MPL Orders, including renaming the order type as a “Mid-Point Liquidity Order” (but still using the short-hand of “MPL Order”). This difference in names would reflect that the Exchange would not use the term “Passive Liquidity Order” in Pillar. The Exchange proposes additional non-substantive difference to set forth all functionality relating to MPL Orders, including MPL-IOC and MPL-ALO Orders, in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3), and to use proposed Pillar terminology.
The Exchange also proposes the following substantive differences for MPL Orders in Pillar:
• An arriving MPL Order could receive price improvement from resting orders in the NYSE Arca Book priced better than the midpoint of the PBBO;
• The optional MTS would be required to be of a minimum of one round lot and if an MPL Order with an optional MTS is traded in part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity of the order is less than the MTS, the order would cancel; and
• MPL-ALO Orders on arrival will trade with interest priced better than the midpoint of the PBBO.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3) would provide that an MPL Order is a Limit Order that is not displayed and does not route, with a working price at the midpoint of the PBBO. This proposed rule text is consistent with current Rules 7.31(d)(4), but uses Pillar terminology to describe at what price an MPL Order would be eligible to trade. Specifically, current Rule 7.31(d)(4) defines an MPL Order as a Limit Order priced at the midpoint of the PBBO and not displayed, and an order designated as an MPL Order does not route.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3) would further provide that an MPL Order would be ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders. This priority is the same as under current Rule 7.36, which ranks Working Orders behind orders in the Display Order Process, but uses proposed Pillar terminology to specify how an MPL Order would be ranked. In addition, proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3) would provide that MPL Orders would be valid for any session and would not participate in any auctions, which is the same as in current Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(A) would provide that an MPL Order to buy (sell) must be designated with a limit price in the MPV for the security and would be eligible to trade only if the midpoint of PBBO is at or below (above) the limit price of the order. This does not represent a change from the way MPL Orders currently operate and is consistent with the rule text in the first sentence of current Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C) that provides that an MPL Order is ranked for execution so long as the midpoint is within the limit range of the order, and rule text in current Rule 7.31(d)(3) that requires that an MPL Order be entered with a limit price.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(B) would provide that if there is no PBB, PBO, or the PBBO is locked or crossed, both an arriving and resting MPL Order would wait for a PBBO that is not locked or crossed before being eligible to trade. This represents current functionality and is based on rule text in current Rule 7.31(d)(4)(B) that provides that if the market is locked or crossed, the MPL Order will wait for the market to unlock or uncross before becoming eligible to trade again, and rule text in current Rule 7.31(d)(3) that provides that an MPL Order is priced at the midpoint of the PBBO. Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(B) would include that an MPL Order would not be eligible to trade when there is no PBB or PBO because if there is only a one-sided PBBO, there would be no midpoint and it would not be possible to trade an MPL Order at a midpoint price.
In addition, proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(B) would provide that if a resting MPL Order(s) to buy (sell) trades with an MPL Order(s) to sell (buy) after there is an unlocked or uncrossed PBBO, the MPL Order with the later working time would be the liquidity-removing order. Because the Exchange's fees vary based on whether an order is liquidity providing or liquidity removing, the Exchange believes it is important to specify which MPL Order following the unlocking or uncrossing of the PBBO would be the liquidity-taking order.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(C) would describe how MPL Orders would trade both on arrival and when resting. Unlike current Rule 7.31(d)(4)(C), which provides that MPL Orders always execute at the midpoint and do not receive price improvement, the Exchange proposes a substantive difference in Pillar to provide price improvement for arriving MPL Orders. As proposed, Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(C) would provide that on arrival, an MPL Order to buy (sell) that is eligible to trade (
The last sentence of proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(C) would provide that an incoming Limit Order may be designated with a “No Midpoint Execution” modifier, in which case the incoming Limit Order would not trade with resting MPL Orders and may trade through such MPL Orders. This proposed rule reflects the same functionality as in current Rule 7.31(d)(4)(D),
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(D) would set forth how MPL Orders with an optional MTS would function in Pillar. The new proposed rule would provide that an MPL Order may be designated with an MTS of a minimum of one round lot and would be rejected on arrival if the MTS is larger than the size of the MPL Order. The proposed
In addition, the last sentence of proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(D) to provide that if an MPL Order with an MTS is traded in part or reduced in size and the remaining quantity of the order is less than the MTS, the MPL Order would be cancelled. This would be a substantive difference from current Rule 7.31(d)(4)(A), which provides that should the leaves quantity become less than the minimum size, the minimum size restriction will no longer be enforced on executions. The Exchange is proposing that the Pillar rule be different in this regard because it would more closely align the function of an MPL Order with an MTS with the User's instruction that the trades be executed only in a minimum trade size.
The remaining text in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(D) is not substantively different from Rule 7.31(d)(4)(A). Proposed Rue 7.31P(d)(3)(D) would provide that on arrival, an MPL Order to buy (sell) with an MTS would trade with sell (buy) orders in the NYSE Arca Book that in the aggregate, meets its MTS. If the sell (buy) orders do not meet the MTS, the MPL Order to buy (sell) would not trade on arrival and would be ranked in the NYSE Arca Book. The proposed rule would further provide that once resting, an MPL Order to buy (sell) with an MTS would trade with an order to sell (buy) that meets the MTS and is priced at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO. If an order does not meet an MPL Order's MTS, the order would not trade with and may trade through such MPL Order. This proposed Pillar rule text is based on current Rule 7.31(d)(4)(A), but with non-substantive differences to use MTS terminology rather than “minimum executable size” and to describe how orders with an MTS interact with contra-side orders with more specificity.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(E) would provide that an MPL Order could be designated IOC (“MPL-IOC Order”), which is based on current rule 7.31(d)(5). As proposed, subject to IOC instructions, an MPL-IOC Order would follow the same trading and priority rules as an MPL Order, except that an MPL-IOC Order would be rejected if (i) the order entry size is less than one round lot, or (ii) there is no PBBO or the PBBO is locked or crossed. The proposed rule is the same as current Rule 7.31(d)(5) with the following non-substantive differences: To streamline the rule text; replace the term “execution” with “trading”; and add that an MPL-IOC Order would be rejected both if the PBBO is locked or crossed and if there is no PBBO, which represents current functionality set forth in current Rule 7.31(d)(5) that an MPL-IOC order is priced at the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to further add that an MPL-IOC Order cannot be designated ALO or with a Non-Display Remove Modifier, which is based on current functionality set forth in Rule 7.31(d)(5) that an MPL-IOC Order cancels if it does not trade on arrival, and therefore the ALO or Non-Display Remove Modifier would be inconsistent with the IOC instruction.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(F) would provide that an MPL Order may be designated with an ALO Modifier (“MPL-ALO Order”) and is based on current Rule 7.31(c)(4)(E), which provides for MPL-ALO Orders on the current trading platform. As discussed in greater detail below, in Pillar, the Exchange is proposing substantive differences for how Limit Orders designated ALO would operate, including that if marketable on arrival against resting contra-side non-displayed orders, they would trade with such orders if the resting order would provide price improvement over the limit price of the ALO Order. The Exchange proposes that MPL-ALO Orders in Pillar would similarly, on arrival, trade with resting orders that provide price improvement over the midpoint of the PBBO. Thus, as proposed, an MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) would trade with resting orders to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO, but would not trade with resting orders to sell (buy) priced at the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange believes that providing a trading opportunity on arrival for an MPL-ALO Order that provides price improvement over the midpoint of the PBBO would be consistent with the terms of the order because the trade(s) would be at prices better than the midpoint of the PBBO and the order would not take liquidity priced at the midpoint of the PBBO. Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(F) would further provide that a resting MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) would trade with an arriving order to sell (buy) that is eligible to trade at the midpoint of the PBBO.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(3)(G) would provide that MPL Orders designated Day and MPL-ALO Orders may be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier, which is based on current functionality set forth in current Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C), but naming this functionality in Pillar as a “Non-Display Remove Modifier.” As proposed, on arrival, an MPL Order or MPL-ALO Order to buy (sell) with a Non-Display Remove Modifier would trade with resting non-displayed MPL Orders to sell (buy) priced at the midpoint of the PBBO and be the liquidity taker, regardless of whether the resting order to sell (buy) also has a Non-Display Remove Modifier. As further proposed, a resting MPL Order or MPL-ALO Order with a Non-Display Remove Modifier would be the liquidity taker when trading with arriving MPL Orders, including MPL-ALO Orders, that do not include a Non-Display Remove Modifier. This proposed functionality is based on rule text in current Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C), which provides that a User can specify that an MPL Order or MPL-ALO Order may execute against an arriving marketable MPL-ALO Order, and as further described in the rule filing to adopt the current rule text.
In Pillar, the Exchange proposes to consolidate all functionality associated with Tracking Orders in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4). The Exchange proposes two substantive differences to functionality of Tracking Orders:
• Tracking Orders would be priced based on the PBBO instead of the NBBO; and
• STP Modifiers would be available for Tracking Orders.
To reflect the consolidation of two different rules, together with use of new Pillar terminology, the Exchange proposes all new rule text to describe Tracking Orders. Except for the two substantive differences, the proposed rule describes the same functionality as in current Rule 7.31(e)(6) and 7.37(c).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4) would define a Tracking Order as an order to buy (sell) with a limit price that is not displayed, does not route, must be entered in round lots and designated Day, and would trade only with an order to sell (buy) that is eligible to route. This proposed rule text describes the same functionality as the first sentence of current Rule 7.31(e)(6), using Pillar terminology and specifying that Tracking Orders do not route, which is consistent with how they trade
Proposed Rule 7.1P(d)(4) would further provide that the working price of a Tracking Order to buy (sell) would be the PBB (PBO), provided that such price is at or below (above) the limit price of the Tracking Order. The proposed rule describes the same functionality as the rule text in current Rule 7.31(e)(6) that “[a] Tracking Order will execute at the same price as the same-side NBBO provided that such price shall not trade-through a Protected Quotation or the price of the Tracking Order,” except that the Exchange is proposing a substantive difference that Tracking Orders would trade at prices based on the PBBO. Because Tracking Orders would trade based on the PBBO, proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4) would provide that a Tracking Order would not be eligible to trade if the PBBO is locked or crossed. The Exchange proposes not to include in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4) the text in current Rule 7.31(e)(6) that a Tracking Order would not trade-through a Protected Quotation, because this requirement would be set forth in proposed Rule 7.37P(a)(3).
As discussed in the Pillar I Filing, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the term “Tracking Order Process” in Pillar, and proposed new Rule 7.36P would describe the priority categories for orders on the Exchange.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4)(A) would further provide that a Tracking Order to buy (sell) would not trade on arrival and would be triggered to trade by an order to sell (buy) that (i) has exhausted all other interest eligible to trade at the Exchange, (ii) has a remaining quantity equal to or less than the size of a resting Tracking Order, and (iii) would otherwise route to an Away Market. The rule would further provide that a Tracking Order would trade with the entire unexecuted quantity of the contra-side order, not just the quantity being routed. The proposed rule text describes the same functionality as in current Rule 7.31(e)(6), which provides that a Tracking Order is eligible for execution in the Tracking Order Process against a contra-side order that is eligible to route pursuant to Rule 7.37(d) and is equal to or less than the size of a resting Tracking Order, and as in current Rule 7.37(c), which provides that if an order that is eligible to route to an away market has not been executed in its entirety pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 7.37, the NYSE Arca Market Place shall match and execute any remaining part of such order in the Tracking Order Process in price/time priority.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4)(B) would provide that each time a Tracking Order is traded in part, any remaining quantity of the Tracking Order would be assigned a new working time and that a Tracking Order with a later working time would trade ahead of a Tracking Order with an earlier working time that does not meet the size requirement of an incoming order. This describes the same functionality as in current Rule 7.31(e)(6), which provides that a Tracking Order is assigned a new time priority upon each reposting, but uses Pillar terminology, and in particular the term “working time,” to describe when a Tracking Order would have priority.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4)(C) would provide that a Tracking Order may be designated with an MTS of one round lot or more, which is consistent with the requirement in the first sentence of current Rule 7.31(e)(6) that Tracking Orders must be entered in round lots,
Finally, in Pillar, the Exchange would no longer ignore STP Modifiers for Tracking Orders. Accordingly, the Exchange is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4) the rule text in current Rule 7.31(e)(6) that STP Modifiers are ignored for Tracking Orders. Because Tracking Orders would not have different treatment that other orders with respect to STP Modifiers, the Exchange would not mention STP Modifiers in proposed Rule 7.31P(d)(4).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e) would set forth orders with instructions not to route and is based in part on the orders specified in current Rule 7.31(e). Current Rule 7.31(e) includes the following orders:
• Adding Liquidity Only (“ALO”) Order (Rule 7.31(e)(1));
• ISO (Rule 7.31(e)(2));
• PNP Order (Post No Preference) (Rule 7.31(e)(3));
• PNP Blind (Rule 7.31(e)(4));
• Cross Order (Rule 7.31(e)(5)); and
• Tracking Order (Rule 7.31(e)(6)).
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes that Cross Orders and Tracking Orders would be set forth elsewhere in proposed Rule 7.31P.
• Arca Only Order, which are what PNP Blind Orders would be renamed;
• ALO Orders; and
• ISO Orders.
In Pillar, the Exchange proposes a substantive difference that ALO Orders would not reject if marketable on arrival and instead would re-price and/or trade, depending on the contra-side interest.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1) would set forth Arca Only Orders in Pillar, which would function the same as PNP Blind Orders. Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1) would use Pillar terminology to describe how such orders would be priced and ranked. The Exchange also proposes a substantive difference for Arca Only Orders that would allow such orders to be designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1) would define an Arca Only Order as a Limit Order that does not route. Because the only primary order type for an Arca Only Order is a Limit Order, an Inside Limit Order cannot also be an Arca Only Order.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A) would provide that an Arca Only Order to buy (sell) that, at the time of entry and after trading with any sell (buy) orders in the NYSE Arca Book priced at or below (above) the PBO (PBB), would create a violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS
The Exchange also proposes to describe how an Arca Only Order would be re-priced by using Pillar terminology to specify the working price and display price of an Arca Only Order and refer to an Away Market PBO or PBB. The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive differences would make the rule easier to navigate of when the working price and/or display price of an Arca Only Order would change.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A)(i) would provide that on arrival and after trading with orders in the NYSE Arca Book priced below (above) the PBO (PBB), an Arca Only Order to buy (sell) would have a working price of the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market and a display price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB). The proposed assignment of a working price and display price in Pillar is how a PNP Blind Order is priced when it is first posted to the NYSE Arca Book, as described in current Rule 7.31(e)(4).
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A)(ii) would provide that if the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market re-prices higher (lower), an Arca Only Order to buy (sell) would be assigned a new working price of the updated PBO (PBB) and a new display price of one MPV below (above) that updated PBO (PBB). This proposed re-pricing is how a PNP Blind order is re-priced if the PBO (PBB) moves higher (lower), as described in the first sentence of current Rule 7.31(e)(4)(A).
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A)(iii) would provide that if the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market re-prices to be equal to or lower (higher) than the Arca Only Order's last display price, an Arca Only Order to buy (sell)'s display price would not change, but the working price would be adjusted to be equal to its display price. This re-pricing is currently how a PNP Blind order is re-priced if the PBO (PBB) moves to be equal to or lower (higher) than the last display price of a PNP Blind order to buy (sell), as set forth in the second sentence of current Rule 7.31(e)(4)(A), but using Pillar terminology to distinguish between the working and display price of the order.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A)(iv) would provide that if an Arca Only Order's limit price no longer locks or crosses the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market, an Arca Only Order to buy (sell) would be assigned a working price and display price equal to its limit price and would not be assigned a new working price or display price based on changes to the PBO (PBB). This proposed re-pricing is how a PNP Blind order is re-priced when it no longer locks or crosses the PBBO, as described in the third sentence of current Rule 7.31(e)(4)(A), but using Pillar terminology.
Rule 7.31(e)(4) provides that a PNP Blind order will retain its original limit price irrespective of the prices at which such order is priced and displayed. The Exchange does not propose to include this language in proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1) because it is proposing to define the working price and display price as terms separate from the limit price,
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(B) would provide that an Arca Only Order with a working price different from the display price would be ranked Priority 3-Non-Display Orders and an Arca Only Order with a working price equal to the display price would be ranked Priority 2-Display Orders. This proposed rule text uses Pillar terminology to describe the priority ranking of Arca Only Orders and is the same priority described in current Rule 7.31(e)(4)(B). Rule 7.31(e)(4)(B) provides that PNP Blind orders are governed by the Exchange's Display Order Process set forth in Rule 7.36 and that marketable contra orders will execute first against PNP Blind orders, only at superior prices, then the rest of the book. In addition, all PNP Blind orders that are re-priced and re-displayed will retain their priority as compared to other PNP Blind orders based upon the time such orders were initially received by the Exchange, regardless of the price of the order. Under Pillar rules, because a Priority 3—Non-Display Order that is better priced than a Priority 2—Display Order would have priority pursuant to proposed Rule 7.36P(c)-(e), the Exchange would not repeat this priority requirement in proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(B). Similarly, because Arca Only Orders would be subject to the Exchange's proposed general requirement set forth in proposed Rule 7.36P(f)(2) that an order is assigned a new working time any time the working price of an order changes, the Exchange would not repeat this requirement in proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(B).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(C) would provide that an Arca Only Order may be designated with an optional Non-Display Remove Modifier. This proposal would be new functionality available in Pillar to provide that a resting Arca Only Order that has an undisplayed working price could trade with an incoming ALO Order, and in such case, the resting Arca Only Order would be considered the liquidity-taking order and the ALO Order would be able to
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2) would define ALO Orders in Pillar. The Exchange does not propose in Rule 7.31P(e)(2) that an ALO Order would be rejected on arrival if it is marketable or if it would lock or cross the market. Rather, the Exchange proposes a substantive difference in Pillar, such that an ALO Order would re-price rather than trade with displayed liquidity or route to a protected quotation. The Exchange proposes a further substantive difference in Pillar to provide that an ALO Order could either trade with non-displayed orders or be displayed at a price that would lock contra-side non-displayed orders on the NYSE Arca Book.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2) would define an ALO Order as an Arca Only Order that, except as specified in proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(C), would not remove liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2) would further provide that upon entry, an ALO Order must have a minimum of one displayed round lot. This represents a new requirement for ALO Orders in Pillar and is based on how ALO Orders operate on the NYSE.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(A) would specify that ALO Orders may participate in auctions, but the ALO designation would be ignored and that an ALO Order that has not traded in an auction would be assigned a working price and display price, described below. In the current trading platform, an ALO Order that has been accepted and placed on the NYSE Arca Book pursuant to Rule 7.31(e)(1) is eligible to participate in an auction. Because in Pillar, the Exchange proposes a substantive difference to re-price ALO Orders, the Exchange proposes to add rule text regarding how ALO Orders would be re-priced following an auction. The proposed rule text is based on how ALO Orders operate on the NYSE.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iv) would specify how an ALO Order to buy (sell) would be re-priced if, at the time of entry, it would be marketable against the BO (BB) or would lock or cross a protected quotation in violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(B)(i) would provide that if the BO (BB) is higher (lower) than the PBO (PBB), an ALO Order to buy (sell) would have a working price of the PBO (PBB) and a display price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB). As proposed, for an ALO Order to buy, if the BO is higher than the PBO, the order would be priced the same as a straight Arca Only Order, because such order would not be marketable against the BO or route to the PBO. The proposed re-pricing would assure that the ALO Order would not lock the PBO.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(B)(ii) would provide that if the BO (BB) is equal to the PBO (PBB), an ALO Order to buy (sell) would have a working price and a display price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB). This proposed rule text reflects that an ALO Order could not trade at the contra-side BBO, nor would the Exchange assign a working price to an ALO Order that would lock the Exchange's BBO.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(B)(iii) would provide that if the PBO (PBB) re-prices higher (lower), an ALO Order to buy (sell) would be assigned a new working price and display price consistent with proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Accordingly, as the PBO moves, the re-pricing of the ALO Order would function the same as it would on arrival. Accordingly, each time the PBBO moves, the Exchange would evaluate both the BBO and the PBBO to determine which working and display price should be assigned to the ALO Order.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(B)(iv) would provide that if the PBO (PBB) re-prices lower (higher) to be equal to or lower (higher) than the ALO Order's last display price or if its limit price no longer locks or crosses the PBO (PBB), an ALO Order to buy (sell) would be priced pursuant to proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv). Accordingly, as proposed, an ALO Order would follow the re-pricing instructions of a straight Arca Only Order if the PBBO moves into the price of the order or if it is displayed at its limit price. As such, the ALO Order would not re-price but would remain at its displayed price.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(C) would provide how an ALO Order to buy (sell) would either trade with or lock orders priced below (above) the BO (BB), which, for purposes of this section of the Rule would be referred to as “non-displayed order(s).”
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(C)(i) would provide that if the limit price of an ALO Order to buy (sell) is higher (lower) than the working price of resting
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(C)(ii) would provide that if the limit price of an ALO Order to buy (sell) is equal to the working price of resting non-displayed order(s) to sell (buy), it would post to the NYSE Arca Book and would not trade with such order(s), unless such order(s) is a Limit Non-Displayed Order or Arca Only Order to sell (buy) that has been designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier. As described above, the ALO Order would be considered the liquidity-providing order when trading with an order designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(D) would provide that an ALO Order would not trigger a contra-side MPL Order to trade. This functionality is the same as current Rule 7.31(e)(1)(C), which provides that an ALO Order will ignore MPL Orders.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3) would define ISOs in Pillar. The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences to the rule text to define separately an “IOC ISO” and a “Day ISO,” each of which are existing order types. The proposed structure of the rule is based on NYSE Rule 13 governing ISOs.
As proposed, Rule 7.31P(e)(3) would define an ISO as a Limit Order that does not route and meets the requirements of Rule 600(b)(3) of Regulation NMS.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(A)(i)-(ii) would specify additional requirements related to ISOs that are based on the Regulation NMS definition of an ISO
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(B) would set forth IOC ISOs in Pillar, which would not function any differently in Pillar than they do on the current trading platform.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(C) would set forth Day ISOs in Pillar. Current Rule 7.31(e)(3) provides for ISO functionality within the definition of a PNP Order. As set forth in the second sentence of this rule, a PNP Order marked as an ISO may lock and cross and trade-through Manual and Protected Quotations, but only if the User has complied with Rule 7.37(e)(3)(C).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(D) would set forth the ALO modifier functionality for Day ISOs in Pillar, which would be defined as a “Day ISO ALO.” As provided for in Commentary .01 to Rule 7.31, a PNP ISO may be combined with an ALO Order, and if so designated, pursuant to Commentary .02 to Rule 7.31, such order would reject on arrival if marketable against orders on the
The Exchange proposes substantive differences for a Day ISO ALO in Pillar to provide that such order would not be rejected if marketable against orders on the NYSE Arca Book and would instead re-price, consistent with how the proposed ALO Order would function in Pillar. The Exchange proposes an additional substantive difference to require that a Day ISO ALO be entered with a minimum of one displayed round lot. This requirement is consistent with the Exchange's proposed functionality for ALO Orders generally, which, as proposed in Rule 7.31P(e)(2), must be entered with a minimum of one displayed round lot.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(D) would further provide how a Day ISO ALO would operate on arrival, which, consistent with an ALO Order in Pillar, would not trade with the contra-side BBO, but consistent with the Day ISO instruction, could trade through or lock or cross a protected quotation.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(D)(i) would provide that on arrival, a Day ISO ALO to buy (sell) would be assigned a working price and display price one MPV below (above) the BO (BB) and would trade with non-displayed order(s) pursuant to proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(2)(C). This pricing on arrival is consistent with how a non-ISO ALO Order in Pillar would be priced on arrival and how it would interact with non-displayed orders. Accordingly, a Day ISO ALO to buy would trade similarly to a non-ISO ALO order with respect to sell orders priced below the BO, including Arca Only Orders or Limit Non-Displayed Orders designated with a Non-Display Remove Modifier.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(D)(ii) would provide that after being displayed, a Day ISO ALO to buy (sell) would be re-priced and re-displayed based on changes to the PBO (PBB) consistent with proposed Rules 7.31P(e)(2)(B)(iii)-(iv). This proposed rule text would therefore provide that after its initial posting on the NYSE Arca Book, which may trade through or lock or cross a protected quotation, any further re-pricing of the order would not trade-through or lock or cross protected quotations. Therefore, a Day ISO ALO would, if required to re-price, function as if it were a regular ALO Order.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(f) would set forth the orders with specific routing instructions and includes the same orders that are set forth in current Rule 7.31(f), which include Primary Only (“PO”) Orders (Rule 7.31(f)(1)), Primary Until 9:45 Orders (Rule 7.31(f)(2)), and Primary After 3:55 Orders (Rule 7.31(f)(3)). The Exchange proposes substantive differences for when the Exchange would accept Primary Only Orders, which order instructions would be required to be included on a Primary Only Order, and to provide for Primary Only Orders that may be designated as a Reserve Order.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1) would define Primary Only Orders in Pillar. As currently set forth in Rule 7.31(f)(1), a Primary Only Order in Pillar would be a Market or Limit Order that on arrival is routed directly to the primary listing market without being assigned a working time or interacting with interest on the NYSE Arca Book. The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences in proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1) to use the term “primary listing market” instead of “primary market” and to provide greater specificity that a Primary Only Order would not be assigned a working time. The proposed rule would further provide that a Primary Only Order must be designated for the Core Trading Session, which is based on current Rule 7.31(f)(1), which provides that Primary Only Orders may be entered at any time or until a cut-off time as determined from time to time by the Corporation, which currently, is the end of the Core Trading Session.
The rule would further provide that the primary listing market would validate whether the order is eligible to be accepted by that market and if the primary listing market rejects the order, the order would be cancelled. This requirement would be a substantive difference from Rule 7.31(f)(1)(A), which requires a PO Order entered for participation in the primary market opening to be entered before 6:28 a.m. (Pacific Time). Instead, in Pillar, the Exchange would accept such an order and route it directly to the primary listing market without validating whether the primary listing market is accepting orders.
The Exchange proposes substantive differences to the operation of Primary Only Orders in Pillar to eliminate the requirement that PO Orders be entered at specific times or that PO Orders that are intended to remain on the primary listing market after an opening auction must include a PO+ modifier. Accordingly, rule text set forth in current Rules 7.31(f)(1)(A)-(C), which describes these requirements, would not be included in new Rule 7.31P(f)(1). The Exchange also proposes a substantive difference to provide that specified Primary Only Orders would be eligible to be designated as a Reserve Order.
The Exchange also proposes non-substantive differences to the rule text in order to streamline the rule by defining three forms of Primary Only Orders, which would be the order instructions that would be required to be included when entering a Primary Only Order in Pillar. Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1)(A)-(C) would set forth the different types of order instructions that would be available for Primary Only Orders, with non-substantive differences to rename the order types to
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1)(A) would provide for the Primary Only MOO/LOO Order, which would be a Primary Only Order designated for participation in the primary listing market's opening or re-opening process as a MOO or LOO Order. This represents functionality set forth in current Rule 7.31(f)(1)(A) and (B) that a PO Order may be entered for participation in the primary market opening or re-opening, with a non-substantive difference to rename this as a “Primary Only MOO/LOO Order.” As further proposed, once routed, the Primary Only MOO or LOO Order would follow the rules of the primary listing market regarding how such orders would participate in the respective auction.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1)(B) would provide for a Primary Only Day/IOC Order, which would be a Primary Only Order designated Day or IOC. A Primary Only Order designated Day would be similar to the current PO+ modifier set forth in current Rule 7.31(f)(1)(C), which provides that a PO Order entered for participation in the primary market, other than for participation in the primary market opening or primary market re-opening, must be marked with the modifier PO+. As with current functionality, a Primary Only Day Order entered before 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time would be eligible to participate in an opening auction consistent with the rules of the respective primary listing market. A Primary Only Day Order entered after the primary listing market opens would be used for participation in continuous trading on the primary listing market, similar to a PO+ Order that would be entered after the primary listing market opens. Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1)(B) would further provide that a Primary Only Day Order may be designated as a Reserve Order. The proposal to allow Primary Only Day Orders to be designated as a Reserve Order is a substantive difference from current Rule 7.31(f)(1), which prohibits Primary Only Orders from being designated as Reserve Orders. If designated as a Reserve Order, the Primary Only Day Order would follow the Reserve Order functionality of the primary listing market to which it is routed.
As under the current rule for Primary Only Orders, the default in proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1)(B) would be to route the order as a non-routable order type, and it would remain on the Away Market until executed or cancelled. The Exchange would continue to offer that for NYSE- and NYSE MKT-listed securities, a Primary Only Day/IOC Order could be sent as a routable order, in which case the order would remain at the NYSE or NYSE MKT until executed, routed away, or cancelled. This treatment of Primary Only Orders in NYSE- and NYSE MKT-listed securities is the same as set forth in the fourth through seventh sentences of current Rule 7.31(f)(1),
Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(1)(C) would provide for a Primary Only MOC/LOC Order, which would be a Primary Only Order designated for participation in the primary listing market's closing process as a MOC or LOC Order. This functionality is based on the second paragraph of current Rule 7.31(f)(1), which describes that PO Orders may be designated as MOC or LOC, and specifically provides for how PO Orders that are designated MOC or LOC in NYSE- and NYSE MKT-listed securities operate.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(2) would set forth the Primary Until 9:45 Order in Pillar. The Exchange does not propose any substantive differences to how this order would function in Pillar, but proposes non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology. As proposed, a Primary Until 9:45 Order would be a Limit or Inside Limit Order that, on arrival and until 9:45 a.m. Eastern, routes to the primary listing market.
The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences to use the term “primary listing market” instead of “primary market” and eliminate references to Pacific Time. In addition, the Exchange is not proposing that GTC or GTD time in force modifiers would be offered in Pillar, therefore, the Exchange would not refer to those modifiers in the proposed Pillar rule.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(f)(3) would set forth the Primary After 3:55 Order in Pillar. The Exchange does not propose any substantive differences to how this order would function in Pillar, but proposes non-substantive differences to
The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences to use the term “primary listing market” instead of “primary market,” eliminate references to Pacific Time, and refer to the order being “routed to” the primary listing market rather than being “entered for participation on” the primary market.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(g) would set forth Cross Orders in Pillar. Current Rule 7.31(e)(5) provides for Cross Orders within the group of orders with instructions not to route. Because the Exchange is proposing a substantive difference in Pillar to provide for a Cross Order that would trade with displayed interest either on the NYSE Arca Book or Away Markets before trading at the cross price, the Exchange proposes to create a separate category in new Rule 7.31P for Cross Orders, which would define Cross Orders generally and then define separately the two forms of proposed Cross Orders.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(g) would define Cross Orders in Pillar as a two-sided order with instructions to match the identified buy-side with the identified sell-side at a specified price (the “cross price”). This text is based on current Rule 7.31(e)(5) without any differences. The rule would further provide that a Cross Order would not be eligible to participate in any auctions, and if it arrives during auction processing, it would be cancelled. This represents current functionality, and is consistent with the terms of a Cross Order, which is a Limit Order designated IOC, because orders designated IOC do not participate in auctions at the Exchange.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(g)(1) would set forth the definition for a Limit IOC Cross Order, which is a Cross Order that must trade in full at its cross price, would not route and would cancel at the time of order entry if the cross price is not between the BBO or if it would trade through the PBBO. This proposed rule text is based on the same functionality that is currently described as the requirement that the cross price not be marketable against the BBO (current Rule 7.31(e)(5)(A)) and the requirement that the cross price would not trade through the PBBO (current Rule 7.31(e)(5)(B)).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(g)(2) would set forth the definition for a Limit IOC Routable Cross Order, which would be a new order type offered in Pillar. As proposed, a Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would be a Cross Order that trades at its cross price only after trading with or routing to displayed interest on the NYSE Arca Book or Away Markets.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(g)(2)(A) would further provide that on arrival, if the buy (sell) side of a Limit IOC Routable Cross Order is marketable against sell (buy) orders ranked Priority 1—Market Orders and/or Priority 2—Display Orders on the NYSE Arca Book or displayed sell (buy) interest on Away Markets, including the PBO (PBB), the buy (sell) side of the order would trade with or route to such interest and the remaining quantity would trade at the cross price. The rule would further provide that a Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would route to prices higher (lower) than the PBO (PBB) only after trading with contra-side interest on the NYSE Arca Book at each price point. This proposed text is consistent with proposed Rule 7.37P(b), which provides that an order that is eligible to route would not route until after being matched for execution with contra-side orders in the NYSE Arca Book.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(g)(2)(B) would provide that the quantity of the Limit IOC Routable Cross Order that does not trade at the cross price or with contra-side interest on the NYSE Arca Book, or that is returned unfilled from an Away Market, would be cancelled. The Exchange believes that this proposed provision is consistent with the operation of an order designated IOC and would provide the entering ETP Holder with certainty regarding how much of the Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would be traded at the cross price.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(g)(2)(C) would provide that a Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would not trade with resting orders ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders or Priority 4—Tracking Orders. By not trading with such orders, a Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would skip orders in these priorities at each price point. This proposed rule text complements proposed Rule 7.31P(g)(2)(A), discussed above, that an incoming Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would only trade with resting orders ranked Priority 1 or 2 and provides clarity regarding which orders would not be eligible to trade with an incoming Limit IOC Routable Cross Order, and therefore could be traded through. The Exchange believes that an ETP Holder entering a Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would be seeking certainty regarding how much of the proposed Cross Order would trade at the cross price and would be able to view whether there is any displayed interest, including odd lot orders, on NYSE Arca Book via the Exchange's proprietary data feeds. By limiting the interaction of Limit IOC Routable Cross Orders with such displayed orders, the Exchange would be providing the entering firm with greater control and certainty of the prices at which the Limit IOC Routable Cross Order would trade. The Exchange also proposes that Limit IOC Routable Cross Orders would trade with resting Market Orders because such orders would be ranked higher than displayed orders, even though they would not be displayed.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(h) would set forth Pegged Orders. As noted above, Pegged Orders currently are included in the category “Additional Order Instructions and Modifiers” in current Rule 7.31(g)(1), which include Market Pegged Orders (Rule 7.31(g)(1)(A)) and Primary Pegged Orders (Rule 7.31(g)(1)(B)). The Exchange proposes to create a separate category in proposed Rule 7.31P(h) to set forth Pegged Orders.
Current Rule 7.31(g)(1) provides that a Pegged Order is a Limit Order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a display price set to track the current bid or ask of the NBBO in an amount specified by the User. Rule 7.31(g)(1)(A) provides that a Market Pegged Order is
Proposed Rule 7.31P(h) would define Pegged Orders in Pillar, with the following substantive differences:
• Both Primary and Market Pegged Orders would peg to the PBBO instead of the NBBO.
• Both Primary and Market Pegged Orders would be cancelled when resting if there is no side of the PBBO to which they are to peg.
• Pegged Orders would be required to include a limit price and if the limit price is outside of the PBBO, the Pegged Order would have a working price of the limit price instead of the PBBO.
• Market Pegged Orders would not be displayed. As a result, Market Pegged Orders would no longer require an offset value, but could include an offset value. In addition, because there would be no display quantity, Market Pegged Orders may not also be a Reserve Order. Finally, as an undisplayed order, Market Pegged Orders would function similarly to MPL Orders when the PBBO is locked or crossed and would not receive a new working price or be eligible to trade until there is a PBBO that is not locked or crossed.
• Primary Pegged Orders would be required to be entered with a minimum of one round lot displayed, would be eligible to participate in auctions at their limit price, and could not include an offset value. As a displayed order, when the PBBO is locked or crossed, a Primary Pegged Order would remain displayed at its prior displayed price and would not be assigned a working price based on the locked or crossed PBBO, and would remain eligible to trade at its prior displayed price.
• During a Sell Short Period, Pegged Orders would not be rejected or cancelled.
The Exchange also proposes non-substantive differences to how Pegged Orders would be set forth in proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(1)-(2) to use Pillar terms.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(h) would define a Pegged Order as a Limit Order that does not route with a working price that is pegged to a dynamic reference price. This proposed rule text is based on the first sentence of current Rule 7.31(g)(1) with the following substantive differences:
• The Exchange would not include in proposed Rule 7.31P(h) the following text from Rule 7.31(g)(1) defining a Pegged Order as “[a] Limit Order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a display price set to track the current bid or ask of the NBBO in an amount specified by the User.” This rule text, while referring to a Limit Order, specifies different behavior from a Limit Order because it requires a stated amount for the order, but with respect to price, only says that a Pegged Order has a display price that tracks the NBBO in an amount specified by the User. In Pillar, the Exchange would require a limit price to be included with a Pegged Order, and therefore, the Exchange proposes to not include this rule text, and instead would refer only to a Pegged Order as being a Limit Order. Because the definition of a Limit Order defines that the order specify a stated amount and price, referencing a Limit Order in the Pillar definition, without restating requirements relating to price or size of the order for Pegged Orders, would mean that all requirements of a Limit Order, including a limit price, would be applicable to Pegged Orders.
• The Exchange proposes to use the term “dynamic reference price” in proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(1) instead of NBBO, as used in Rule 7.31(g)(1), because the Exchange would specify the relevant reference price for each type of Pegged Order in the sub-paragraphs to the rule.
The second sentence of proposed Rule 7.31P(h) would provide that if the designated reference price is higher (lower) than the limit price of a Pegged Order to buy (sell), the working price would be the limit price of the order. The Exchange proposes to include this requirement in Pillar because Pegged Orders would be required to have a limit price, and thus would have a ceiling or floor past which such an order could not peg. For example, if a Pegged Order to buy has a limit price of $10.00, and the designated reference price is $10.01, the Pegged Order would be assigned a working price of $10.00, and therefore be eligible to trade, at its limit price,
Proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(1) would define Market Pegged Orders in Pillar. As proposed, a Market Pegged Order would be a Pegged Order to buy (sell) with a working price that is pegged to the PBO (PBB). This rule text represents current functionality that a Market Pegged Order pegs to the contra-side reference price, but with the substantive difference from Rule 7.31(g)(1)(A) that the reference price would be the PBBO instead of the NBBO. The Exchange also proposes non-substantive differences to streamline the rule text and use Pillar terminology.
The second sentence of proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(1) would provide that a Market Pegged Order to buy (sell) would be rejected on arrival, or cancelled when resting, if there is no PBO (PBB) against which to peg. This proposed text is based on the third to last sentence of Rule 7.31(g)(1), which provides that if an NBBO does not exist at the time of entry, a Pegged Order shall be rejected, with a proposed substantive difference in Pillar to use the PBBO instead of the NBBO as the reference price. For example, a Market Pegged Order to buy (sell) would not be rejected if there is a PBO but no PBB. The Exchange is also proposing a substantive difference from current rules to provide that the Exchange would cancel resting Market Pegged Orders if the reference price against which it pegs no longer exists. The Exchange believes that if there is no reference price against which to peg, a Pegged Order is not operational, and thus the proposal to cancel such Market Pegged Order is appropriate and consistent with the current and proposed functionality to reject an incoming Pegged Order when there is no price against which to peg. Finally, the Exchange is proposing that Market Pegged Orders in Pillar would not participate in any auctions, which is current functionality for Pegged Orders.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(1)(A) would set forth the substantive difference in Pillar that Market Pegged Orders would not displayed, which is consistent with how Market Pegged Orders function on other exchanges.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(1)(B) would specify in Pillar how a Market Pegged Order would function when the PBBO is locked or crossed, which would be new functionality in Pillar. As proposed, if the PBBO is locked or crossed, both an arriving and resting Market Pegged Order would wait for a PBBO that is not locked or crossed before the working price would be adjusted and the order would become eligible to trade. This proposed functionality is based on how MPL Orders would operate in Pillar.
• Proposed Rule 7.31(h)(1)(C) would set forth the substantive difference in Pillar of that offset values could be used with Market Pegged Orders, but would not be required, and thus differs from current Rule 7.31(g)(1)(A). As proposed, a Market Pegged Order to buy (sell) may include an offset value that would set the working price below (above) the PBO (PBB) by the specified offset, which may be specified up to two decimals. The proposed offset value is based on current Rule 7.31(g)(1) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(2) would define Primary Pegged Orders in Pillar. As proposed, a Primary Pegged Order would be a Pegged Order to buy (sell) with a working price that is pegged to the PBB (PBO), with no offset allowed. This rule text represents current functionality that Primary Pegged Orders peg to the same-side reference price, but with substantive differences from Rule 7.31(g)(1)(B) that the reference price would be the PBBO instead of the NBBO and no offset values would be permitted for Primary Pegged Orders.
The second sentence of proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(2) would provide that a Primary Pegged Order to buy (sell) would be rejected on arrival, or cancelled when resting, if there is no PBB (PBO) against which to peg. This proposed text is based on the third to last sentence of Rule 7.31(g)(1), which provides that if an NBBO does not exist at the time of entry, a Pegged Order shall be rejected, with a proposed substantive difference in Pillar to use the PBBO instead of the NBBO as the reference price. The Exchange is also proposing a substantive difference from current rules to provide that the Exchange would cancel resting Primary Pegged Orders if the reference price against which it pegs no longer exists. The Exchange believes that if there is no reference price against which to peg, a Pegged Order is not operational, and thus the proposal to cancel such Primary Pegged Order is appropriate and consistent with the current and proposed functionality to reject an incoming Pegged Order when there is no price against which to peg. Finally, the rule would provide that a Primary Pegged Order would be eligible to participate in auctions at the limit price of the order, which would be new in Pillar.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(2)(A) would set forth the requirement that a Primary Pegged Order must include a minimum of one round lot displayed. This would be new functionality in Pillar and is consistent with the proposed substantive difference in Pillar that a Primary Pegged Order may be combined with a Reserve Order.
• Proposed Rule 7.31P(h)(2)(B) would provide that a Primary Pegged Order would be rejected if the PBBO is locked or crossed, which would be new functionality in Pillar. The Exchange proposes that Primary Pegged Orders would operate differently from Market Pegged Orders in Pillar because Primary Pegged Orders would be required to have a display quantity, but would not route. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to reject a Primary Pegged Order rather than display it at a locking or crossing price. By contrast, because Market Pegged Orders would not be displayed, the Exchange would accept such order if the PBBO is locked or crossed, but it would not be priced or eligible to trade until there is a PBBO that is no longer locked or crossed.
The rule would further provide that if after arrival, the PBBO becomes locked or crossed, the Primary Pegged Order would wait for a PBBO that is not locked or crossed before the working price would be adjusted, but would remain eligible to trade at its current working price. This proposed rule text uses Pillar terminology to describe how a previously-displayed Limit Order may remain displayed if an Away Market locks or crosses the PBBO and would remain eligible to trade at its last display price. To avoid displaying a Primary Pegged Order at a price that would lock or cross the PBBO, the Exchange would wait for a PBBO that is not locked or crossed before assigning a new working price and display price to such order.
The proposed Pillar rule would not include rule text from Rule 7.31(g)(1) relating to Discretionary Orders because the Exchange will not be offering Discretionary Orders in Pillar. In addition, the Exchange proposes to address in proposed Rule 7.34P which sessions a Pegged Order would not be able to participate, and would not include in proposed Rule 7.31P(h) rule text from Rule 7.31(g)(1) that provides that Pegged Orders may only be entered during the Core Trading Session.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(i) would set forth the Exchange's Additional Order Instructions and Modifiers, and is similar to current Rule 7.31(g). Rule 7.31(g) currently provides for:
• Pegged Orders (Rule 7.31(g)(1));
• Proactive if Locked Modifier (Rule 7.31(g)(2));
• Do Not Reduce Modifier (Rule 7.31(g)(3));
• Do Not Increase Modifier (Rule 7.31(g)(4)); and
• Self-Trade Prevention (“STP”) Modifier (Rule 7.31(g)(5).
As discussed above, Pegged Orders would have a separate category in proposed Rule 7.31P, and therefore would not be included in proposed Rule 7.31P(i). In addition, because the Exchange is not proposing to offer Open Modifiers at this time in Pillar, the Do Not Reduce and Do Not Increase Modifiers would not be included in proposed Rule 7.31P(i). Accordingly, proposed Rule 7.31P(i) would include only the Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier and STP Modifiers.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(i)(1) would define the Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier in Pillar, with the following non-substantive differences from current Rule 7.31(g)(2):
• Because this modifier would result in a resting order routing when an Away Market either locks or crosses the display price, the Exchange proposes to rename this modifier as the “Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier.” The current rule specifies that this functionality is available for when another market has locked the price of the order. Because the purpose of this modifier is to prevent a resting displayed order from being locked by another market, and the same rationale supports preventing a resting displayed order from being crossed by another market, when designated with a Proactive if Locked Modifier, an order that has been crossed by another market also routes.
• The Exchange proposes to streamline the rule text relating to this modifier in order to use proposed Pillar terms,
• Because the Exchange would not be monitoring whether the locking market has resolved the locked market in a timely manner, and would instead route an order with this modifier immediately upon being locked or crossed, the Exchange would not include in proposed Rule 7.31P(i)(1) the text in Rule 7.31(g)(2) that the order would be routed only if another market center has locked the order and not resolved the lock in a timely manner based upon average response times.
• The Exchange proposes to specify that this modifier is available for any Limit Order or Inside Limit Order that is displayed and eligible to route. The Exchange proposes to add in proposed Rule 7.31P(i)(1) that this modifier is available for Inside Limit Orders because the functionality is currently available for all Limit Orders that are routable, which include Inside Limit Orders. The Exchange believes this proposed text would provide clarity that Inside Limit Orders may be designated with a Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier.
• The Exchange would not include text from current Rule 7.31(g)(1) that provides that the Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier will apply only to exchange-listed securities because the Exchange only trades securities listed on an exchange, and thus this is unnecessary rule text.
Accordingly, as proposed, Rule 7.31P(i)(1) would provide that a Limit Order or Inside Limit Order that is displayed and eligible to route and designated with a Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier would route to an Away Market if the Away Market locks or crosses the display price of the order. The rule would further provide that if any quantity of the routed order returns unexecuted, the order would be displayed in the NYSE Arca Book. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text provides greater specificity regarding which orders may include a Proactive if Locked/Crossed Modifier and if so designated, how the modifier would function. Because this modifier would be available for all securities that trade on the Exchange, the Exchange would not include in proposed Rule 7.31P(i)(1) text from the last sentence of Rule 7.31(g)(2).
• Current Rule 7.31(g)(5)(A) sets forth the STP Cancel Newest (“STPN”) modifier. Any order marked with the STPN modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any of the STP modifiers from the same ETP ID. The incoming order marked with the STPN modifier will be cancelled back to the originating ETP Holder. The resting order marked with one of the STP modifiers will remain on the NYSE Arca Book.
• Current Rule 7.31(g)(5)(B) sets forth the STP Cancel Oldest (“STPO”) modifier. Any order marked with the STPO modifier will not execute against opposite resting interest marked with any of the STP modifiers from the same ETP ID. The resting order marked with the STP modifier will be cancelled back to the originating ETP Holder. The incoming order marked with the STPO modifier will remain on the NYSE Arca Book.
• Current Rule 7.31(g)(5)(C) sets forth the STP Decrement and Cancel (“STPD”) modifier. Any incoming order marked with the STPD modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any of the STP modifiers from the same ETP ID. If both orders are equivalent in size, both orders will be cancelled back to the originating ETP Holders. If the orders are not equivalent in size, the equivalent size will be cancelled back to the originating ETP Holders and the larger order will be decremented by the size of the smaller order with the balance remaining on the NYSE Arca Book.
• Current Rule 7.31(g)(5)(D) sets forth the STP Cancel Both (“STPC”) modifier. Any incoming order marked with the STPD modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any of the STP modifiers from the same ETP ID. The entire size of both orders will be cancelled back to the originating ETP Holder.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(i)(2)(A)-(D) would set forth STP modifiers for Pillar, including STPN, STPO, STPD, and STPC, which would function the same in Pillar as under current Rule 7.31(g)(5)(A)-(D). Accordingly, the Exchange is not proposing any substantive differences to proposed Rule 7.31P(i)(2) as compared to Rule 7.31(g)(5). The Exchange proposes the following non-substantive differences for Rule 7.31P(i)(2)(A)-(D):
• To replace the term “execute against” with the term “trade with”;
• To replace references to “opposite side resting interest” and instead describe the STP modifiers by referring to an incoming order to buy (sell) that would not trade with resting interest to sell (buy) marked with an STP modifier from the same ETP ID;
• To change the term “ETP Holders” to “ETP Holder” in the singular in proposed Rule 7.31P(i)(2)(C), which is based on Rule 7.31(g)(5)(C),because matching STP modifiers would come from a single ETP Holder; and
• In the last sentence of new Rule 7.31P(i)(2), to end after the term “auctions,” which would begin with a
Proposed Rule 7.31P(j) would set forth Q Orders in Pillar. Current Rule 7.31(h) defines a Q Order as a Limit Order submitted to the NYSE Arca Marketplace by a Market Maker, and designated by a Market Maker as a “Q Order” through such means as the Corporation shall specify. Current Rule 7.34(b) sets forth Market Makers obligations to enter Q Orders in securities in which they are registered in accordance with Rule 7.23, beginning at the start of the Core Trading Session or at such earlier time during the Opening Session as determined from time to time by the Corporation, and continuing until the end of the Core Trading Session.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(j) would define Q Orders in Pillar and would be based on Rule 7.31(h) and Rule 7.34(b). Rule 7.31P(j) would provide that a Q Order is a Limit Order submitted to the NYSE Arca Marketplace by a Market Maker, and designated by a Market Maker as a “Q Order” through such means as the Corporation would specify. This rule text is based on current Rule 7.31(h), with non-substantive differences to use the term “will” instead of “shall.” Current Rule 7.31(h) provides that Market Makers may enter Q Orders. The Exchange is proposing to specify in proposed Rule 7.31P(j) that the Exchange would reject a Q Order entered by an ETP Holder that is not registered in the security as a Market Maker.
The Exchange is not proposing at this time to offer Auto Q Order functionality. Accordingly, the rule text regarding the function of an Auto Q Order, which is in current Rules 7.31(h)(1) and (h)(2) would not be included in proposed Rule 7.31P(j).
Proposed Rule 7.31P(j)(1) would provide that a Q Order must have a minimum of one round lot displayed on entry, must be designated Day, and would not route. Current Rule 7.31(h)(3) and (4) similarly include requirements that Q Orders do not route and will be rejected if in odd-lot size. In Pillar, rather than state that the order would be rejected if odd-lot sized, the Exchange proposes to state instead that a Q Order must have a minimum of one round lot displayed. The Exchange is also proposing to add to the rule text in Pillar that Q Orders must be designated Day.
The proposed rule would further provide that a Q Order to buy (sell) would be rejected if it has a limit price at or above (below) the PBO (PBB). This proposed rule text is based on current Rule 7.31(h)(4), which provides that Q Orders that are marketable on arrival are rejected.
The proposed rule would also provide that a Q Order to buy (sell) would be rejected if it is designated as an Arca Only Order, ALO Order, or ISO. Current Rule 7.31(h)(4) similarly provides that Q Orders designated as ISO are rejected, and the Exchange proposes to add in Pillar that a Q Order would be rejected if combined with an Arca Only Order or an ALO Order.
The Exchange does not propose to include in new Rule 7.31P(j) rule text from current Rule 7.31(h)(3), which provides that Q Orders will not lock, cross, or trade-through protected quotations, because proposed Rule 7.37P(a) would set forth these requirements.
Proposed Rule 7.31P(j)(2) would provide that Q Orders are only eligible to participate in the Core Trading Session. This is current functionality as described in the first sentence of current Rule 7.34(b)(1), which states that Q Orders may be entered beginning at the start of the Core Trading Session or at such earlier time during the Opening Session as determined from time to time by the Corporation, and continuing until the end of the Core Trading Session. The Pillar rule would use new, simplified rule text without any substantive differences. Proposed Rule 7.31P(j)(2) would further provide that Market Makers must enter Q Orders in securities in which they are registered in accordance with Rule 7.23, beginning at the start of the Core Trading Session and continuing until the end of the Core Trading Session, and Market Makers would not be obligated to enter Q Orders in securities in which they are registered during the Early or Late Trading Sessions. This proposed rule text is based on current Rule 7.34(b)(1) with non-substantive differences to specify which trading sessions a Market Maker would not be obligated to enter Q Orders rather than stating that the Corporation would determine the time for entry of Q Orders.
Finally, proposed Rule 7.31P(j)(2) would provide that nothing in Rule 7.31P would be construed to relieve a Market Maker of any of its obligations pursuant to Rule 7.23, which is the same requirement as under current Rule 7.31(h)(5).
Current Rule 7.31 includes Commentary .01 and .02. Commentary .01 to Rule 7.31 provides that Users may combine order types and modifiers, unless the terms of the proposed combination are inconsistent. Commentary .02 to Rule 7.31 provides that if two order types are combined that include instructions both for the operation on arrival and for how the order operates while resting on the Exchange's book, the instructions governing functionality while incoming will be operative upon arrival. The Commentary further provides that functionality governing how the order operates while resting on the Exchange's book will govern any remaining balance of the order that is not executed on arrival.
Proposed Rule 7.31P would similarly include Commentary .01 and .02 and the proposed text for these Commentaries would be based on current Rule 7.31 Commentaries without any substantive differences. The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference for proposed Commentary .02 to use the term “NYSE Arca Book” instead of “Exchange's book.” The Exchange proposes to
Rule 7.44 sets forth the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (“RLP” or “Program”). The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 7.44P to provide for the Program in Pillar. The Exchange proposes a substantive difference for the Program to provide that a Retail Order may not be designated with a No Midpoint Execution modifier. The Exchange also proposes a substantive difference regarding the priority and allocation of orders in the Program to align it with the priority and allocation of orders outside of the Program, and therefore provide that odd-lot orders ranked Priority 2—Display Orders would have priority over orders ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders, and Limit Non-Displayed Orders would no longer be ranked behind other non-display orders.
Proposed Rules 7.44P(a)(1)-(3), 7.44P(b), 7.44P(c), 7.44P(d), 7.44P(e), 7.44P(f), 7.44P(g), 7.44(h), 7.44P(i), and 7.44P(j) would be based on current Rules 7.44(a)(1)-(3), 7.44(b), 7.44(c), 7.44(d), 7.44(e), 7.44(f), 7.44(g), 7.44(h), 7.44(i), and 7.44(j), respectively, with minor non-substantive differences to replace the term “shall” with “will” and update internal cross-references to the Pillar rule. The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive difference for proposed Rule 7.44P(i)(2), which is based on current Rule 7.44(i)(2), to reference the “Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer,” rather than the “NYSE's Chief Regulatory Officer,” and to use the phrase “two qualified Exchange employees,” instead of “officers of the Exchange designated by the Co-Head of U.S. Listings and Cash Execution.” The Exchange proposes not to include specific titles, other than Chief Regulatory Officer, in Pillar rules because the Exchange has restructured and no longer has a position referred to as a Co-Head of U.S. Listings and Cash Execution. In addition, as a result of the restructuring, the title of “officer” is no longer used by employees who were previously designated for this role. The Exchange believes that the term “qualified Exchange employees” would provide the Exchange with discretion to delegate this responsibility to appropriate Exchange staff.
Proposed Rule 7.44P(a)(4) would provide for the same functionality as Rule 7.44(a)(4), with a non-substantive difference to use sub-paragraph numbering. As proposed, new Rule 7.44P(a)(4) would provide that an RPI would be non-displayed interest in NYSE Arca-listed securities and UTP Securities, excluding NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities, that would trade at prices better than the PBB or PBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such. This rule text is based on the first sentence of current Rule 7.44(a)(4), with non-substantive differences to use the terms PBB and PBO and delete the reference to Regulation NMS definition as redundant of the definition of PBB/PBO in Rule 1.1(dd). The Exchange also proposes to replace the term “is priced better than” the PBB or PBO to “would trade at prices better than” the PBB or PBO. Because RPI interest does not need to be priced better than the PBB or PBO on arrival, but could trade in sub-penny increments, the Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive difference describes how RPIs would operate in Pillar.
Proposed Rule 7.44P(4)(A) would provide that an RPI would remain non-displayed in its entirety and would be ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders. This proposed rule text is based on the fifth sentence of current Rule 7.44(a)(4), which provides that an RPI remains non-displayed in its entirety, but uses Pillar terminology to describe the priority category to which RPIs would belong.
Proposed Rule 7.44P(a)(4)(B) would provide that Exchange systems would monitor whether RPI buy or sell interest would be eligible to trade with incoming Retail Orders. As with current functionality, an RPI would only be eligible to trade if it is priced between the PBBO. If it is priced at or outside the PBBO, the RPI would not be eligible to trade with an incoming Retail Order. Accordingly, the proposed rule would provide that an RPI to buy (sell) with a limit price at or below (above) the PBB (PBO) or at or above (below) the PBO (PBB) would not be eligible to trade with incoming Retail Orders to sell (buy), and such an RPI would cancel if a Retail Order to sell (buy) trades with all displayed liquidity at the PBB (PBO) and then attempts to trade with the RPI. If not cancelled, an RPI to buy (sell) with a limit price that is no longer at or below (above) the PBB (PBO) or at or above (below) the PBO (PBB) would again be eligible to trade with incoming Retail Orders. This rule text is based on the second through fourth sentences of current Rule 7.44(a)(4) with non-substantive differences to use the term “eligible to trade” instead of “eligible to interact,” and replace references to “priced inferior to” the PBBO with references to buy (sell) orders and the PBO (PBB), as appropriate.
Proposed Rule 7.44P(a)(4)(C) would provide that, for securities to which it is assigned, an RLP may only enter an RPI in its RLP capacity, and that an RLP would be permitted, but not required, to submit RPIs for securities to which it is not assigned, and would be treated as a non-RLP ETP Holder for those particular securities. Additionally, the rule would provide that ETP Holders other than RLPs would be permitted, but not required, to submit RPIs. This proposed rule text is based on the sixth through eighth sentences of current Rule 7.44(a)(4) without any substantive differences.
Proposed Rule 7.44P(a)(4)(D) would provide that an RPI may be an odd lot, round lot, or mixed lot and must be designated as either a Limit Non-Displayed Order or MPL Order, and an order so designated would interact with incoming Retail Orders only and would not interact with either a Type 2—Retail Order Day or Type 2—Retail Order Market that is resting on the NYSE Arca Book. These requirements are the same as under the ninth and tenth sentences of current Rule 7.44(a)(4) with a non-substantive difference to reference a Limit Non-Displayed Order instead of a PL Order. The Exchange also proposes to provide greater specificity regarding the circumstances in which an RPI would not interact with a Retail Order. As with current functionality, specified Retail Orders, after trading on arrival with resting contra-side RPIs, convert to regular Market or Limit Orders. Once converted, such Market or Limit Orders would no longer be eligible to trade with RPIs. The Exchange proposes to include this detail in Rule 7.44P(a)(4)(D) to provide greater clarity regarding when an RPI would be eligible to trade.
Current Rule 7.44(k)(2) sets forth three different “Type 2” designated Retail Orders, which may be marked as Immediate or Cancel, Day, or Market. Current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(A) provides that a Type 2-designated Retail Order marked as Immediate or Cancel is a limit order that will interact first with available contra-side Retail Price Improvement Orders and all other non-displayed liquidity and displayable odd lot interest priced better than the PBBO on the opposite side of the Retail Order, excluding contra-side Retail Orders. Any remaining portion of the Retail Order will interact with the NYSE Arca Book at prices equal to or better than the PBBO and will be executed as a limit order marked as IOC, pursuant to Rule 7.31(e)(2) and such a Retail Order will not trade through Protected Quotations and will not route.
Current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(B) provides that a Type 2-designated Retail Order marked as Day is a limit order that will interact first with available contra-side Retail Price Improvement Orders and all other non-displayed liquidity and displayable odd lot interest priced better than the PBBO on the opposite side of the Retail Order, excluding contra-side Retail Orders. Any remaining portion of the Retail Order will interact with the NYSE Arca Book and will route to Protected Quotations and any unfilled balance of such an order will post to the NYSE Arca Book.
Current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(C) provides that a Type 2-designated Retail Order marked as Market will interact first with available contra-side Retail Price Improvement Orders and all other nondisplayed liquidity and displayable odd lot interest priced better than the PBBO on the opposite side of the Retail Order, excluding contra-side Retail Orders and any remaining portion of the Retail Order will function as a Market Order.
Proposed Rule 7.44P(k), which is based on current Rule 7.44(k), would define the different types of Retail Orders under the Program in Pillar and how each Retail Order would trade with available contra-side interest. To reflect the proposed substantive difference in Pillar that Retail Orders may not be designated with a “No Midpoint Execution” Modifier, the Exchange is proposing to include in proposed Rule 7.44P(k) that a Retail Order may not be designated with a “No Midpoint Execution Modifier.”
Proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(1) would provide that a Type 1—Retail Order to buy (sell) would be a Limit IOC Order that would trade only with available Retail Price Improvement Orders to sell (buy) and all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the PBO (PBB) on the NYSE Arca Book and would not route. The rule would further provide that the quantity of a Type 1—Retail Order to buy (sell) that does not trade with eligible orders to sell (buy) would be immediately and automatically cancelled and a Type 1-designated Retail Order would be rejected on arrival if the PBBO is locked or crossed.
The proposed rule text is based on current Rule 7.31(k)(1), but with the following non-substantive differences:
• To use the term “trade” instead of “interact”;
• To refer to contra-side orders with a working price inside the PBBO, rather than specific order types (
• To refer to a Retail Order to buy (sell) and how it relates to orders priced off of the PBO (PBB), rather than referring to “inferior priced” or “contra-side” PBBO;
• To not include current rule text that a Retail Order does not trade with contra-side Retail Orders priced better than the contra-side PBBO. As with current functionality, in Pillar, there would be no opportunity for two Retail Orders to trade because buy and sell Retail Orders that are marketable against one another and received at the same time would be processed one at a time and would not be matched for execution. Because this is standard order processing,
• To not include in proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(1) that a Retail Order does not trade through Protected Quotations because by definition this order would only trade with interest inside the PBBO.
Proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(2) would specify the Exchange's Type 2—Retail Orders. The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference to use Pillar terminology to provide that a Type 2—Retail Order may be a Limit Order designated IOC or Day or a Market Order, instead of the text in current Rule 7.44(k)(2), which provides that a Type 2—Retail Order may be marked as Immediate or Cancel, Day, or Market. This proposed difference is consistent with how orders would be defined in proposed Rule 7.31P(a).
The Type 2—Retail Orders in Pillar would be:
• Proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(2)(A) would describe the Type 2—Retail Order IOC and is the same order type as that described in current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(A). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference in Pillar to refer to this order as a Type 2—Retail Order IOC and define it as a Limit Order that would trade first with available Retail Price Improvement Orders to sell (buy) and all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the PBO (PBB) on the NYSE Arca Book. Any remaining quantity of the Retail Order would trade with orders to sell (buy) on the NYSE Arca Book at prices equal to or above (below) the PBO (PBB) and would be traded as a Limit IOC Order and would not route. The first sentence of proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(2)(A) would be similar to the first sentence of proposed rule 7.44P(k)(1), discussed above, by describing the contra-side orders with which it could trade based on their working price. The second sentence of proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(2)(A) would specify, without any differences from current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(A), how the order would function after trading with non-displayed interest. The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences to
• Proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(2)(B) would describe the Type 2—Retail Order Day and is the same order type as that described in current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(B). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference in Pillar to refer to this order as a Type 2—Retail Order Day and define it as a Limit Order that would trade first with available Retail Price Improvement Orders to sell (buy) and all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the PBO (PBB) on the NYSE Arca Book. This rule text is the same as the rule text proposed for Rules 7.44P(k)(1) and (k)(2)(A). The rule would further provide that any remaining quantity of the Retail Order, if marketable, would trade with orders to sell (buy) on the NYSE Arca Book or route, and if non-marketable, would be ranked in the NYSE Arca Book as a Limit Order. This text is based on current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(B), but with more specificity that this type of Retail Order, once no longer marketable, is ranked on the NYSE Arca Book as a Limit Order and is no longer eligible to operate as a Retail Order.
• Proposed Rule 7.44P(k)(2)(C) would describe the Type 2-Retail Order Market and is the same order type as that described in current Rule 7.44(k)(2)(C). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive difference to refer to this order as a Type 2—Retail Order Market and define it as a Market Order that would trade first with available Retail Price Improvement Orders to sell (buy) and all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the NBO (NBB). The rule would further provide that any remaining quantity of the Retail Order would function as a Market Order.
The Exchange proposes a substantive difference to the rule text, but not functionality, of a Type 2—Retail Order Market to provide that on arrival, a Retail Order to buy (sell) would trade with available RPIs to sell (buy) priced below (above) the NBO (NBB) rather than the PBBO. This is consistent with how Market Orders function currently, and as proposed in Pillar.
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes substantive differences to the priority and allocation of RPIs in the Program. The proposed differences would align the priority and allocation in the Program with the priority and allocation of orders outside of the Program. Currently, in the Program, odd lot orders are ranked together with RPIs and PL Orders (now Limit Non-Displayed Orders), and PL Orders are be ranked behind all other non-displayed orders. In Pillar, the Exchange is proposing that all orders in the Program would be ranked based on their priority category, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.36P, and would not have different ranking in the Program. Accordingly, Rule 7.44P(l) would provide that Retail Price Improvement Orders in the same security would be ranked together with all other interest ranked as Priority 3—Non-Display Orders. To reflect that odd lot orders would no longer be treated differently in the Program, the rule would further provide that odd-lot orders ranked as Priority 2—Display Orders would have priority over orders ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders at each price. The Exchange believes that the proposed substantive difference to the priority and allocation of orders in the Program would reduce potential confusion because the Program would no longer have different priority and allocation rules than orders outside the Program.
The last two sentences of proposed Rule 7.44P(l) would provide that any remaining unexecuted RPI interest would remain available to trade with other incoming Retail Orders and any remaining unfilled quantity of the Retail Order would cancel, execute, or post to the NYSE Arca Book in accordance with Rule 7.44P(k). This proposed text is the same as current rule text in Rule 7.44(l).
The remaining paragraphs of section (l) of Rule 7.44 set forth examples of priority and allocation in the Program. The Exchange would include these examples in proposed Rule 7.44P(l) with both substantive and non-substantive differences. The substantive difference would be to revise the example that includes odd lot orders in order for the example to track the how priority and allocation in the Program would operate in Pillar.
As proposed, the fourth example in proposed Rule 7.44P(l) would reflect how odd-lot orders would be ranked in RLP allocations in Pillar. As proposed, the original assumption would be:
The fourth example in proposed Rule 7.44P(l) would assume these facts, except that LMT 1 would enter a displayed odd lot limit order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 60. The incoming Retail Order to sell for 1,000 would trade first with RLP 3's bid for 500 at $10.03, because it is the best-priced bid, then with LMT 1's bid for 60 at $10.02 because it is the next best-priced bid and is ranked Priority 2—Display Orders and would have priority over same-priced RPIs. The incoming Retail Order would then trade 440 shares with RLP 2's bid for 500 at $10.02 because it would be the next priority category at that price, at which point the entire size of the Retail Order to sell 1,000 would be depleted. The balance of RLP 2's bid would remain on the NYSE Arca Book and be eligible to trade with the next incoming Retail Order to sell.
The Exchange proposes non-substantive differences to the other examples in proposed Rule 7.44P(l) to use the term “trade with” instead of “execute against,” to use the proposed Pillar defined terms for different types of Retail Orders, and replace the phrase “nondisplayed liquidity,” with “non-displayed orders and odd-lot orders.”
Proposed Rule 7.44P(m) would set forth the pilot program for the RLP Program in Pillar, and is based on current Rule 7.44(m) with both substantive and non-substantive differences. The proposed substantive difference would be to accept RPIs before the start of Core Trading Hours. The Exchange proposes this difference for Pillar in order for ETP Holders to enter RPIs before the Core Trading Session, thereby building a book of RPIs that would be available to provide price improvement once the Exchange begins accepting Retail Orders.
For non-substantive differences, the Exchange proposes to use the term “NYSE Arca Book,” which is a defined term, instead of term “the Exchange's regular order book.” In addition, rather than specify that the Exchange would wait for an official opening price for a security to be disseminated before accepting Retail Orders and RPIs, the Exchange proposes to accept such orders during Core Trading Hours, which is defined as between 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and correlates to the Core Trading Session.
As discussed above and in the Pillar I Filing, because of the technology changes associated with the migration to the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update when rules with a “P” modifier will become operative and for which symbols. The Exchange believes that keeping existing rules pending the full migration of Pillar will reduce confusion because it will ensure that the rules governing trading on the current trading platform will continue to be available pending the full migration.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
More specifically, the proposed use of new Pillar terminology would promote consistency in the Exchange's rulebook regarding how orders would be priced, ranked, traded, or routed in Pillar. In addition, the use of Pillar terminology, such as display price, limit price, working price, working time, and the priority categories proposed in Rule 7.36P, would promote transparency in Exchange rules regarding how orders and modifiers would function in Pillar. For example, the proposed use of Pillar terminology for Market Orders, Limit Orders, Inside Limit Orders, Limit Non-Displayed Limit Orders, Arca Only Orders, and ALO Orders, would promote consistency by using common terms to describe how such orders would be priced, ranked, traded, and or routed consistent with the general requirements set forth in proposed Rule 7.37P(a) that such orders not trade-through the PBBO or lock or cross protected quotations. Similarly, the proposed use of Pillar terminology would promote consistency by using common terms to describe how ISO Orders would be priced consistent with Regulation NMS. More generally, the use of Pillar terminology for all order types would promote consistency in terminology throughout Pillar rules.
With respect to proposed Rule 7.31P, the Exchange believes that the proposed substantive differences to functionality being proposed for Pillar would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and orderly market for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
With respect to proposed Rule 7.44P, similar to proposed rule 7.31P, the proposed non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and order market because the proposed differences would promote transparency through the use of consistent terminology in Pillar rules. The proposed substantive difference to the priority and allocation of orders that trade against Retail Orders in proposed Rule 7.44P(l) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and orderly market because it would align the priority and allocation of orders in the Program with the priority and allocation of orders outside of the Program. This proposed substantive difference would therefore promote transparency in Exchange rules and reduce potential confusion because the Program would no longer operate differently from the priority and allocation of orders outside the Program. The proposed substantive difference for proposed Rule 7.44P(m), to accept RPIs before the Core Trading Session begins, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism and a free and open market by allowing the entry of RPIs to build a book of liquidity that would be available to provide price improvement to incoming Retail Orders as soon as the Core Trading Session begins.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather to adopt new rules to support the Exchange's new Pillar trading platform. As discussed in detail above, the Exchange proposes to adopt rules for Pillar relating to orders and modifiers and the Retail Liquidity Program, which would be based on current rules, with both substantive and non-substantive differences. The proposed substantive differences proposed for these rules as compared to the current rules would promote competition because the Exchange would be offering order type functionality that is already available on other markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
| 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 |