| Page Range | 48235-48421 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 48386 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48317 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48419 - Enhanced-Use Lease of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Real Property for the Development of a Housing Facility on One Parcel of Land Totaling Approximately 5.4 Acres of Land in Grand Island, Nebraska | |
| 80 FR 48334 - Invasive Species Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 48343 - In the Matter of All Power Reactor Licensees Owned and Operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Entergy Operations, Inc.; and Entergy Nuclear Generation Company | |
| 80 FR 48350 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 | |
| 80 FR 48351 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; McGuire Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 | |
| 80 FR 48317 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 48304 - Tests Determined To Be Suitable for Use in the National Reporting System for Adult Education | |
| 80 FR 48249 - Basis in Interests in Tax-Exempt Trusts | |
| 80 FR 48292 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 48341 - Nixon Presidential Historical Materials; Opening of Materials | |
| 80 FR 48235 - Environmental Impacts of Severe Reactor and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents | |
| 80 FR 48316 - Workshop To Review Initial Draft Materials for the Nitrogen Oxides (NOX | |
| 80 FR 48255 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina; Certain Visibility Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Standards | |
| 80 FR 48281 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina; Certain Visibility Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Standards | |
| 80 FR 48321 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48301 - Air University Board of Visitors Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48242 - Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420, HondaJet; Ventilation Requirements in High Altitude Operations | |
| 80 FR 48389 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification of Repair Stations | |
| 80 FR 48392 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: QSA Customer Feedback Report | |
| 80 FR 48390 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Procedures for Non-Federal Navigation Facilities | |
| 80 FR 48392 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aviation Medical Examiner Program | |
| 80 FR 48391 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Training and Qualification Requirements for Check Airmen and Flight Instructors | |
| 80 FR 48389 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Application for Certificate of Waiver or Authorization | |
| 80 FR 48306 - Nominations to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 48390 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag and Supplemental Operations | |
| 80 FR 48391 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Hazardous Materials Training Requirements | |
| 80 FR 48248 - Revised Listings for Growth Disorders and Weight Loss in Children; Correcting Amendments | |
| 80 FR 48315 - Environmental Quality Issues and Pesticides Operations and Management State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48244 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 9 | |
| 80 FR 48285 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 15 | |
| 80 FR 48292 - Notice of Change to Announcement of Requirements and Registration for the U.S. Tall Wood Building Prize Competition | |
| 80 FR 48317 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 48320 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48332 - Announcement of National Geospatial Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48252 - Safety Zone; TriMet Tilikum Crossing Bridge Fireworks Display, Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
| 80 FR 48299 - Programmatic Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of Take Authorizations in Cook Inlet, Alaska | |
| 80 FR 48351 - Interim Staff Guidance on Changes During Construction | |
| 80 FR 48306 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs; Open Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48353 - In the Matter of Bradley D. Bastow, D. O. | |
| 80 FR 48342 - Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion); North Anna Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
| 80 FR 48277 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Regulatory Amendment 22 | |
| 80 FR 48301 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48298 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48299 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48326 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 48408 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Ford Motor Company Application for an Exemption | |
| 80 FR 48336 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 48318 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 48417 - Request for Public Comment on the Process for Transferring my | |
| 80 FR 48406 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 80 FR 48394 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 48396 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 80 FR 48289 - Request for Information: SNAP and WIC Seeking Input Regarding Procurement and Implementation of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Services; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 48393 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 80 FR 48402 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 48336 - Notice of Public Meeting, Pecos District Resource Advisory Council Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concern Livestock Grazing Subcommittee, New Mexico | |
| 80 FR 48404 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 48339 - Comment Request for Information Collection for Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX), Extension Without Revisions | |
| 80 FR 48338 - Notice of a Public Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship (ACA) | |
| 80 FR 48339 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Roof Control Plans for Underground Coal Mines | |
| 80 FR 48335 - Notice of Public Meeting, Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho | |
| 80 FR 48327 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 48327 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48328 - San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache, CO; Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 80 FR 48413 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 48411 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 48409 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 48331 - Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group; Teleconference | |
| 80 FR 48254 - Loan Guaranty: Adjustable Rate Mortgage Notification Requirements and Look-Back Period | |
| 80 FR 48302 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2016-2017 Federal Student Aid Application | |
| 80 FR 48348 - Fitness-for-Duty Programs for New Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites | |
| 80 FR 48282 - NASA FAR Supplement: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting | |
| 80 FR 48420 - Loan Guaranty: Maximum Allowable Attorney Fees | |
| 80 FR 48251 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Trent River, New Bern, NC | |
| 80 FR 48296 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar | |
| 80 FR 48325 - Generic Drug User Fees; Stakeholder Meetings on Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 Reauthorization; Request for Notification of Stakeholder Intent To Participate; Extension of Closing Date | |
| 80 FR 48385 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Correct Inconsistent Provisions Regarding the Risk Management Subcommittee | |
| 80 FR 48376 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 2272 To Govern Sales or Offers of Sales of Securities on the Premises of Any Military Installation to Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or Their Dependents | |
| 80 FR 48371 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Disapproving a Proposed Rule Change To Modify ISE's Opening Process | |
| 80 FR 48382 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Fee Schedule | |
| 80 FR 48375 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Implement CHX SNAPSM | |
| 80 FR 48379 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rules Regarding Temporary and Permanent Cease and Desist Orders | |
| 80 FR 48355 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Proposed New Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors, and Proposed Amendments to Rule G-8, on Books and Records To Be Made by Brokers, Dealers, Municipal Securities Dealers, and Municipal Advisors | |
| 80 FR 48369 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy | |
| 80 FR 48365 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Amend Its Rules Related to Equipment and Communication on the Exchange's Trading Floor | |
| 80 FR 48287 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure | |
| 80 FR 48334 - Proposed Renewal of Information Collection: OMB Control Number 1093-0005, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act, Statement of Federal Lands Payments, (43 CFR 44) | |
| 80 FR 48336 - Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan; Notice of Commission Determinations to Conduct Full Five-Year Reviews | |
| 80 FR 48415 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 48268 - Closed-Circuit Escape Respirators; Extension of Transition Period | |
| 80 FR 48340 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Training Plans, New Miner Training, Newly Hired Experienced Miner Training | |
| 80 FR 48288 - National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods | |
| 80 FR 48282 - Head Start Performance Standards; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 48386 - Determination Regarding Waiver of Discriminatory Purchasing Requirements With Respect to Goods and Services of New Zealand | |
| 80 FR 48387 - Request for Public Comments on the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act and the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act: Report to Congress | |
| 80 FR 48295 - Government Use of Standards for Security and Conformance Requirements for Cryptographic Algorithm and Cryptographic Module Testing and Validation Programs | |
| 80 FR 48296 - External RNA Controls Consortium-Call for Participation and Contributions to a Sequence Library | |
| 80 FR 48322 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration | |
| 80 FR 48324 - Guidance for Entities Considering Whether To Register as Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 80 FR 48272 - National Institutes of Health Undergraduate Scholarship Program Regarding Professions Needed by National Research Institutes | |
| 80 FR 48327 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 48349 - Information Collection: NRC Form 664, “General Licensee Registration” | |
| 80 FR 48262 - Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Definitions of Low Pressure Gas Well and Storage Vessel | |
| 80 FR 48333 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 48325 - Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48259 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Miscellaneous Changes | |
| 80 FR 48280 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Miscellaneous Changes | |
| 80 FR 48386 - Commission Meeting | |
| 80 FR 48280 - Gathering of Certain Plants or Plant Parts by Federally Recognized Indian Tribes for Traditional Purposes-Reopening of Public Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 48337 - Hewlett Packard Company, et al. Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 80 FR 48293 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 48287 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection for Export Certificate Request Forms |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; denial.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying 15 petitions for rulemaking submitted by the petitioners identified in the table in Section IV, “Availability of Documents.” The petitioners requested that the NRC rescind its regulations that “reach generic conclusions about the environmental impacts of severe reactor and/or spent fuel pool accidents and therefore prohibit considerations of those impacts in reactor licensing proceedings.”
The dockets for petitions for rulemaking (PRM) PRM-51-14, PRM-51-15, PRM-51-16, PRM-51-17, PRM-51-18, PRM-51-19, PRM-51-20, PRM-51-21, PRM-51-22, PRM-51-23, PRM-51-24, PRM-51-25, PRM-51-26, PRM-51-27, and PRM-51-28 are closed on August 12, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0189 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for any of these petitions. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jennifer Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2328; email:
The 15 petitions were filed in August 2011 in response to the publication of the NRC's Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) report, “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century, NTTF Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,” dated July 12, 2011. The NTTF report provided the NRC staff's recommendations to enhance U.S. nuclear power plant safety following the March 11, 2011, Fukushima accident in Japan. Based upon their interpretation of the NTTF report, the petitioners requested that the NRC rescind all regulations in part 51 of Title 10 of the
The NTTF report, the 15 petitions, along with their NRC assigned docket numbers, and other pertinent documents are listed in Section IV, “Availability of Documents,” of this document. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the petitions in the
Under NEPA, the NRC must consider the environmental impacts of a major
Under the NRC's current regulatory framework in 10 CFR part 51 for evaluating the potential environmental impacts of renewing a nuclear power reactor's operating license for an additional 20 years, neither the applicant's environmental report nor the NRC's SEIS are required to address issues previously determined to be generic, as addressed in the GEIS, absent new and significant information. The findings of the GEIS are codified in Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 (Table B-1).
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.335(a),
In Table B-1, the “Severe accidents” issue has been classified as a Category 2, or site-specific, issue with an impact level finding of “small.”
The Table B-1 “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” issue has been classified as a Category 1, or generic, issue also with an impact level finding of “small” since Table B-1's inception in 1996. The “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” finding states that: The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants. For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and as stated in § 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this issue.
The 2013 amendments to the Table B-1 “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” finding were made to comport with the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in
Following the March 11, 2011, Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, the Commission directed the NRC staff to establish a task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of NRC processes and regulations to determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system and to make recommendations to the Commission for its policy direction.
The NTTF report provided various NRC staff recommendations to the Commission concerning the enhancement of reactor safety and a general implementation strategy, which included several proposals for new regulatory requirements. Recognizing that rulemaking and subsequent implementation would take several years to accomplish, the NTTF also recommended interim actions necessary to enhance reactor protection, severe reactor accident mitigation, and emergency preparedness while rulemaking activities were conducted.
The NRC staff further refined the NTTF recommendations in SECY-11-0124, “Recommended Actions to be Taken Without Delay from the Near-Term Task Force Report,” and SECY-11-0137, “Prioritization of Recommended Actions to be Taken in Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned,” both of which described the NRC staff's recommendations for enhancing reactor safety and the priority for implementing those recommendations. Based on those recommendations, the NRC has issued orders and initiated rulemaking activities to enhance the safety of reactors as a result of lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident. The petitioners contend that the recommendations of the NTTF report provide the justification for their request that the NRC rescind regulations in 10 CFR part 51 to the extent that they reach generic conclusions with respect to potential environmental impacts of severe reactor and spent fuel pool accidents and that preclude consideration of those conclusions in individual license renewal proceedings. Specifically, the petitions request that the NRC amend the following regulations: 10 CFR 51.45, 10 CFR 51.53, 10 CFR 51.95, and Table B-1.
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.45, sets forth the general requirements for an environmental report, which the NRC defines as a document submitted to the Commission by an applicant for a permit, license, or other form of permission, or an amendment to or renewal of a permit, license or other form of permission, in order to aid the Commission in complying with Section 102(2) of NEPA.
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.53(c), describes the applicant's preparation of an environmental report for the renewal of a nuclear power plant's operating license. Paragraph 51.53(c)(3)(i) states that the environmental report is not required to include analyses of the potential environmental impacts identified as Category 1 issues in Table B-1. Paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(A)-(P) of 10 CFR 51.53, describe the requirement to conduct environmental impact analyses for those Category 2 issues in Table B-1 that must be addressed on a site-specific basis by the license renewal applicant in its environmental report. In addition, paragraph 51.53(c)(3)(iv), requires the environmental report to include any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware.
The NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95, describes the preparation of a post-construction environmental impact statement by the NRC, such as at the license renewal stage. Both 10 CFR 51.53 and 10 CFR 51.95 were among the regulations amended by the NRC to reflect the June 2013 update to the GEIS.
Several of the petitions were filed in relation to new reactor licensing proceedings, as opposed to proceedings concerning the renewal of an existing nuclear power plant's operating license. The petitions filed for combined license (COL) actions are: PRM-51-14, -51-17, -51-18, -51-21, -51-23, -51-24, -51-25, -51-27, and -51-28; PRM-51-16 was filed for an operating license (OL) action. The generic findings to which the petitioners object concern only license renewal actions conducted pursuant to 10 CFR part 54. Specifically, the NRC's 10 CFR part 51 regulations that reach generic conclusions regarding severe accident or spent fuel storage issues in Table B-1 do not apply to new reactor applications made under the provisions of 10 CFR part 52 for either an early site permit (ESP) or a COL, or to a construction permit (CP) or OL application (
The petitioners assert that the lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi event, as documented in the recommendations of the NTTF report, provide “new and significant” information that would affect the NRC's analysis of severe reactor and spent fuel pool accidents when considering whether to renew a nuclear power plant's operating license for an additional 20 years in accordance with the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 54,
Under NEPA case law, the standard for considering whether information is “new and significant” is that it must present “a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the proposed project from what was previously envisioned.”
The NTTF report recommendations do not challenge the generic determinations in Table B-1. The NTTF report did not explicitly consider the complex analysis underlying the determinations in Table B-1, did not recommend changing the generic determinations in Table B-1 regarding severe reactor and spent fuel pool accidents, and did not make any recommendations relating to nuclear power plant license renewals. Any NRC regulatory action that has been taken or could have been taken as a result of the information presented in the NTTF report would not have been deferred to the license renewal stage; any such action would have been taken as part of the NRC's ongoing safety program.
First, the petitioners requested that the NRC rescind all of its regulations that reach generic conclusions about the environmental impacts of severe reactor accidents. As set forth in both Table B-1 and 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), “Severe accidents” is listed as a Category 2 or site-specific issue, rather than a generic issue because the Commission determined the agency should consider severe accident mitigation measures on a site-specific basis for those reactors for which the agency had not previously performed a similar analysis. However, as noted above, the Commission has confirmed that because the agency made a generic determination regarding severe accident impacts in the GEIS that is codified in Table B-1, the impacts portion of the issue has been resolved by rule.
When the NRC promulgated the license renewal rule and the severe accidents finding in Table B-1 in 1996, the NRC conducted a detailed analysis in the GEIS to determine that the probability weighted environmental impacts of severe accidents are small. The Commission summarized this analysis in the associated
The GEIS provides an analysis of the consequences of severe accidents for each site in the country. The analysis adopts standard assumptions about each site for parameters such as evacuation speeds and distances traveled, and uses site-specific estimates for parameters such as population distribution and meteorological conditions. These latter two factors were used to evaluate the exposure indices for these analyses. The methods used result in predictions of risk that are adequate to illustrate the general magnitude and types of risks that may occur from reactor accidents. Regarding site-evacuation risk, the radiological risk to persons as they evacuate is taken into account within the individual plant risk assessments that form the basis for the GEIS. In addition, 10 CFR part 50 requires that licensees maintain up-to-date emergency plans. This requirement will apply in the license renewal term as well as in the current licensing term.
As was done in the GEIS analysis, the use of generic source terms (one set for PWRs and another for BWRs) is consistent with the past practice that has been used and accepted by the NRC for individual plant Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEISs). The purpose of the source term discussion in the GEIS is to describe whether or not new information on source terms developed after the completion of the most recent FEISs indicates that the source terms used in the past under-predict environmental consequences. The NRC has concluded that analysis of the new source term information developed over the past 10 years indicates that the expected frequency and amounts of radioactive release under severe accident conditions are less than that predicted using the generic source terms. A summary of the evolution of this research is provided in NUREG-1150, “Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants” (December 1990), and its supporting documentation. Thus, the analyses performed for the GEIS represent adequate, plant-specific estimates of the impacts from severe accidents that would generally over-predict, rather than under-predict, environmental consequences. Therefore, the GEIS analysis of the impacts of severe accidents for license renewal is retained and is considered applicable to all plants.
The petitions for rulemaking and supporting affidavit do not challenge with any specificity the analyses underlying the 1996 GEIS. The NTTF report, upon which the petitioners' rely, largely described the accident sequence at Fukushima, considered the NRC's current regulatory framework, and recommended areas for improvement. Indeed, the NTTF report concluded that a sequence of events like the Fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the United States and, therefore, ongoing power reactor operations and related licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. As a result, on their face, the
The petitioners largely focus their arguments on a claim that currently operating reactors will need to undertake expensive improvements to comply with the NRC's post-Fukushima requirements and that the agency's environmental review must account for these costs. But these arguments reflect a misunderstanding of our regulatory process. As stated in the 2013 GEIS:
As of the publication date of [the 2013] GEIS, the NRC's evaluation of the consequences of the Fukushima events is ongoing. As such, the NRC will continue to evaluate the need to make improvements to existing regulatory requirements based on the task force report and additional studies and analyses of the Fukushima events as more information is learned.
The NRC continues to address severe accident-related issues in the day to day regulatory oversight of nuclear power plant licensees. The NRC's regulatory efforts have reduced severe accident risks beyond what was considered in the 1996 and 2013 GEIS. In some cases, such as the NRC's response to the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi, these regulatory activities are ongoing. The NRC will continue to evaluate the need to make improvements to existing regulatory requirements as more information is learned.
Last, the petitioners contend that the NTTF report provides new and significant information that warrants rescinding the NRC's regulations codifying the GEIS' generic environmental determinations of the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the period of license renewal. The evaluation of the environmental impacts of the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the license renewal term, including potential spent fuel pool accidents, was documented in the 1996 GEIS and reaffirmed in the 2013 GEIS. The NRC found that the probability of a fuel cladding fire is low even in the event of a “worst probable cause of a loss of spent-fuel pool coolant (a severe seismic-generated accident causing a catastrophic failure of the pool).”
Moreover, the NRC has thoroughly considered the question of spent fuel pool accidents before and after promulgating the 1996 GEIS, and these studies have consistently found that the probability of a spent fuel pool fire is low. Spent fuel pools are large, robust structures that contain thousands of gallons of water. Spent fuel pools have thick, reinforced, concrete walls and floors lined with welded, stainless-steel plates. After removal from the reactor, spent fuel assemblies are placed into these pools and stored under at least 20 feet of water, which provides adequate shielding from radiation. Redundant monitoring, cooling, and make-up water systems are part of the spent fuel pool system. Spent fuel pools at operating U.S. nuclear power plants were designed and licensed to maintain a large inventory of water to protect and cool spent fuel under normal and accident conditions, including earthquakes. Domestic and international operational experience and past NRC studies (
The accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan also led to additional questions about the safe storage of spent fuel and whether the NRC should require the expedited transfer of spent fuel from spent fuel pools to dry cask storage at nuclear power plants in the United States. This issue was identified by NRC staff subsequent to the NTTF report along with the understanding that further study was needed to determine if regulatory action was warranted. Consequently, a regulatory analysis was conducted on the expedited transfer of spent fuel from pools to dry cask storage. The results of this analysis were provided to the Commission in COMSECY-13-0030, “Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel,” dated November 12, 2013. The Commission subsequently concluded that regulatory action need not be pursued in SRM-COMSECY-13-0030, issued on May 23, 2014. Nothing that the petitioners provided in these petitions invalidates this conclusion.
On August 26, 2014, the Commission approved the “continued storage” final rule and its associated generic environmental impact statement amending 10 CFR part 51 to revise the generic determination on the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for operation of a reactor. The continued storage GEIS
For the reasons described in Section II of this document, the NRC has concluded that there is no basis to rescind the NRC's generic conclusions in Table B-1 concerning the environmental impacts of the “Severe accidents” and “Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” issues nor to amend any other NRC regulation. Therefore, the NRC is denying the petitions in accordance with 10 CFR 2.803.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated. For more information on accessing ADAMS, see the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with high altitude operations above 41,000 feet. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is August 12, 2015.
We must receive your comments by September 11, 2015
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2903 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Leslie B. Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 329-4134; facsimile (816) 329-4090.
The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type certificate for their new model HA-420. On October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification basis to amendment 23-62.
The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines.
This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with high altitude operations above 41,000 feet. During the development of the supersonic transport special conditions, it was noted that certain pressurization
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendment 23-0 through amendment 23-62 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the HA-420, must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Will operate at altitudes above 41,000 feet where the ventilation requirements in § 23.831, amendment 23-62, are inadequate above that altitude.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
In addition to the requirements of § 23.831(c) through (d), amendment 23-62, the applicant must design the cabin cooling system to meet the following conditions during flight above 15,000 feet mean sea level:
a. After any probable failure, the cabin temperature-time history may not exceed the values shown in figure 1.
b. After any improbable failure, the cabin temperature-time history may not exceed the values shown in figure 2.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is implementing regulations consistent with Framework Adjustment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. This action will further enhance catch monitoring and address discarding catch before it has been sampled by observers (known as slippage) in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Framework 9 implements slippage consequence measures, and a requirement that slippage events be reported via the vessel monitoring system. For allowable slippage events, due to safety, mechanical failure, or excess catch of spiny dogfish, vessels must move 15 nm (27.8 km) from the location of the slippage event. For non-allowable slippage events, due to reasons other than those listed previously, vessels must terminate their fishing trip. Slippage events have the potential to substantially affect analysis or extrapolations of incidental catch, including river herring and shad, and these measures are designed to address this issue.
Effective September 11, 2015.
Copies of the framework document, including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-2331. The framework document is also accessible via the Internet at:
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to
Carly Bari, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9224.
NMFS implemented measures to improve catch monitoring of the mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries through Amendment 14 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (79 FR 10029, February 24, 2014). The focus of Amendment 14 was to improve evaluation of the incidental catch of river herring (alewife and blueback herring) and shad (American shad and hickory shad), and to address incidental catch of river herring and shad. NMFS disapproved three measures that were initially included in Amendment 14 including: A dealer reporting requirement; a cap that, if achieved, would require vessels discarding catch before it had been sampled by observers (known as slippage) to return to port; and a recommendation of 100-percent observer coverage on midwater trawl vessels and 100-, 50-, and 25-percent observer coverage on bottom trawl mackerel vessels, with the industry contributing $325 per day toward observer costs.
Currently, through Amendment 14 regulations, slippage events are prohibited for vessels issued a limited access mackerel permit or a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit and carrying a NMFS-approved observer except in circumstances which allow slippage events including: Safety; mechanical failure; and excess catch of spiny dogfish. Additionally, following a slippage event, vessels are currently required to submit a Released Catch Affidavit within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip. In response to the disapproval of the slippage measures in Amendment 14, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed Framework Adjustment 9 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP to further enhance catch monitoring and to address slippage in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. Framework 9, through this final rule, adds slippage consequence measures and slippage reporting requirements to build upon the current measures and to address monitoring the catch of river herring and shad. On May 19, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule for Framework 9 management measures (80 FR 28575); the public comment period for the proposed rule ended on June 18, 2015.
Framework 9 requires Tier 1, 2, and 3 mackerel vessels on observed trips to move 15 nm (27.8 km) following an excepted slippage event, which includes safety, mechanical failure, or excess catch of spiny dogfish. These vessels are also required to terminate a fishing trip and immediately return to port following a non-excepted slippage event, which would be due to any reason other than those listed above. In addition to submitting a Released Catch Affidavit, vessels carrying an observer are required to report slippage events through the vessel monitoring system daily catch report for mackerel and longfin squid.
NMFS received three comments in response to the proposed rule for this action. Two were from industry groups, including Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA) (a New Jersey fishing industry advocacy group), and Seafreeze (a Rhode Island fishing company and seafood dealer). One comment was from the Herring Alliance, an environmental advocacy group.
This final rule contains an additional change that would reinstate regulations that were inadvertently removed. This reinstated regulation, at § 648.24(b)(6), describes the river herring and shad catch cap in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. This change in the regulations was identified, described, and made available for public comment in the proposed rule for the 2014 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications (79 FR 1813, January 10, 2014). The fishery is already operating under the river herring and shad cap, this rule is simply reinstating this regulatory text.
This final rule also contains additional regulation changes that were mistakenly omitted in the 2015-2017 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications final rule (80 FR 14870, March 20, 2015). One regulation change, in § 648.14(g)(2)(ii)(G), would prohibit all vessels with a valid mackerel permit from fishing for, possessing, transferring, receiving, or selling more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per trip or per day after 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap has been harvested. Another regulation change, in §§ 648.22(b)(3)(v)-(vii) and 648.24(c)(1), would eliminate the three-phased butterfish management season. These measures were identified, described, and made available for public comment in the proposed rule for the 2015-2017 Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish specifications (79 FR 68202, November 14, 2014).
This final rule also contains changes to the wording and format of the regulatory text for the measures included in Framework 9. This includes revising the definition of “Slippage in the Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid fisheries” in § 648.2, as well as wording and format changes made to §§ 648.11(n)(3) and 648.14(g)(2)(vi)-(x) to make consistent with proposed regulations for Framework Adjustment 4 to the Atlantic Herring FMP which includes similar management measures to this action. All of these changes are intended to clarify the purpose of these measures and ensure compliance.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this framework adjustment is consistent with the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
The Council prepared an EA for Framework 9, and the AA concluded that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA is available upon request (see
This final rule is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0679. Framework 9 requires all limited access mackerel vessels carrying an observer to report all slippage events on the VMS mackerel and longfin squid daily catch report. This information collection is intended to improve monitoring the catch of river herring and shad in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. The burden estimates for these new requirements apply to all limited access mackerel vessels. Time and cost burdens that were previously approved through Amendment 14 and OMB Control Number 0648-0679, include estimated time of 5 minutes to complete daily catch reports, for a total time burden of 264 hours. In a given fishing year, NMFS estimates that the additional reporting requirements included in Framework 9 will not cause any additional time or cost burden from that which was previously approved. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at:
NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has prepared a FRFA, included in the preamble of this final rule, in support of the management measures in this action. The FRFA describes the economic impact that this final rule, along with other non-preferred alternatives, will have on small entities.
The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts and analysis summaries in the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments. A copy of the IRFA, RIR, and the EA are available upon request (see
Two of the public comments raised general concerns on the economic impact of the rule on affected entities, but did not quantify those concerns or relate these issues to the IRFA. Those comments, and NMFS's responses, are contained elsewhere in this preamble and are not repeated here. No changes were made in the final rule as a result of these comments.
This rule applies to Atlantic mackerel limited access permits. Based on permit data for 2013, 150 separate vessels hold mackerel limited access permits, 114 entities own those vessels, and, based on current Small Business Administration (SBA) definitions, 107 of these are small entities. Of the 107 small entities, 4 had no revenue in 2013 and those entities with no revenue are considered small entities for the purpose of this analysis. All of the entities that had revenue fell into the finfish or shellfish categories, and the SBA definitions for those categories for 2014 are $20.5 million for finfish fishing and $5.5 million for shellfish fishing. Of the entities with revenues, their average revenues in 2013 were $1,201,419. 70 had primary revenues from finfish fishing and 33 had their primary revenues from shellfish fishing.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA that have been approved by the OMB under Control Number 0648-0679.
Framework 9 requires all limited access mackerel vessels carrying an observer to report all slippage events on the VMS mackerel and longfin squid daily catch report. This information collection is intended to improve monitoring the catch of river herring and shad in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. The burden estimates for these new requirements apply to all limited access mackerel vessels. Time and cost burdens that were previously approved through Amendment 14 and OMB Control Number 0648-0679, include estimated time of 5 minutes to complete daily catch reports, for a total time burden of 264 hours, and estimated cost of $0.60 per transmission of daily catch reports, for a total public cost of $1,901. In a given fishing year, NMFS estimates that the additional reporting requirements included in Framework 9 will not cause any additional time or cost burden from that which was previously approved.
This action is not expected to have more than minimal impact on the affected small entities compared to recent operation of the fishery (2011-2013, and 2014 landings to date appear similar to 2013). First, the primary impact should only be that vessels will not slip catches before observers have a chance to observe/sample them, which should have almost no economic impact on vessels. Slippage for reasons besides safety, mechanical issues, and spiny dogfish are already prohibited, and this proposed action would require vessels to move 15 nm (27.8 km) before fishing again if a slippage for those excepted reasons occurs (vessels could not fish within 15 nm (27.8 km) of the slippage event for the remainder of the trip). Total small entity mackerel revenues over 2011-2013 averaged $2.0 million, for an average of approximately $19,000 per affected small entity (107), compared to their average revenues of $1,201,419 in 2013 as described above. Given the small relative value of mackerel for most affected entities, the infrequency of slippage, and given the consequence of excepted slippages is only to move 15 nm (27.8 km), it seems likely that the economic impacts should be minimal for affected small entities. This is especially true since only a small portion of trips are observed, and the measures only apply to observed trips.
If slippages have been masking higher river herring and shad landings, it is possible that prohibiting slippages
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 648 are amended as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
(b) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1801
(n) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) No vessel issued a limited access Atlantic mackerel permit or a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit may slip catch, as defined at § 648.2, except in the following circumstances:
(B) A mechanical failure, including gear damage, precludes bringing some or all of the catch on board the vessel for sampling and inspection; or
(ii) If a vessel issued any limited access Atlantic mackerel permit slips catch, the vessel operator must report the slippage event on the Atlantic mackerel and longfin squid daily VMS catch report and indicate the reason for slipping catch. Additionally, vessels issued a limited Atlantic mackerel permit or a longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit, the vessel operator must complete and sign a Released Catch Affidavit detailing: The vessel name and permit number; the VTR serial number; where, when, and the reason for slipping catch; the estimated weight of each species brought on board or slipped on that tow. A completed affidavit must be submitted to NMFS within 48 hr of the end of the trip.
(iii) If a vessel issued a limited access Atlantic mackerel permit slips catch for any of the reasons described in paragraph (n)(3)(i) of this section, the vessel operator must move at least 15 nm (27.8 km) from the location of the slippage event before deploying any gear again, and must stay at least 15 nm (27.8 km) from the slippage event location for the remainder of the fishing trip.
(iv) If catch is slipped by a vessel issued a limited access Atlantic mackerel permit for any reason not described in paragraph (n)(3)(i) of this section, the vessel operator must immediately terminate the trip and return to port. No fishing activity may occur during the return to port.
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or sell; or attempt to fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or sell; more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per trip; or land, or attempt to land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of mackerel per day after 95 percent of the river herring and shad cap has been harvested, if the vessel holds a valid mackerel permit.
(vi) Slip catch, as defined at § 648.2, unless for one of the reasons specified
(vii) For vessels with a limited access Atlantic mackerel permits, fail to move 15 nm (27.8 km), as required by § 648.11(n)(3)(iii).
(viii) For vessels with a limited access Atlantic mackerel permit, fail to immediately return to port as required by § 648.11(n)(3)(iv).
(ix) Fail to complete, sign, and submit a Released Catch Affidavit if fish are released pursuant to the requirements at § 648.11(n)(3)(ii).
(x) Fail to report or fail to accurately report a slippage event on the VMS mackerel and longfin squid daily catch report, as required by § 648.11(n)(3)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) The butterfish mortality cap will be based on a portion of the ACT (set annually during specifications) and the specified cap amount will be allocated to the longfin squid fishery as follows: Trimester I—43 percent; Trimester II—17 percent; and Trimester III—40 percent.
(vi) Any underages of the cap for Trimester I that are greater than 25 percent of the Trimester I cap will be reallocated to Trimester II and III (split equally between both trimesters) of the same year. The reallocation of the cap from Trimester I to Trimester II is limited, such that the Trimester II cap may only be increased by 50 percent; the remaining portion of the underage will be reallocated to Trimester III. Any underages of the cap for Trimester I that are less than 25 percent of the Trimester I quota will be applied to Trimester III of the same year. Any overages of the cap for Trimester I and II will be subtracted from Trimester III of the same year.
(vii)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(6)
Social Security Administration.
Final rule; Correcting amendments.
We published a document in the
Effective August 12, 2015.
Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We published a final rule in the
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
Accordingly, 20 CFR part 404, subpart P is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
B. * * *
1. * * *
c. * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide rules for determining a taxable beneficiary's basis in a term interest in a charitable remainder trust (CRT) upon a sale or other disposition of all interests in the trust to the extent that basis consists of a share of adjusted uniform basis. The final regulations affect taxable beneficiaries of CRTs.
Allison R. Carmody at (202) 317-5279 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1. On October 31, 2008, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2008-99 (2008-47 IRB 1194) to designate a transaction and substantially similar transactions as Transactions of Interest under § 1.6011-4(b)(6) of the Income Tax Regulations and to ask for public comments on how the transactions might be addressed in published guidance. After studying the transaction and comments received from the public in response to Notice 2008-99, the Treasury Department and the IRS filed a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-154890-03) relating to basis in interests in tax-exempt trusts in the
These final regulations provide a special rule for determining the basis in certain CRT term interests in transactions to which section 1001(e)(3) applies. Such transactions are those in which the sale or other disposition of the CRT term interest is part of a transaction in which all interests in the CRT are transferred. In these cases, these final regulations provide that the basis of a term interest of a taxable beneficiary is the portion of the adjusted uniform basis assignable to that interest reduced by the portion of the sum of the following amounts assignable to that interest: (1) The amount of undistributed net ordinary income described in section 664(b)(1); and (2) the amount of undistributed net capital gain described in section 664(b)(2). These final regulations do not affect the CRT's basis in its assets but rather are for the purpose of determining a taxable beneficiary's gain arising from a transaction described in section 1001(e)(3). The rules in these final regulations are limited in application to charitable remainder annuity trusts and charitable remainder unitrusts as defined in section 664.
Notice 2008-99 provides that, when the Treasury Department and the IRS have gathered enough information to make an informed decision as to whether this transaction is a tax avoidance type of transaction, the Treasury Department and the IRS may take one or more actions, including removing the transaction from the transactions of interest category in published guidance, designating the transaction as a listed transaction, or providing a new category of reportable transaction. Because the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that these final regulations address the proper tax treatment of the transaction described in Notice 2008-99,
These final regulations apply to sales and other dispositions of interests in CRTs occurring on or after January 16, 2014, except for sales or dispositions occurring pursuant to a binding commitment entered into before January 16, 2014. However, the fact that a sale or disposition occurred, or a binding commitment to complete a sale or disposition was entered into, before January 16, 2014, does not preclude the IRS from applying legal arguments available to the IRS before issuance of these final regulations in order to contest the claimed tax treatment of such a transaction.
The IRS notice cited in this preamble is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and is available at the IRS Web site at
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these final regulations, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply to these final regulations because the final regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of these final regulations is Allison R. Carmody of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The additions read as follows:
(c)
(i) That part of the adjusted uniform basis assignable to the term interest of the taxable beneficiary under the rules of paragraph (a) of this section reduced, but not below zero, by
(ii) An amount determined by applying the same actuarial share applied in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section to the sum of—
(A) The trust's undistributed net ordinary income within the meaning of section 664(b)(1) and § 1.664-1(d)(1)(ii)(
(B) The trust's undistributed net capital gains within the meaning of section 664(b)(2) and § 1.664-1(d)(1)(ii)(
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d) * * *
(a) Grantor creates a charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) on Date 1 in which Grantor retains a unitrust interest and irrevocably transfers the remainder interest to Charity. Grantor is an individual taxpayer subject to income tax. CRUT meets the requirements of section 664 and is exempt from income tax.
(b) Grantor's basis in the shares of X stock used to fund CRUT is $10x. On Date 2, CRUT sells the X stock for $100x. The $90x of gain is exempt from income tax under section 664(c)(1). On Date 3, CRUT uses the $100x proceeds from its sale of the X stock to purchase Y stock. On Date 4, CRUT sells the Y stock for $110x. The $10x of gain on the sale of the Y stock is exempt from income tax under section 664(c)(1). On Date 5, CRUT uses the $110x proceeds from its sale of Y stock to buy Z stock. On Date 5, CRUT's basis in its assets is $110x and CRUT's total undistributed net capital gains are $100x.
(c) Later, when the fair market value of CRUT's assets is $150x and CRUT has no undistributed net ordinary income, Grantor and Charity sell all of their interests in CRUT to a third person. Grantor receives $100x for the retained unitrust interest, and Charity receives $50x for its interest. Because the entire interest in CRUT is transferred to the third person, section 1001(e)(3) prevents section 1001(e)(1) from applying to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's gain on the sale of the retained unitrust interest in CRUT is determined under section 1001(a), which
(d) Grantor's adjusted basis in the unitrust interest in CRUT is that portion of CRUT's adjusted uniform basis that is assignable to Grantor's interest under § 1.1014-5, which is Grantor's actuarial share of the adjusted uniform basis. In this case, CRUT's adjusted uniform basis in its sole asset, the Z stock, is $110x. However, paragraph (c) of this section applies to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's actuarial share of CRUT's adjusted uniform basis (determined by applying the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter) is reduced by an amount determined by applying the same factors to the sum of CRUT's $0 of undistributed net ordinary income and its $100x of undistributed net capital gains.
(e) In determining Charity's share of the adjusted uniform basis, Charity applies the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter to the full $110x of basis.
(a) Grantor creates a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT) on Date 1 in which Grantor retains an annuity interest and irrevocably transfers the remainder interest to Charity. Grantor is an individual taxpayer subject to income tax. CRAT meets the requirements of section 664 and is exempt from income tax.
(b) Grantor funds CRAT with shares of X stock having a basis of $50x. On Date 2, CRAT sells the X stock for $150x. The $100x of gain is exempt from income tax under section 664(c)(1). On Date 3, CRAT distributes $10x to Grantor, and uses the remaining $140x of net proceeds from its sale of the X stock to purchase Y stock. Grantor treats the $10x distribution as capital gain, so that CRAT's remaining undistributed net capital gains amount described in section 664(b)(2) and § 1.664-1(d) is $90x.
(c) On Date 4, when the fair market value of CRAT's assets, which consist entirely of the Y stock, is still $140x, Grantor and Charity sell all of their interests in CRAT to a third person. Grantor receives $126x for the retained annuity interest, and Charity receives $14x for its remainder interest. Because the entire interest in CRAT is transferred to the third person, section 1001(e)(3) prevents section 1001(e)(1) from applying to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's gain on the sale of the retained annuity interest in CRAT is determined under section 1001(a), which provides that Grantor's gain on the sale of that interest is the excess of the amount realized, $126x, over Grantor's adjusted basis in that interest.
(d) Grantor's adjusted basis in the annuity interest in CRAT is that portion of CRAT's adjusted uniform basis that is assignable to Grantor's interest under § 1.1014-5, which is Grantor's actuarial share of the adjusted uniform basis. In this case, CRAT's adjusted uniform basis in its sole asset, the Y stock, is $140x. However, paragraph (c) of this section applies to the transaction. Therefore, Grantor's actuarial share of CRAT's adjusted uniform basis (determined by applying the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter) is reduced by an amount determined by applying the same factors to the sum of CRAT's $0 of undistributed net ordinary income and its $90x of undistributed net capital gains.
(e) In determining Charity's share of the adjusted uniform basis, Charity applies the factors set forth in the tables contained in § 20.2031-7 of this chapter to determine its actuarial share of the full $140x of basis.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US 70/Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, at New Bern, NC. The deviation is necessary to allow the participants of the annual Neuse River Historic New Bern Bike Ride (a two day event) to safely complete their ride without interruptions from bridge openings. This deviation allows the bridge draw span to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for one and a half hours each day to accommodate the race.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. September 12, 2015 to 9:30 a.m. on September 13, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0740] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6557, email
The event coordinator for the annual Neuse River Historic New Bern Bike Ride, with approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, owner of the drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule to accommodate the Neuse River Bridge Historic New Bern Bike Ride.
The US 70/Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge operating regulations are set out in 33 CFR 117.843(a). The US 70/Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge across the Trent River, mile 0.0, a double bascule lift Bridge, in New Bern, NC, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be allowed to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. each day on Saturday and Sunday, September 12 and 13, 2015 while cyclists are participating in the annual Neuse River Bridge Historic New Bern Bike Ride.
Under the regular operating schedule the bridge opens on signal several times a day for recreational vessels transiting to and from the local marinas upstream. During the timeframe for the race the morning hours have shown the fewest recorded vessel transits.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time and are advised to proceed with caution. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Willamette River in the vicinity of the TriMet Tilikum Crossing Bridge in Portland, OR. This safety zone is necessary to help ensure the safety of the maritime public during a fireworks display and will do so by prohibiting unauthorized persons and vessels from entering the safety zones unless authorized by the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port or his designated representatives.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on August 22, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0510]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Ken Lawrenson, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the necessary information in time for this regulation to undertake both an NPRM prior to the scheduled event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this rule is: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish regulatory safety zones for safety and environmental purposes.
Fireworks displays create hazardous conditions for the maritime public because of the large number of vessels that congregate near the displays, as well as the noise, falling debris, and explosions that occur during the event. This safety zone is necessary in order to reduce vessel traffic congestion in the proximity of fireworks discharge sites and to prevent vessel traffic within the fallout zone of the fireworks.
This rule establishes one safety zone in the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone.
The safety zone will encompass all waters, bank to bank of the Willamette River, in Portland, Oregon enclosed by the Marquam and Ross Island Bridges. This event will be held on Saturday August 22, 2015 from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard has made this determination based on the fact that the safety zone created by this rule will not significantly affect the maritime public because vessels may still coordinate their transit with the Coast Guard in the vicinity of the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the area covered by the safety zone. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the safety zones will only be in effect for a limited period of time. Additionally, vessels can still transit through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Before the effective period, we will publish advisories in the Local Notice to Mariners available to users of the river. Maritime traffic will be able to schedule their transits around the safety zone.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do not discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the creation of one safety zone during fireworks displays to protect maritime public. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This document adopts as final, without change, a proposed rule of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to amend its regulations that govern adjustable rate mortgages made in conjunction with the Home Loan Guaranty program. These revisions align VA's disclosure and interest rate adjustment requirements with the implementing regulations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as recently revised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This rulemaking will ensure VA remains consistent with other applicable consumer finance and housing regulations governing adjustable rate mortgages.
John Bell III, Assistant Director for Loan Policy (262), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-8786. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On January 29, 2015, VA published a proposed rule in the
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on March 30, 2015. VA received two comments. The comments received on the proposed rule are discussed below. VA adopts without change the proposed rule that revises VA's adjustable rate mortgage regulations at 38 CFR 36.4312(d) to ensure consistency with other Federal agency regulations.
VA received one public comment on the proposed rule from a lender who participates in the VA Home Loan program. The commenter expressed support for the rule as written and stated that VA's alignment with CFPB's rules will reduce the regulatory burden [on lenders] and ensure protection for Veterans and Servicemembers.
VA received one public comment on the proposed rule from an individual. The commenter stated that a three-year look-back period would be detrimental to veterans and their spouses. The commenter explained that veterans and their spouses currently have a good chance of moving to an assisted living facility of their choice or staying at home with a caregiver, but that with a three-year look-back period, the majority of these individuals will no longer have that choice. The commenter explained that this would result in these veterans relying on Medicaid and going to a facility not of their choosing, which would be more expensive.
VA believes the commenter mistook the purpose of VA's proposal, as the term look-back often relates to the period preceding the date that a person applies for Medicaid. VA does not believe this regulatory change has any impact on veterans moving to an assisted living facility, staying with a caregiver, or relying on Medicaid, as the commenter stated. Instead, this change helps ensure VA alignment with other Federal laws and current lender practices with regard to adjustable rate mortgages. See 80 FR 4814. It provides veteran borrowers who have adjustable rate mortgages more advanced notice and detailed disclosures regarding a change in their interest rates, thereby affording them a better opportunity to respond to such changes and stay in their homes. Therefore, VA is adopting the proposed rule without change.
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” requiring 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
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Although this document contains a provision constituting a collection of information at 38 CFR 36.4312(d)(6), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this final rule. The information collection provisions for this final rule are currently approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number 3170-0015.
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 rule aligns the disclosure and look-back requirements for adjustable rate mortgages to the revised requirements in the 2013 TILA servicing rule published by the CFPB. VA does not have discretion not to align these requirements with the new TILA requirements established by CFPB and implemented by CFPB in the 2013 TILA servicing rule. The revised disclosure and look-back requirements began applying to VA adjustable rate mortgages in January 2015, regardless of VA action. VA is publishing this rulemaking because it is important for VA regulations to be consistent with TILA and its implementing regulations. In this rule, VA will adopt the minimum 45-day look-back period to clarify that lenders making VA-guaranteed adjustable rate mortgages must meet the TILA minimum notification requirements. As discussed in the preamble to VA's proposed rule, CFPB noted in its rulemaking that the majority of adjustable rate mortgages in the conventional market already have look-back periods of 45 days or longer. 80 FR 4813. Additionally, the revisions to the disclosure requirements simply align VA requirements with the CFPB's 2013 TILA servicing rule and the procedures currently followed in the conventional mortgage lending market. See id.
Accordingly, 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 initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.114, Veterans Housing—Guaranteed and Insured Loans.
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 August 6, 2015, for publication.
Condominiums, Flood insurance, Housing, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—Indians, Loan programs—veterans, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 36 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501 and as otherwise noted.
(d) * * *
(2)
(6)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve portions of submissions from Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina for inclusion into each State's implementation plan. This action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a state implementation plan (SIP) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure SIP submissions”. Specifically, EPA is approving the portions of the submissions from Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina that pertain to a certain visibility requirement related to the 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIPs for each state. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS associated with these States' infrastructure submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
This direct final rule is effective on October 13, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by September 11, 2015. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0177, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nacosta Ward, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million.
EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)”notes that EPA does not treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). However, in the event of the establishment of a new primary NAAQS, the visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA do not change. Thus, EPA does not expect state infrastructure SIP submittals to address the visibility component of this element. Below provides more detail on how Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina addressed the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J).
As noted above, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals. In accordance with EPA's guidance, Alabama did not address the section 110(a)(2)(J) visibility element in its infrastructure SIP submission. Because states do not need to address this element, EPA has made the determination that Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission for the section 110(a)(2)(J) visibility element related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is approvable.
Mississippi referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J). As noted above, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals so Mississippi does not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that it does not need to address the visibility protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) in Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
South Carolina referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J). As noted above, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals so South Carolina does not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that it does not need to address the visibility protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) in South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Today, EPA is approving the portions of the submissions from Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina that relate visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIPs for each state. EPA is approving of these portions of these submissions because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human
With the exception of South Carolina, the SIPs involved in this action are 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. With respect to today's action as it relates to South Carolina, this direct final rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located in the York County, South Carolina Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes that today's action will not 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 October 13, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(e) * * *
4. Section 52.2120(e), is amended by adding a new entry for “110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” at the end of the table to read as follows:
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on May 1, 2015. This SIP revision seeks to make changes to the SIP to remove certain Stage I vapor control requirements and to make administrative changes to the SIP that would remove gasoline vapor control rules that no longer serve a regulatory purpose, including rules related to the Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties (hereinafter referred to as the “Southeast Florida Area”). EPA has determined that Florida's May 1, 2015, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This direct final rule is effective October 13, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 11, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0336, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified the Southeast Florida Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The nonattainment designation was based on the Area's design value for the 1987-1989 three-year period. The “moderate” classification triggered various statutory requirements for this Area, including the requirement pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA for the Area to require all owners and operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery of emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles known as “Stage II.”
On November 8, 1993, FDEP submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Southwest Florida Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and an associated maintenance plan. The maintenance plan, as required under section 175A of the CAA, showed that nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds emissions in the Area would remain below the 1990 “attainment year” levels through the ten-year period from 1995-2005. In making these projections, FDEP factored in the emissions benefit of the Area's Stage II program, thereby maintaining this program as an active part of its 1-hour ozone SIP. The redesignation request and maintenance plan was approved by EPA, effective April 25, 1995.
On May 31, 2007, FDEP submitted a SIP revision for the purpose of removing Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the Area; phasing out Stage II requirements for existing facilities in the Area by December 31, 2009; requiring new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities and new bulk gasoline plant statewide to employ Stage I; and phasing in Stage I requirements for existing gasoline dispensing facilities. This SIP revision included a demonstration pursuant to section 110(l) of the CAA that the removal of the Stage II requirements from the SIP would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Florida's May 1, 2015, SIP revision seeks to make changes to the SIP to remove certain Stage I requirements and to make administrative changes to the SIP that would remove gasoline vapor control rules that no longer serve a regulatory purpose, including the rules related to the Stage II program that ended on December 31, 2009. Specifically, Florida's May 1, 2015, SIP revision requests the removal of the following rules from the Florida SIP:
• Rule 62-252.100, “Purpose and Scope”—this section contains introductory language that serves no regulatory purpose.
• Rule 62-252.200, “Definitions”—this section contains definitions that are rendered unnecessary as they exist in Federal regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, or are otherwise no longer needed.
• Rule 62-252.400, “Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage II Vapor Recovery”—this section contains requirements for Stage II vapor recovery systems. This section is obsolete because the rule phased itself out on December 31, 2009.
• Rule 62-252.500, “Gasoline Tanker Trucks”—this section contains Stage I gasoline vapor control requirements that apply to gasoline tanker trucks or trailers. The individual requirements of this section are superseded by 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC, addressed by requirements in 62-252.300, or do not have an air quality impact such that removal would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in any area in Florida.
• Rule 62-252.800, “Penalties”—this section contains language describing the penalty for violation of Chapter 62.252. The rule is duplicative of language in section 403.062 of the Florida Statues and therefore is unnecessary.
• Rule 62-252.900, “Form”—this section contains the form adopted under 62-252.500 for annual reporting of pressure and vacuum testing to the State for gasoline cargo tanks. The form is no longer necessary with the removal of 62-252.500.
EPA is also approving an amendment to Rule 62-252.300, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage I Vapor Recovery, to remove obsolete and duplicative language and reorganize the rule accordingly. The specific changes that Florida is requesting are as follows:
• Remove subsection 62-252.300(1)(b) because the Stage II Program was phased out by December 31, 2009.
• Remove subsections 62-252.300(4)(a) and (c) because these compliance schedules duplicate the prohibition and control technology requirements in subsections 62-252.300(2) and (3).
• Remove subsection 62-252.300(4)(b) because the Stage II
• Remove the outdated compliance schedules in subsections 62-252.300(4)(d) and (e) because these compliance dates have passed. Stage I Vapor Recovery at gasoline dispensing facilities throughout Florida was completed as of January 2010.
• Renumber the remaining subsections in section 62-252.300 to reflect the changes identified above.
To the extent that any of the rule changes identified above relate to the Stage II program, EPA is proposing to approve those changes because, as previously mentioned, EPA approved the phase out of the Stage II program by December 31, 2009, along with the State's demonstration that the removal of the Stage II program from the SIP would not interfere with air quality or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
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 incorporate by reference of FDEP Regulation 62-252.300 entitled “Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage I Vapor Recovery” effective September 24, 2013. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
EPA is approving Florida's May 1, 2015, SIP revision which makes changes to the SIP identified in Section II, above, to certain remove Stage I requirements and to make administrative changes to the SIP that would remove gasoline vapor control rules that no longer serve a regulatory purpose, including the rules related to the Stage II program that ended on December 31, 2009.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 13, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Please note that if EPA receives 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 Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 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 October 13, 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This action finalizes amendments to new source performance standards (NSPS) for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. On March 23, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-proposed its definition of “low pressure gas well” for notice and comment to correct a procedural defect with its prior rulemaking that included this definition. The EPA also proposed to amend the NSPS to remove provisions concerning storage vessels connected or installed in parallel and to revise the definition of “storage vessel.” This action finalizes the definition of “low pressure gas well” and the amendments to the storage vessel provisions.
The final rule is effective on August 12, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. All documents in the docket are listed in the
For further information on this action, contact Mr. Matthew Witosky, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2865; facsimile number: (919) 541-3470; email address:
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be posted at the following address:
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by October 13, 2015. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established in this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52758), the EPA proposed the Oil and Natural Gas Sector NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO). Among the elements of the proposed rule were provisions for reduced emission completion (REC), also known as “green completion” of hydraulically fractured gas wells. In the proposal, the EPA solicited comment on situations where conducting a REC would be infeasible. Several commenters highlighted technical issues that prevent the implementation of a REC on what they referred to as “low pressure” gas wells because of the lack of the necessary reservoir pressure to flow at rates appropriate for the transportation of solids and liquids from a hydraulically fractured gas well completion against additional backpressure which would be caused by the REC equipment. Based on our analysis of the public comments received, we determined that there are certain wells where a REC is technically infeasible because of the characteristics of the reservoir and the well depth that will not allow the flowback to overcome the gathering system pressure due to the additional backpressure imposed by the REC surface equipment.
On August 16, 2012, the EPA published the final NSPS (77 FR 49490). Under the 2012 NSPS, a REC is not required for well completions of low pressure gas wells. Rather, the 2012 final NSPS requires at 40 CFR 60.5375(f) that well completions of low pressure gas wells using hydraulic fracturing meet the requirements for combustion of flowback emissions and to the general duty to safely maximize resource recovery and minimize releases to the atmosphere required under 40 CFR 60.5375(a)(4).
The 2012 NSPS includes a definition of “low pressure gas well” that is based on a mathematical formula that takes into account a well's depth, reservoir pressure, and flow line pressure. Section 60.5430 defines low pressure gas well as “a well with reservoir pressure and vertical well depth such that 0.445 times the reservoir pressure (in psia) minus 0.038 times the vertical well depth (in feet) minus 67.578 psia is less than the flow line pressure at the sales meter.”
Following publication of the 2012 NSPS, a group of petitioners, led by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), representing independent oil and natural gas owners and operators, submitted a joint petition for administrative reconsideration of the rule. The petitioners questioned the technical merits of the low pressure well definition and asserted that the public had not had an opportunity to comment on the definition because it was added in the final rule.
On March 24, 2014, the petitioners submitted to the EPA a suggested alternative definition
On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed clarifying amendments to the gas well completion provisions of the NSPS. In the July proposal, we re-proposed the definition of “low pressure gas well” for notice and comment. We also discussed the alternative definition provided by the IPAA. Specifically, we expressed concern that the IPAA alternative definition is too simplistic and may not adequately account for the parameters that must be considered when determining whether a REC would be feasible for a given hydraulically fractured gas well. We expressed disagreement with the petitioners' assertion that the EPA definition is too complicated and that it would pose difficulty or hardship for smaller operators. However, we agreed with the petitioners that the public should have been provided an opportunity to comment on the 2012 definition of “low pressure gas well,” and we, therefore, re-proposed the 2012 definition for notice and comment. In addition, we solicited comment on the alternative definition suggested by the petitioners.
On August 18, 2014, prior to the close of the public comment period for the July 17, 2014, proposal, the IPAA, on behalf of the independent oil and natural gas owner and operator petitioners, submitted a comment to the EPA via the email address to the Air and Radiation Docket provided in the proposed rule.
The EPA published final amendments in the
In the December 31, 2014, final rule, the EPA finalized amendments to the NSPS to address, among other issues, the affected facility status of storage vessel affected facilities. The final action included amendments related to storage vessels “connected in parallel” or “installed in parallel.” As we explained in the final rule preamble (79 FR 79027), “Although we believe it is an unlikely occurrence, we note that, when two or more storage vessels receive liquids in parallel, the total throughput is shared between or among the parallel vessels and, in turn, this causes the PTE of each vessel to be a fraction of the total PTE.” To address such isolated occurrences where storage vessels are installed or connected to reduce the potential to emit (PTE) and, therefore, avoid being subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO, we amended the NSPS to address situations in which two or more storage vessels could be installed or connected in parallel which could, in some cases, lower the PTE of the individual storage vessels to levels below the 6 tons per year (tpy) applicability threshold provided in 40 CFR 60.5365(e). Specifically, we amended 40 CFR 60.5365(e)(4) to provide that a storage vessel that is being placed into service, and is connected in parallel with a storage vessel affected facility, is immediately subject to the same requirements as the affected facility with which it is being connected in parallel. We also amended the definitions for “returned to service” and “storage vessel” in 40 CFR 60.5430 to provide that two or more storage vessels connected in parallel are considered equivalent to a single storage vessel with throughput equal to the total throughput of the storage vessels connected in parallel.
Following publication of the December 2014 final rule, we became aware that the terms “connected in parallel” and “installed in parallel” inadvertently included storage vessels beyond those we attempted to address as described above. On February 19, 2015, the Gas Processors Association (GPA) submitted a petition for administrative reconsideration of the December 31, 2014, amendments. The GPA asserted that “it is quite common for multiple storage vessels to be situated next to each other and connected in parallel. Sometimes the storage vessels are operated in parallel, sometimes they are operated in series, and sometimes they are operated one-at-a-time with the connecting valves closed.” The GPA further asserted that this configuration has existed for decades and that “this language potentially has large impacts to how our members evaluate affected facility status.” For the reasons discussed above, we proposed to remove the regulatory provisions relative to storage vessels “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel.”
This section presents a summary of the provisions of the final action with brief explanations where appropriate. In some cases, additional detailed discussions are provided in section IV and V of this preamble, as well as the Response to Comment document. The final amendments include revisions to certain reconsidered aspects of the 2012 NSPS as follows: (1) Definition of “low pressure gas well”; (2) definition of “returned to service”; (3) definition of “storage vessel”; (4) revision of 40 CFR 60.5365(e)(4) to remove the phrases “or is installed in parallel with any storage vessel affected facility,” and “or with which it is installed in parallel.”
The EPA is finalizing its definition of “low pressure gas well.” For the purposes of 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO, our definition of low pressure gas well is for a singular purpose—to identify the wells that cannot implement a REC because of a lack of necessary reservoir pressure to flow gas at rates appropriate for the transportation of solids and liquids from a hydraulically fractured gas well against additional backpressure that would be caused by the REC equipment, thereby making a REC infeasible (80 FR 15182).
In response to comments, we are amending the definition of “low pressure gas well” in this final action by changing “vertical depth” to “true vertical depth.” This change more accurately reflects our intent when formulating the definition of “low pressure gas well.”
The EPA is revising the definition of “storage vessel” to remove references to “connected in parallel” and “installed in parallel” from the current definition, and making associated changes to 40 CFR 60.5365(e)(4). We are not making any changes to the proposed definition of “storage vessel.”
There is only one significant change since proposal, which is to refer to “true vertical depth” (instead of “vertical depth”) in the definition of “low pressure gas well.” Several commenters took issue that the proposal definition of “low pressure gas well” does not take into account the “true vertical depth” of the well, as the “vertical depth” of the
We agree with the commenters that “true vertical depth” is more accurate terminology that better represents our intent. In light of the above considerations, we are amending the definition of “low pressure gas well” in this action by changing “vertical depth” to “true vertical depth.”
This section summarizes the significant comments on our proposed amendments and our responses.
According to one commenter, the alternative definition is based on the fresh water gradient, is widely used in industry, and appropriately describes the well conditions where installation of REC equipment is impractical. The commenter stated that the fresh water gradient (
Another commenter stated that the EPA's current definition does not accurately define what industry has historically defined and recognized as a low pressure well. According to the commenter, because EPA's definition does not accurately delineate low pressure wells, the current definition will subject a subset of wells to RECs where the operation of a separator is not physically possible, thereby making the wells uneconomical as a result of being subject to REC requirements. The commenter included a table showing the values calculated using the EPA's definition for various well depths and flow line pressures. According to the commenter, the alternate definition would classify all of the values in the table as a low pressure well, while the EPA's definition would only consider about a quarter of the wells as low pressure.
The commenter further stated that the permeability of the reservoir and other reservoir characteristics play a critical role in determining when a well is low pressure well or under-pressured. In addition to overcoming the hydrostatic pressure and sale line pressure, the separator necessary for the REC adds to the pressure which must be overcome for gas to flow from the reservoir. The commenter stated that the separator pressure is arguably the controlling parameter on when a REC is feasible versus the sales line pressure. Unlike the sales line pressure, which is easily known, the commenter contended that the separator pressure can vary greatly depending on gas and liquid rates, liquid composition, and equipment limitations. The commenter pointed out that the EPA's definition does not take separator pressure into account, thereby making the definition overly conservative. The commenter admitted that the alternative definition does not contain an adjustment for separator pressure either, but the definition is more accurate and is inclusive of wells recognized by the industry as “low pressure.”
In addition to the pressure associated with the separator, the commenter stated that in order for a separator to function, there must be a sufficient volume of gas (at appropriate pressure) to lift the associated liquids and overcome the pressure of the separator. The commenter added that if that gas rate is not achieved, the well will load up and a REC will not be possible. According to the commenter, the gas rate necessary for a REC varies based on reservoir pressure and casing/tubing diameter. The commenter provided a graph of Coleman curves to illustrate this point, which illustrates that as the pressure and casing diameter increase, so must the gas rate.
The EPA agrees that there must be a sufficient volumetric flow of gas (caused by adequate reservoir pressure) to lift the associated liquids and overcome the pressure of the separator, enabling the gas to be collected (
According to some of the commenters, the EPA's definition of low pressure gas well should be revised because it does not comport with what the industry has historically considered to be a low pressure gas well. We are not making a determination on the similarity of the two definitions because we do not believe that the two must be the same for purposes of the Oil and Gas NSPS. The EPA has provided a definition of “low pressure gas well” in the NSPS in order to designate a class of wells where a REC is not technically feasible. Our definition of “low pressure gas well” in the NSPS is for a singular purpose—to identify the wells that cannot implement a REC because of a lack of necessary reservoir pressure to flow gas at rates appropriate for the transportation of solids and liquids from a hydraulically fractured gas well during flowback against additional backpressure which would be caused by the REC equipment, thereby making a REC technically infeasible (80 FR 15182). To the extent that the industry definition is different from the EPA definition, the industry likely defines a particular well as being low pressure for a variety of reasons.
Another commenter similarly suggested that instead of defining the term “low pressure gas well” in terms of the “vertical depth” of the deepest target reservoir, it should instead by defined in terms of the “true vertical depth.” The commenter cited to the Schlumberger online Oil Field Glossary, which defines “true vertical depth” as follows:
The vertical distance from a point in the well (usually the current or final depth) to a point at the surface, usually the elevation of the rotary kelly bushing (RKB). This is one of two primary depth measurements used by the drillers, the other being measured depth. TVD is important in determining bottomhole pressures, which are caused in part by the hydrostatic head of fluid in the wellbore. For this calculation, measured depth is irrelevant and TVD must be used. For most other operations, the driller is interested in the length of the hole or how much pipe will fit into the hole. For those measurements, measured depth, not TVD, is used. While the drilling crew should be careful to designate which measurement they are referring to, if no designation is used, they are usually referring to measured depth. Note that measured depth, due to intentional or unintentional curves in the wellbore, is always longer than true vertical depth.
The commenter stated that it would be better to use “true vertical depth” because the measured vertical depth can overstate actual vertical depth because well bores may not be absolutely vertical. Thus, measured vertical depth often exceeds the true vertical depth of a well bore.
One commenter stated that the IPAA's proposed definition for “low pressure well” was based on the weight of fresh water (8.33 lbs/gal) which is stacked on top of itself, and is known as hydrostatic pressure. Converting the density of fresh water to a pressure gradient results in 8.33 lb/gal being equal to 0.433 psi/ft. Therefore, the pressure of fresh water in the well bore is 0.433 psi/ft times the vertical well depth.
The commenter added that in reality, the fluid flowing to the surface could be fresh water, re-used hydraulic fracturing water, re-used, produced water, or a mixture. Additionally, in the beginning of the operation, the commenter stated that initial fluids flowing to the surface are essentially the fracturing fluids put down hole. At the end of the operation, the fluids flowing to the surface will mainly consist of reservoir fluids, and the water will be more of a brine water and not fresh water. The commenter added that brine water has a greater density, and more reservoir pressure will be required to lift the fluid to the surface. The commenter contended that the use of a fresh water gradient of 0.433 psi/ft should be used to keep the definition conservative and simple.
As an alternative, or in addition, to a fresh water gradient, the commenter recommended that the density of brine water influenced by sand or proppant should be used to more accurately reflect the pressure of the water column in the well bore. The commenter pointed out that the EPA appears to have utilized a gradient of 0.4645 psi/ft in the “Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners; Reduced Emissions Completions for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas Wells” paper developed as a part of the EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program. The commenter stated that this is evidenced by the gradients listed in Exhibit 5 of the paper. Additionally, to perform a REC, the commenter contended that the downhole reservoir pressure must be sufficient enough to lift the hydraulic fracturing fluid to the surface and through the separation equipment and piping, with the resulting gas still having enough backpressure for it to get into the natural gas gathering line. According to the commenter, to combust flowback emissions the downhole reservoir pressure must be sufficient enough to lift the hydraulic fracturing fluid to the surface and through the separation equipment and piping, with the resulting gas still having enough backpressure to flow to a flare or enclosed combustion device.
To reflect these realities, the commenter proposed that no emission
A well where the reservoir pressure is less than 0.4645 times the vertical depth of the deepest target reservoir.
At reservoir pressures below this value, the commenter contends that insufficient pressure exists for any gas to flow to a flare, enclosed combustion device or the process. Consequently, the commenter proposes that combustion through a flare or enclosed combustion device be required when the following scenario exists:
A well where the reservoir pressure is less than 0.4645 times the vertical depth of the deepest target reservoir plus the gathering or sales line pressure.
At reservoir pressures less than the sum of the water column pressure and the sales line pressure, the commenter contended that the recovered gas will not naturally flow into the sales line. The commenter stated that the proposed rule does not require compression of recovered gas into the sales line. The commenter further states that the EPA has recognized this type of simpler approach in estimating the level of pressure necessary for recovered gas to flow into a gathering or sales line in their Gas STAR document cited above. In this Gas STAR paper, a table (Exhibit 5) is provided that shows the pressures necessary for various well depths. For instance, the commenter pointed out that the document indicates that the reservoir pressure necessary to flow recovered gas into a sales line for a 10,000-foot well would be 4,645 psig plus the sales line pressure.
Given that storage vessels, including those installed or connected in parallel, can be significant sources of emissions, the commenter opposed the EPA's proposal to simply remove any provisions addressing these vessels. Instead of removing all provisions regarding vessels installed or connected in parallel, as the Agency proposed, the commenter urged the EPA to instead clarify its existing requirements for such vessels. The commenter suggested that the EPA could, for instance, clarify that pollution control measures apply to storage vessels operated in parallel in the relevant regulatory provisions addressing storage vessel affected facilities and the definitions of “returned to service” and “storage vessel.”
We believe that we have sufficient provisions under the General Provisions at 40 CFR 60.12 “Circumvention” to address the specific situation where storage vessels are divided into smaller tanks to avoid applicability of the rule and which was our intent with the previous amended definition. Therefore, we do not believe that our reverting to the prior definition of “storage vessel” will affect our ability to ensure control of these storage vessels. Consequently, as proposed, we are finalizing the removal of provisions made in the 2014 amendment relating to storage vessels “installed in parallel” or “connected in parallel.”
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0673. This action does not change the information collection requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not impose any additional burden on industry.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or costs.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or costs. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action is a reconsideration of an existing rule and imposes no new impacts or costs.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(e) * * *
(4) For each new, reconstructed, or modified storage vessel with startup, startup of production, or which is returned to service, affected facility status is determined as follows: If a storage vessel is reconnected to the original source of liquids or is used to replace any storage vessel affected facility, it is a storage vessel affected facility subject to the same requirements as before being removed from service, or applicable to the storage vessel affected facility being replaced, immediately upon startup, startup of production, or return to service.
(1) Reconnected to the original source of liquids or has been used to replace any storage vessel affected facility; or
(2) Installed in any location covered by this subpart and introduced with crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids or produced water.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Final rule.
In March 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a final rule establishing a new standard for the certification of closed-circuit escape respirators (CCERs) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The new standard was originally designed to take effect over a 3-year transition period. HHS has determined that extending the concluding date for the transition is necessary to allow sufficient time for respirator manufacturers to meet the demands of the mining, maritime, railroad and other industries. Pursuant to this final action, NIOSH extends the phase-in period until 1 year after the date that the first approval is granted to certain CCER models.
This rule is effective on August 12, 2015.
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst; 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email
On January 29, 2015, HHS published an interim final rule to amend the transition deadline established in 42 CFR 84.301 (80 FR 4801), and invited interested persons or organizations to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views, arguments, recommendations, and data. Comments were invited on any topic related to this rulemaking and specifically on the following question related to this rulemaking:
Will a compliance date 6 months after the date that the first approval is granted in each of three categories of CCER types provide sufficient time for respirator manufacturers to develop production capacity to meet expected market demand, while not causing undue loss of sales revenue that may be expected from achieving the first successful design for the given size?
We received four submissions to the docket: One from a respirator manufacturer, one from a mining association, one from a coal company, and one from three coal companies and another mining association. A summary of comments and HHS responses are found in Section III, below.
Under Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (42 CFR) part 84—Approval of Respiratory Protective Devices, NIOSH approves respirators used by workers in mines and other workplaces for protection against hazardous atmospheres. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) require U.S. employers to supply NIOSH-approved respirators to their employees whenever the employer requires the use of respirators.
A closed-circuit escape respirator (CCER) is an apparatus in which the wearer's exhalation is rebreathed after the carbon dioxide in the exhaled breath has been effectively removed and a suitable oxygen supply has been restored from a source within the device (
Requirements for the certification of CCERs were updated in a 2012 final rule, in which HHS codified a new Subpart O and removed only those technical requirements in 42 CFR part 84—Subpart H that were uniquely applicable to CCERs. All other applicable requirements of 42 CFR part 84 were unchanged. The purpose of these updated requirements is to enable NIOSH and MSHA to more effectively ensure the performance, reliability, and safety of CCERs.
The effective date for the new standard in Subpart O was April 9, 2012. Beginning on that date, any new application for a certificate of approval for a CCER would be required to meet the new Subpart O standard. Manufacturers were allowed to continue to manufacture, label, and sell respirators certified to the prior Subpart H standard until April 9, 2015.
On January 29, 2015, HHS published an interim final rule to amend the compliance deadline established in 42 CFR 84.301 (80 FR 4801). The interim final rule amended 42 CFR 84.301 to allow NIOSH to extend the original 3-year period for continued manufacturing, labeling, and sale of CCERs approved under Subpart H to allow for the orderly implementation of the new testing and certification requirements of Subpart O. The amendments authorized the continued manufacturing, labeling, and selling of CCERs approved under the former standard in Subpart H until either April 9, 2015 or 6 months after the date that NIOSH first approves a CCER model under the capacity rating categories Cap 1 (for mining applications) and Cap 3 (mining and non-mining) described in 42 CFR 84.304, whichever date came later.
HHS has determined that extending the concluding date for the transition is necessary to allow sufficient time for respirator manufacturers to meet the demands of the mining, maritime, railroad, and other industries. Two manufacturers recently received NIOSH approval for their small-capacity non-mining respirators; however, no large-capacity units designed for underground coal mining and other industries have received NIOSH approval to date. HHS published the interim final rule in response to concerns expressed by mining industry and maritime stakeholders that an adequate number of new CCERs would not be available for purchase by the Subpart O compliance deadline, leaving miners, sailors, and other workers with insufficient protection.
Pursuant to this final rule, which amends 42 CFR 84.301, NIOSH will extend the deadline for Subpart O compliance until 1 year after the date on which NIOSH approves the first CCER in each of the following three categories, described in 42 CFR 84.304: Cap 1 mining, Cap 3 mining, and Cap 3 non-mining.
CCER Cap 1 non-mining and Cap 2 mining and non-mining categories are not included in this rulemaking. Approval TC-13G-0001 was issued to Avon Protection Systems, Inc. on July 24, 2014 for its ER-2 emergency escape breathing device (EEBD). The ER-2 EEBD is certified by NIOSH as a Cap 1, 20-liter, CCER for use in non-mining applications. A second approval for a Cap 1 non-mining CCER was awarded to Ocenco Incorporated on December 2, 2014. The Cap 2 mining and non-mining categories are not included in this rulemaking because there are no units previously approved under Subpart H that are equivalent to the Cap 2 categories.
Approval TC-13G-003 was issued to Avon Protection Systems on May 13, 2015, for a Cap 1 unit for use in mining applications. The Avon approval triggered a 6-month transition for the category of Cap 1 mining respirators, in accordance with the language of the interim final rule. With the publication of this final rule, that extension is
As discussed above in the Public Participation section, HHS received four submissions to the rulemaking docket. Although the commenters were unanimous in their support of an extension, they cited a variety of reasons for the insufficiency of the 6-month extension established in the interim final rule.
We do expect NIOSH approval of Cap 3 CCERs to occur in short order. Because two manufacturers have recently received approvals for Cap 1 CCERs for non-mining applications, NIOSH expects that manufacturers will be able to meet the Cap 3 requirements, which require less of a performance increase from existing respirators in the
This final rule amends 42 CFR 84.301 to allow NIOSH to extend the original 3-year period for continued manufacturing, labeling, and sale of CCERs approved under Subpart H to allow for the orderly implementation of the new testing and certification requirements of Subpart O. This provision allows NIOSH to extend the original transition period to allow manufacturers to obtain NIOSH approval, establish production capacity, and complete the modification of existing CCER designs, if necessary, or develop new designs that comply with the new testing and certification requirements. An extension also ensures that a constant supply of approved CCERs will remain available for purchase. The new Subpart O standard will continue to be applied to all new CCER designs that are submitted for approval. In accordance with this final rule, all types of CCERs approved under Subpart H that were manufactured and labeled as NIOSH-approved, and sold by April 9, 2015, and including those units manufactured and labeled as NIOSH-approved and sold during the extended periods established by this rule, may continue to be used as NIOSH-approved respirators until the end of their service life.
In response to the public comments, HHS is amending § 84.301(a) and thereby authorizes the continued manufacturing, labeling, and selling of CCERs approved under the former standard in Subpart H until 1 year after the date that NIOSH first approves a CCER model under the capacity rating categories Cap 1 (for mining applications) and Cap 3 (mining and non-mining) described in 42 CFR 84.304. This extension is in accordance with the comment requesting an increase in the duration of the extension from 6 to 16 months, as we understand that the 16-month request includes at least 5 months for manufacturers to receive NIOSH approval after a first approval in a given category (leaving 11 months, in the commenter's estimation, for completion of the manufacturing and procurement processes). We anticipate that most applications will have been submitted to NIOSH by the time a first approval is granted, and find that building additional time into the extension for the approval process will unnecessarily delay the Subpart O transition.
We have also amended the paragraph to clarify that a Cap 1 device under Subpart O is comparable to a device with a rated service time of less than 20 minutes under Subpart H, and a Cap III device under Subpart O is comparable to a device with a rated service time of greater than 50 minutes under Subpart H. Finally, we have removed reference to April 9, 2015 in paragraph (a), as that date has passed.
HHS received no comments on the provisions of paragraphs (b) or (c) and, accordingly, they are unchanged. Paragraph (b) clarifies that any non-major modifications to those approved devices must continue to meet the prior Subpart H standard. CCERs with major modifications that will result in a new NIOSH approval must conform to the new Subpart O standard. Paragraph (c) states that Subpart O applies to all CCERs submitted to NIOSH for approval after the effective date of the final rule, April 9, 2012.
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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This final rule is not being treated as a “significant” action under E.O. 12866. It amends existing 42 CFR 84.301 to allow NIOSH to extend the deadline for a respirator certification standard established in 2012, and does not result in any costs to affected stakeholders; it does not raise any novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, HHS has not prepared an economic analysis and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking.
The rule does not interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
NIOSH has obtained approval from OMB to collect information from respirator manufacturers under “Information Collection Provisions in
As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. NIOSH has provided clear deadline extension requirements that will be applied uniformly to all applications from manufacturers of CCERs in certain categories. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no effect on children.
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect.
Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces. HHS has attempted to use plain language in promulgating the final rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.
Incorporation by reference, Mine safety and health, Occupational safety and health, Personal protective equipment, Respirators.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR part 84 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 651
(a) The continued manufacturing, labeling, and sale of CCERs previously approved under subpart H is authorized for units intended to be used in mining applications with durations comparable to Cap 1 (all CCERs with a rated service time ≤20 minutes), and units intended to be used in mining and non-mining applications with durations comparable to Cap 3 (all CCERs with a rated service time ≥50 minutes), until 1 year after the date of the first NIOSH approval of a respirator model under each respective category specified.
(b) Any manufacturer-requested modification to a device approved under the former subpart H standard must comply with the former subpart H standard and address an identified worker safety or health concern to be granted an extension of the NIOSH approval. Major modifications to the configuration that will result in a new approval number must meet and be issued approvals under the requirements of this subpart O.
(c) This subpart O applies to all CCERs submitted to NIOSH for a certificate of approval after April 9, 2012.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Final rule.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is issuing regulations to implement provisions of the Public Health Service Act authorizing the NIH Undergraduate Scholarship Program Regarding Professions Needed by National Research Institutes (UGSP). The purpose of the program is to recruit appropriately qualified undergraduate students from disadvantaged backgrounds to conduct research in the intramural research program as employees of the NIH by providing scholarship support.
This final rule is effective September 11, 2015.
Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office of Management Assessment, NIH, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Room 601, MSC 7669, Rockville MD 20852; by email at
On June 10, 1993, the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-43) was enacted. Section 1631 of this law amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act by adding section 487D (42 U.S.C. 288-4). Section 487D authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Director of the NIH, to carry out a program of entering into contracts with individuals under which the Director agrees to provide scholarships for pursuing, as undergraduates at accredited institutions of higher education, academic programs appropriate for careers in professions needed by the NIH. In return, the individuals agree to serve as employees of the NIH in positions that are needed by the NIH and for which the individuals are qualified. The individuals must be enrolled or accepted for enrollment as full-time undergraduates at accredited institutions of higher education and must be from disadvantaged backgrounds. Section 487D of the PHS Act further states that, concerning penalties for breach of scholarship contract, the provisions of section 338E of the PHS Act shall apply to the program to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program established in section 338B.
The 1993 amendment of the PHS Act led to the establishment of the UGSP. The purpose of the program, since it began selecting participants in 1997, is to recruit appropriately qualified undergraduate students from disadvantaged backgrounds to conduct research in the intramural research program as employees of the NIH by providing scholarship support. The UGSP provides a diverse and highly qualified cadre of individuals seeking careers compatible with NIH employment opportunities.
The NIH is amending title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding Part 68b governing the administration of the UGSP. This final rule establishes program regulations necessary to implement and enforce important aspects of the UGSP. In general, this final rule specifies the scope and purpose of the program, the eligibility criteria, the application process, the selection criteria, and the terms and conditions of the program.
The rationale used by the NIH in developing the eligibility and selection criteria of this final rule is explained as follows. For eligibility, the definition for “Individual from Disadvantaged Background” used in section § 68b.2 of this proposed rule is the same definition used for other similar programs in HHS such as the NIH Loan Repayment Program and the Health Resources and Services Administration Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students Program. That is, an individual from a disadvantaged background, as section § 68b.2 states, means “an individual who: (1) Comes from an environment that inhibited (but did not prevent) him or her from obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to enroll in an undergraduate institution; or (2) comes from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds. These low-income thresholds are based on family size, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted by the Secretary for use in all health professions programs.” Previously, the UGSP used this definition, but switched to another definition that did not take into consideration any other factors other than economics in defining “Individual from a Disadvantaged Background.” The program used that approach for several UGSP cycles and noted a decrease in the qualifications of applicants. The NIH believes that returning to the original definition, stated above, will ensure the largest, most diverse pool of applicants for the UGSP.
Regarding selection criteria, the applications are prioritized in § 68b.5 to give preference to students that have already completed two years of undergraduate studies and have excellent grades in the core science courses because the NIH wants to ensure a pool of candidates that likely possess the traits required to complete their undergraduate training and their required service obligation to the NIH.
The NIH announced its intentions to take this rulemaking action, through HHS, in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “National Institutes of Health Undergraduate Scholarship Program Regarding Professions Needed by National Research Institutes” published in the
The second respondent expressed concern that the rule might have an internal conflict between eligibility and selection criteria set forth in § 68b.2 and § 68b.5, respectively. The respondent suggested that matriculating through the first two years of undergraduate studies and achieving junior and senior class undergraduate status indicates that an individual has overcome obstacles that would have rendered the individual disadvantaged, therefore placing priority on recruiting undergraduate students at the junior and senior year grade levels would be contradictory and it undermines the program's initiative to recruit students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
We disagree with the respondent's reasoning. Accomplishing academic success and research experience does not preclude or nullify environmental or financial disadvantage. Disadvantaged backgrounds affect individuals at a host of training levels, which is evidenced by the NIH Loan Repayment Programs and other Federal aid programs for professionals that recognize and award individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds after achieving a fair amount of success,
The UGSP has very specific reasons for placing priority on recruiting upperclassman candidates. First, students who have matriculated into their junior and senior years of undergraduate study have usually completed the challenging core courses required to pursue research-specific careers. Since students selected into the
Consequently, we did not make any changes to what we proposed in the previous NPRM in response to the two public comments that we received. The final rule is the same as what we proposed in the previous NPRM.
The following is provided as public information.
We have examined the impacts of this final rule as required by Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993); Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011); the Regulatory Flexibility Act (September 19, 1980, 5 U.S.C. chapter 6); section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); and Executive Order 13132, Federalism (August 4, 1999).
Executive Order 12866, supplemented by Executive Order 13563, directs 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 and other advantages, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). Based on our analysis, we believe that the final rule is not a major rule and it will not constitute an economically significant regulatory action. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C., chapter 6) requires agencies to analyze options that would minimize any significant impact of the rule on small entities. For the purpose of this analysis, small entities include small business concerns as defined by the Small Business Administration, usually businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Applicants who are eligible to apply for the UGSP are individuals and not small entities. It is certified that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a significant number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written statement that includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing “any rule that includes any federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal organizations, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995) in any one year.” The inflation-adjusted threshold for 2014 is approximately $141 million. Participation in the UGSP is voluntary and not mandated. Therefore, it is certified that this final rule does not mandate any spending by state, local, or tribal government in the aggregate or by the private sector.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, requires that federal agencies consult with state and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with federalism implications. This final rule has been reviewed as required under the Executive Order and it has been determined that the proposed rulemaking does not have any federalism implications. It is certified that this final rule will not have an effect on the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This final rule does not contain any new information collection requirements that are subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The application and contract forms used by the NIH Undergraduate Scholarship Program have been approved by OMB under OMB No. 0925-0299 (expires August 31, 2016).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance-numbered program affected by the proposed regulations is:
Education of disadvantaged, Health—medical research, Student aid—education.
For reasons presented in the preamble, title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding part 68b to read as set forth below.
42 U.S.C. 288-4.
This part applies to the award of scholarships under the National Institutes of Health Undergraduate Scholarship Program Regarding Professions Needed by National Research Institutes, authorized by section 487D of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 288-4), to undergraduate students attending schools, as the term is defined in this part. The purpose of this program is to help ensure an adequate supply of trained health professionals for the National Institutes of Health, which has the mission to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health.
As used in this part:
(1) An individual who—
(i) Comes from an environment that inhibited (but did not prevent) him or her from obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to enroll in an undergraduate institution; or
(ii) Comes from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds.
(2) These low-income thresholds are based on family size, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for use in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' health professions programs. The Secretary periodically publishes these income levels in the
(1) Is accredited by an agency recognized by the Commission on Recognition of Post-Secondary Accreditation; and
(2) Is located in a State.
(a) To be eligible for a scholarship under this part, applicants must meet the following requirements:
(1) Applicants must be accepted for enrollment, or be enrolled, as full-time undergraduate students in a school;
(2) Applicants must have an overall grade point average of at least 3.5 or a 3.5 average in their major field of study (on a 4.0 scale) or be ranked within the top five percent of their current class (or those students entering, if applying in their freshman year);
(3) Applicants must come from a disadvantaged background as defined by § 68b.2;
(4) Applicants must meet the citizenship requirements for federal employment; and
(5) Applicants must submit an application to participate in the Scholarship Program together with a signed contract as outlined in sections 487D(a) and (f) of the Act.
(b) Any applicant who owes an obligation for service to a State or other entity under an agreement entered into before filing an application under this part is ineligible for an award unless a written statement satisfactory to the Director is submitted from the State or entity that:
(1) There is no potential conflict in fulfilling the service obligation to the State or entity and the Scholarship Program, and
(2) The Scholarship Program service obligation will be served before the service obligation for professional practice owed to the State or entity.
Each individual desiring a scholarship under this part must submit an application (including a signed contract as required under section 487D(a) of the Act) in such form and manner as the Director may prescribe.
(a)
(b)
(2) Second priority will be given to applicants who have completed four core science courses, as defined above.
(3) Third priority will be given to applicants who are matriculated freshmen or sophomores.
(c)
(1) Biomedical research experience and performance,
(2) Academic performance,
(3) Career goals, and
(4) Recommendations.
(d)
(e)
(1) The participant requests a continuation of scholarship support;
(2) The scholarship will not extend the total period of Scholarship Program support beyond 4 years; and
(3) The participant is eligible for continued participation in the Scholarship Program, as determined by the Scholarship Program Review Committee.
(a)
(i) Tuition;
(ii) Reasonable educational expenses, including required fees, books, supplies, and required educational equipment;
(iii) Reasonable living expenses for the academic year as documented in the school's financial aid budget; and
(iv) For purposes of this section, “required fees” means those fees that are charged by the school to all students pursuing a similar curriculum, and “required educational equipment” means educational equipment that must be purchased by all students pursuing a similar curriculum at that school.
(2) The Director may enter into an agreement with the school in which the participant is enrolled for the direct payment of tuition and reasonable educational expenses on the participant's behalf.
(b)
(1) Approves a leave-of-absence for the participant for health, personal, or other reasons; or
(2) Requires the participant to repeat course work for which the Director has previously made scholarship payments under § 68b.6. However, if the repeated course work does not delay the participant's graduation date, scholarship payments will continue except for any additional costs relating to the repeated course work. Any scholarship payments suspended under this paragraph will be resumed by the Director upon notification by the school that the participant has returned from the leave-of-absence or has completed the repeated course work and is pursuing as a full-time student the course of study for which the scholarship was awarded.
(a)
(1) For not less than 10 consecutive weeks of each year during which the participant receives the scholarship; and
(2) For 12 months for each academic year for which the scholarship has been provided.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) When a participant fails to maintain an acceptable level of academic standing, is dismissed from the school for disciplinary reasons, or voluntarily terminates the course of study or program for which the scholarship was awarded before completing the course of study or program, the participant must, instead of performing any service obligation, pay to the United States an amount equal to all scholarship funds awarded under § 68b.6. Payment of this amount must be made within 3 years of the date the participant becomes liable to make payment under this paragraph (a).
(b) If, for any reason not specified in § 68b.11(b), a participant fails to begin or complete the period of obligated service incurred under § 68b.7, including failing to comply with the applicable terms and conditions of a deferment granted by the Director, the participant must pay to the United States an amount determined by the penalties set forth in section 487D(e) of the Act. Payment of this amount shall be made within one year of the date that the participant failed to begin or complete the period of obligated service, as determined by the Director.
Any payment obligation incurred under § 68b.9 may be discharged in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code only if such discharge is granted after the expiration of the seven-year period beginning on the first date that payment is required and only if the bankruptcy court finds that a nondischarge of the obligation would be unconscionable.
(a) Any obligation of a participant for service or payment to the federal government under this part will be canceled upon the death of the participant.
(b) The Director may waive or suspend any service or payment obligation incurred by the participant upon request whenever compliance by the participant:
(1) Is impossible, or
(2)(i) Would involve extreme hardship, and
(ii) If enforcement of the service or payment obligation would be unconscionable, as required by section 487 D(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 288-4(e).
(c) The Director may approve a request for a suspension of the service or payment obligations for a period of one year. A renewal of this suspension may also be granted.
(d) Compliance by a participant with a service or payment obligation will be considered impossible if the Director determines, on the basis of information and documentation as may be required, that the participant suffers from a physical or mental disability resulting in the permanent inability of the participant to perform the service or other activities that would be necessary to comply with the obligation.
(e) In determining whether to waive or suspend any or all of the service or payment obligations of a participant as imposing an undue hardship and being against equity and good conscience, the Director, on the basis of information and documentation as may be required, will consider:
(1) The participant's present financial resources and obligations;
(2) The participant's estimated future financial resources and obligations; and
(3) The extent to which the participant has problems of a personal nature, such as physical or mental disability or terminal illness in the immediate family, which so intrude on the participant's present and future ability to perform as to raise a presumption that the individual will be unable to begin or complete the obligation incurred.
Several other regulations and statutes apply to this part. These include, but are not necessarily limited to:
(a) Debt Collection Act of 1982 (31 U.S.C. 3701
(b) Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3701 note);
(c) Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681
(d) Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 176); and
(e) Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement Regulatory Amendment 22 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP)(Regulatory Amendment 22), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule revises the annual catch limits (ACLs) for gag grouper (gag) and wreckfish and the directed commercial quota for gag, based upon revisions to the acceptable biological catch (ABC) and the optimum yield (OY) for gag and wreckfish. The purpose of this final rule is to help achieve OY and prevent overfishing of gag and wreckfish in the South Atlantic region while minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse social and economic effects to the snapper-grouper fishery.
This rule is effective September 11, 2015, except for the amendments to §§ 622.190(b) and 622.193(r)(1) which are effective August 12, 2015.
Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 22, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Mary Janine Vara, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
Gag and wreckfish are in the snapper-grouper fishery and are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On June 4, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 22 and requested public comment through July 6, 2015 (80 FR 31880). The proposed rule and Regulatory Amendment 22 set forth the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by Regulatory Amendment 22 and this final rule is provided below.
This final rule revises the commercial and recreational ACLs and directed commercial quotas for gag for the 2015 through the 2019 fishing years and subsequent fishing years, and revises the commercial and recreational ACLs for wreckfish for the 2015 through the 2020 fishing years and subsequent fishing years.
NMFS received a total of six unique comment submissions (some containing several comments) from three individuals, two fishing associations, and one Federal agency on Regulatory Amendment 22 and the proposed rule. Two comments were supportive of the actions contained in the regulatory amendment and proposed rule, one comment stated the commenter had no comments, and three of the comments expressed concerns regarding red snapper regulations, venting fish, fishery closures, sector allocations, tag programs, reporting requirements, and changing the Marine Recreational Information Program on accuracy and reliability; NMFS determined these comments were beyond the scope of the proposed rule and, therefore, they have not been addressed in this final rule. A summary of the comments relevant to Regulatory Amendment 22 and the proposed rule and NMFS's responses are included below.
The NMFS Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic gag and wreckfish and is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 22, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification and NMFS has not received any new information that would affect its determination. No changes to the final rule were made in response to public comments. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the commercial ACLs (commercial quotas) for wreckfish contained at §§ 622.190(b) and 622.193(r)(1) in this final rule. The final rule increases the commercial ACLs for wreckfish in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to help achieve OY and prevent overfishing of wreckfish, while minimizing adverse social and economic effects on wreckfish. Implementing these increased commercial ACLs immediately provides timely opportunity for commercial wreckfish fishermen to achieve OY for the fishery, thereby helping to achieve the intent of this final rule.
In addition, eliminating the 30-day delay in effectiveness will allow fishermen to access wreckfish during the summer when weather and sea conditions are most favorable for harvest. Wreckfish are taken far offshore and in deep water. Therefore, to enhance safety-at-sea, implementing the opportunity for commercial wreckfish fishermen to continue fishing right away would mean that fishermen will not need to fish later in the fishing year when weather can be poor, which is more likely to happen if these ACLs are implemented with a 30-day delay in effectiveness.
Annual catch limits, Fisheries, Fishing, Gag, Quotas, South Atlantic, Wreckfish.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * * The quotas are in gutted weight, that is eviscerated but otherwise whole, except for the quotas in paragraphs (a)(4) through (7) of this section which are in both gutted weight and round weight.
(7)
(ii) For the 2016 fishing year—297,882 lb (135,117 kg), gutted weight; 351,501 (159,438 kg), round weight.
(iii) For the 2017 fishing year—318,231 lb (144,347 kg), gutted weight; 375,513 lb (170,330 kg), round weight.
(iv) For the 2018 fishing year—335,188 lb (152,039 kg), gutted weight; 395,522 lb (179,406 kg), round weight.
(v) For the 2019 and subsequent fishing years—347,301 lb (157,533 kg), gutted weight; 409,816 lb (185,889 kg), round weight.
(b)
(i) For the 2015 fishing year—411,350 lb (186,585 kg).
(ii) For the 2016 fishing year—402,515 (182,578 kg).
(iii) For the 2017 fishing year—393,490 lb (178,484 kg).
(iv) For the 2018 fishing year—385,985 lb (175,080 kg).
(v) For the 2019 fishing year—376,960 lb (170,986 kg).
(vi) For the 2020 and subsequent fishing years—369,645 lb (167,668 kg).
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(2)
(ii) Without regard to overfished status, if gag recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the recreational ACL for that fishing year by the amount of the overage.
(iii) Recreational landings will be evaluated relative to the ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMP.
(iv) The recreational ACL for gag is 310,023 lb (148,025 kg), gutted weight, 365,827 (165,936 kg), round weight, for 2015; 312,351 lb (149,137 kg), gutted weight, 368,574 lb (175,981 kg), round weight, for 2016; 331,902 lb (158,472 kg), gutted weight, 391,644 lb (186,997 kg), round weight, for 2017; 348,194 lb (166,251 kg), gutted weight, 410,869 lb (196,176 kg), round weight, for 2018; and 359,832 lb (171,807 kg), gutted weight, 424,602 lb (202,733 kg), round weight, for 2019 and subsequent fishing years.
(r)
(2)
(ii) The recreational ACL for wreckfish is 21,650 (9,820 kg), round weight, for 2015; 21,185 lb (9,609 kg), round weight, for 2016; 20,710 lb (9,394 kg), round weight, for 2017; 20,315 lb (9,215 kg), round weight, for 2018; 19,840 lb (8,999 kg), round weight, for 2019; and 19,455 lb (8,825 kg), round weight, for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; Reopening of Public Comment Period.
The National Park Service is reopening the public comment period for the proposed rule to amend its regulations to authorize agreements between the National Park Service and federally recognized Indian tribes to allow the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts by designated tribal members for traditional purposes. Reopening the comment period for 45 days will allow more time for the public to review the proposal and submit comments.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21674), is reopened. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on September 28, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
National Park Service, Joe Watkins, Office of Tribal Relations and American Cultures, 1201 Eye Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-354-2126,
On April 20, 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) published in the
To view comments received through the Federal eRulemaking portal, go to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on May 1, 2015. This SIP revision seeks to make changes to the SIP to remove certain Stage I vapor control requirements and to make administrative changes to the SIP that would remove gasoline vapor control rules that no longer serve a regulatory purpose, including rules related to the Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties (hereinafter referred to as the “Southeast Florida Area”). EPA has preliminarily determined that Florida's May 1, 2015, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). In the Final Rules Section of this
Written comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0336 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Kelly Sheckler, 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. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is (404) 562-9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at
For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of submissions from Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina for inclusion into each State's implementation plan. This proposed action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a state implementation plan (SIP) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure SIPs submissions.” Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the submissions from Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina that pertain to a certain visibility requirement related to the 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIPs for each state. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS associated with these States' infrastructure submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Written comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0177, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nacosta Ward, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; extension of comment period.
The Administration for Children and Families extends the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking entitled, “Head Start Performance Standards.” We take this action to respond to requests from the public for more time to submit comments. The notice of proposed rulemaking and our request for comments appeared in the
ACF extends the comment period for notice of proposed rulemaking entitled, “Head Start Performance Standards” published on June 19, 2015 (80 FR 35430), to September 17, 2015. Submit either electronic or written comments by September 17, 2015.
Follow online instructions at
To ensure we can effectively respond to your comment(s), clearly identify the issue(s) on which you are commenting. Provide the page number, identify the column, and cite the paragraph from the
Colleen Rathgeb, Office of Head Start Policy and Planning Division Director, (202) 358-3263,
HHS published the Head Start Performance Standards notice of proposed rulemaking in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Proposed rule.
NASA proposes to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to revise a current clause related to safety and health measures and mishaps reporting by narrowing the application of the clause, resulting in a decrease in the reporting burden on contractors while reinforcing the measures contractors at NASA facilities must take to protect the safety of their workers, NASA employees, the public, and high value assets. The revision to this proposed rule is part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563 completed in August 2011.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the address shown below on or before October 13, 2015 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Interested parties may submit comments, identified by RIN number 2700-AE16 via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Marilyn E. Chambers, NASA, Office of Procurement, via email at
The NFS clause at 1852.223-70, Safety and Health, is currently used when the—
• Contractor's work will be conducted completely or partly on premises owned or controlled by the Government;
• Work includes construction, alteration, or repair of facilities in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold;
• Work, regardless of place of performance, involves hazards that could endanger the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), or high value equipment or property, and the hazards are not adequately addressed by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (if applicable); or
• Assessed risk and consequences of a failure to properly manage and control the hazard(s) warrants use of the clause.
The clause may be excluded, regardless of place of performance, when the contracting officer, with the approval of the installation official(s) responsible for matters of safety and occupational health, determines that the application of OSHA and DOT regulations constitutes adequate safety and occupational health protection. Similar requirements apply to the flow down of the clause to subcontracts.
In addition to requiring the contractor to report certain mishaps or close calls, the clause currently requires the contractor to investigate these incidents and provide a report to the contracting officer both reporting on the incident and corrective action taken in response to the incident. The clause also contains reporting requirements related to the contract safety and health plan which is required under certain NASA contracts as set forth in 1823.7001(c).
While the clause requires the contractor to take all reasonable safety and occupational health measures in
This proposed rule addresses both reducing the burden on contractors under the current clause, being more specific on the safety and health measures the contractor must take when working on a Federal facility, and the remedies the Government may take for failure to maintain an effective safety and health program.
The clause title is revised from “Safety and Health” to “Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting” to emphasize the purpose of the clause, which is to ensure contractors working at Federal facilities are taking appropriate measures to protect the safety of their workers, other individuals working at the facility, and the public. The new title will also distinguish this clause from a similarly entitled provision at 1852.223.73, Safety and Health Plans, which has caused some confusion in the past. To reduce the burden on contractors, the clause prescription is revised to require it in solicitations and contracts above the simplified action threshold and to require it only for contracts involving performance at a Federal facility. The applicability to subcontracts is also revised to apply to subcontracts above the simplified action threshold where performance is at a Federal facility.
NASA is proposing to amend NFS 1823.7001(a) to revise the title of the clause at 1852.223-70 from Safety and Health to Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting. The clause prescription will be revised to apply only to solicitations and contracts above the simplified action threshold and to require it only for contracts involving performance at a Federal facility. The flow down to subcontracts is also revised to apply to subcontracts above the simplified action threshold where performance is at a Federal facility.
Paragraph (b) of the clause is expanded to list safety and occupational health measures a contractor shall take in performing the contract. The contractor shall maintain an effective worksite safety and health program with organized and systematic methods to—
1. Comply with Federal, State, and local safety and occupational health laws and with the safety and occupational health requirements of this contract;
2. Describe and assign the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and employees;
3. Inspect regularly for and identify, evaluate, prevent, and control hazards;
4. Orient and train employees to eliminate or avoid hazards; and
5. Periodically review the program's effectiveness.
These measures are recognized by the Office of Safety and Health Administration and industry as standards for finding hazards and developing a workplace plan for prevention and control of those hazards. Additionally, paragraph (b) is revised to add wording concerning authorized Government representatives rights to have access to and to examine the work site and related records under the contract in order to determine the adequacy of the Contractor's safety and occupational health measures.
Paragraph (d) is revised to remove text describing various accidents, incidents, or exposures which constitute a mishap or close call in favor of a reference to NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping, which contains a listing and description of the types of mishaps (types A, B, C, or D) or close calls the contractor must report to the contracting officer. NPR 8621.1 can be accessed at
To reduce the burden on contractors, paragraph (e) is revised to eliminate a requirement for the contractor to investigate all work-related incidents, accidents, and close calls, to determine their causes and furnish a report to the contracting officer and replace with a requirement to cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation by providing access to their employees and relevant information in the possession of the contractor regarding the mishap or close call.
Paragraph (f) is revised to eliminate the requirement for the contracting officer to notify the contractor “in writing” of any noncompliance. Emergency circumstances may necessitate that this communication be done orally. Additionally, the term “this clause” is removed and replaced with “the health and safety requirements of this contract” to include any health or safety requirements contained elsewhere in the schedule. To reduce the burden on contractors, the requirement to report corrective action to the contracting officer is removed. In addition to a stop work order currently addressed in section (2) of paragraph (f), the remedies available to the Government when the contractor fails or refuses to take action to correct a serious or imminent danger to safety and health are revised to include requiring the contractor to remove and replace any contractor or subcontractor personnel performing under this contract who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements of the clause; and that the contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of this clause may be included in appropriate databases of past performance and may be considered in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance.
The clause flow down requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) are simplified and reduced to apply only to subcontracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on Federally-controlled facilities.
Paragraph (i) is deleted. The requirement to provide Government representatives access to and the right to examine the work site in order to determine the adequacy of the contractor's safety and occupational health measures under this clause has been moved to paragraph (e).
Paragraph (j) is deleted. Safety and health plan requirements are addressed elsewhere in the NFS.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This proposed revision to NFS clause 1852.223-70 is undertaken to reduce burden on contractors by (1) changing the applicability of the NFS clause to only contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold and to only those performed on Federal facilities, and (2) by removing reporting requirements relating to mishap investigations and health and safety plans.
The objective of this proposed rule is to (1) set forth safety program requirements for contractors performing on a Federal facility and (2) to protect the public, Agency and contractor workforce and assets from harm and manage the risk to which they are exposed by preventing the recurrence of close calls and mishaps. NASA's constant attention to safety is the cornerstone upon which we build mission success. NASA is committed to protecting the safety and health of the public, team members, and those assets that the Nation entrusts to NASA. It is NASA policy to report and track to resolution all corrective actions resulting from investigations of mishaps, incidents, nonconformances, anomalies, and safety and mission assurance audits and to distribute and use lessons learned to improve activities and operations. This is a vital component of NASA's safety program. The legal basis for this proposed rule is Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, as part of its retrospective analysis of existing rules.
This proposed rule will apply to small entities performing contracts with an estimated values over the simplified acquisition threshold on Federal Facilities. The System for Award Management (SAM) data shows approximately 154 firms receive contracts to which NFS clause 1852.223-70 will apply. Of those 154 firms, 84 were identified as small businesses.
Two reporting requirements are contained in the proposed clause. One is to notify the contracting officer of mishaps (types A, B, C, or D) or close calls as described in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping. The other is to provide a quarterly report on the number of mishaps, specifying lost time frequency rate, number of lost time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses. This information is collected so that NASA can analyze mishap data to look for mishap trends and determine ways to improve the safety of its workforce and high-value assets and reduce the risk to its missions. This mishap information would be initially collected a company manager or supervisor. It may be reviewed by the firm's official responsible for safety, usually an occupational health and safety. Lost time frequency rate, number of lost time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses reports would be prepared by a safety official.
The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
Proposed changes to NFS clause 1852.223-70 were designed to reduce burden on contractors by reducing the applicability of the clause and reducing the paperwork burden. The information requested in the clause is essential to the NASA health and safety program. Further and differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small entities are not feasible. Having an effective safety program is crucial to all businesses as it reduces injuries, lost time, property damage and creates a more safe and effective workplace for employees.
NASA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 in correspondence.
The proposed rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This information collection is in use without an OMB Control Number. Accordingly, NASA has submitted a request to OMB for approval of an information collection concerning Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting that the Agency has begun.
A. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. It is estimated that approximately 154 respondents will provide a total of 308 notifications of Type A, B, C, or D Mishap, or Close Call notifications (approximately 2 notifications per respondent per year). Additionally, each of 154 respondents will submit one quarterly report four times a year. Thus, responses from respondents are estimated to include 2 mishap notifications and 4 quarterly reports for a total of 6 responses annually per respondent. Based on these figures, the combined total number of responses per year for all respondents will be 308 mishap reports and 616 quarterly reports for a total of 924 total responses for all respondents. It is estimated to take a respondent approximately 4 hours to gather the required information and notify the contracting officer of a Type A, B, C, or D Mishap or Close Call. It is estimated to take respondents approximately 5 hours to prepare and submit each quarterly report specifying lost-time frequency rate, number of lost-time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses. The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the NFS, and 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; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1823 and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) Insert the clause at 1852.223-70, Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting, in solicitations and contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.
(b) The clause prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section may be excluded, with the approval of the installation official(s) responsible for matters of safety and occupational health.
(c) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.223-73, Safety and Health Plan, in solicitations containing the clause at 1852.223-70. This provision may be modified to identify specific information that is to be included in the plan. After receiving the concurrence of the center safety and occupational health official(s), the contracting officer shall include the plan in any resulting contract. Insert the provision with its Alternate I, in Invitations for Bid containing the clause at 1852.223-70.
(d)(1)The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-75, Major Breach of Safety or Security, in all solicitations and contracts with estimated values of $500,000 or more, unless waived at a level above the contracting officer with the concurrence of the project manager and the installation official(s) responsible for matters of security, export control, safety, and occupational health.
(2) Insert the clause with its Alternate I if—
(i) The solicitation or contract is with an educational or other nonprofit institution and contains the termination clause at FAR 52.249-5; or
(ii) The solicitation or contract is for commercial items and contains the clause at FAR 52.212-4.
(3) For contracts with estimated values below $500,000, use of the clause is optional.
(e) For all solicitations and contracts exceeding the micro-purchase threshold that do not include the clause at 1852.223-70, Safety and Health, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-72, Safety and Health (Short Form).
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
As prescribed in 1823.7004(1)(a), insert the following clause:
(a) Safety is the freedom from those conditions that can cause death, injury, occupational illness, damage to or loss of equipment or property, or damage to the environment. NASA's safety priority is to protect: (1) The public, (2) astronauts and pilots, (3) the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), and (4) high-value equipment and property.
(b) The Contractor shall take all reasonable safety and occupational health measures in performing this contract. The Contractor shall maintain an effective worksite safety and health program with organized and systematic methods to—
(1) Comply with Federal, State, and local safety and occupational health laws and with the safety and occupational health requirements of this contract;
(2) Describe and assign the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and employees;
(3) Inspect regularly for and identify, evaluate, prevent, and control hazards;
(4) Orient and train employees to eliminate or avoid hazards; and
(5) Periodically review the program's effectiveness. Authorized Government representatives shall have access to and the right to examine the work site and related records under this contract in order to determine the adequacy of the Contractor's safety and occupational health measures.
(c) The Contractor shall take, or cause to be taken, any other safety, and occupational health measures the Contracting Officer may reasonably direct. To the extent that the Contractor may be entitled to an equitable adjustment for those measures under the terms and conditions of this contract, the equitable adjustment shall be determined pursuant to the procedures of the changes clause of this contract; provided, that no adjustment shall be made under this Safety and Health clause for any change for which an equitable adjustment is expressly provided under any other clause of the contract.
(d) The Contractor shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer or a designee of any Type A, B, C, or D Mishap, or close calls as defined in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping. In addition, service contractors (excluding construction contracts) shall provide quarterly reports specifying lost-time frequency rate, number of lost-time injuries, exposure, and accident/incident dollar losses.
(e) The Contractor shall cooperate with any Government-authorized investigation of Type A, B, C, or D Mishaps, or Close Calls reported pursuant to paragraph (d) of this clause by providing access to employees; and relevant information in the possession of the Contractor regarding the mishap or close call.
(f)(1) The Contracting Officer may notify the Contractor in writing of any noncompliance with the health and safety requirements of this contract and specify corrective actions to be taken. When the Contracting Officer becomes aware of noncompliance that may pose a serious or imminent danger to safety and health of the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), or high value mission critical equipment or property, the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor orally, with written confirmation. The Contractor shall promptly take corrective action.
(2) If the Contractor fails or refuses to institute prompt corrective action, the Contracting Officer may invoke the stop-work order clause in this contract. In addition to other remedies available to the Government—
(i) The Contractor shall remove and replace any Contractor or subcontractor personnel performing under this contract who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements of this clause; and
(ii) The Contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of this clause may be included in the appropriate databases of past performance and may be considered in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance.
(g) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (g) in all subcontracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 15 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
Written comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015.
You may submit comments on Amendment 15, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0097” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 15, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMP being revised by Amendment 15 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Amendment 15 would revise the MSY, overfishing threshhold, and the overfished threshold definitions and values for brown, white, and pink shrimp in the Gulf. MSY is the largest average catch that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. Overfishing occurs when the rate of removal is too high and jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis. A stock or stock complex is considered overfished when its biomass has declined below the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis.
The criteria and values for MSY, overfishing threshold, and overfished threshold for penaeid shrimp were established in Amendment 13 to the FMP (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). Historically, Gulf penaeid shrimp stocks were assessed with a virtual population analysis (VPA), which reported output in terms of number of parents. However, the 2007 pink shrimp stock assessment VPA incorrectly determined pink shrimp were undergoing overfishing because the model could not accommodate low effort. In 2009, NMFS stock assessment analysts determined that the stock synthesis model was the best choice for modeling Gulf shrimp populations. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee accepted the stock synthesis model as best scientific information available and Amendment 15 modifies the stock status determination criteria to match the biomass-based outputs of the stock synthesis model. These revisions to the penaeid shrimp stock status criteria are expected to have little to no change in the biological, physical, or ecological environments because these changes are only to the stock status reference points and will not have a direct impact on the actual harvest of penaeid shrimp.
Amendment 15 would also revise the FMP framework procedures. Framework procedures for a FMP allow changes in specific management measures and parameters that can be made more efficiently than changes made through a FMP plan amendment. Amendment 15 would make changes to the framework procedures to allow for modification of accountability measures under the standard documentation process of the open framework procedure. Also, outdated terminology, such as “total allowable catch” would be removed. Additionally, the phrase “transfer at sea provisions” would be removed from the list of framework procedures because this phrase was inadvertently included in the final rule for the Generic Annual Catch Limit Amendment (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011).
A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 15 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council has submitted Amendment 15 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by October 13, 2015, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
September 28-29, 2015.
United States Court of Appeals, William K. Nakamura Courthouse, Sixth Floor Judges Conference Room, 1010 Fifth Avenue, Seattle WA 98104.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection Export Certificate Request Forms OMB No. 0581-0283.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 13, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be sent to Office of the Deputy Administrator, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Room 2968-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20090-6465 or may be submitted at the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Comments are invited on: (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 including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is announcing that the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) will hold meetings of the full Committee and subcommittees on September 9-11, 2015. The Committee will discuss: (1) Effective Salmonella Control Strategies for Poultry and (2) Virulence Factors and Attributes that Define Foodborne Shiga Toxin-producing
The full Committee will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The Subcommittee on Effective Salmonella Control Strategies for Poultry and the Subcommittee on Virulence Factors and Attributes that Define Foodborne Shiga Toxin-producing
The September 9, 2015, full Committee meeting will be held at the Residence Inn by Marriott, Washington DC, 333 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. The subcommittee meetings will be held at the Patriot's Plaza III, 1st Floor Auditorium and Conference Rooms, 355 E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. All documents related to the full Committee meeting will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room, USDA, 355 E. Street SW., Patriots Plaza 3, Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, as soon as they become available. The NACMCF documents will also be available on the Internet at
FSIS will finalize an agenda on or before the meeting dates and post it on the FSIS Web page at
Also, the official transcript of the September 9, 2015, full Committee meeting, when it becomes available, will be kept in the FSIS Docket Room at the above address and will also be posted on
The mailing address for the contact person is: Karen Thomas-Sharp, USDA, FSIS, Office of Public Health Science, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Patriots Plaza 3, Mailstop 3777, Room 9-47, Washington, DC 20250.
Persons interested in making a presentation, submitting technical papers, or providing comments at the September 1, plenary session should contact Karen Thomas: Phone: (202) 690-6620; Fax (202) 690-6334; Email:
The NACMCF was established in 1988, in response to a recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences for an interagency approach to microbiological criteria for foods, and in response to a recommendation of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, as expressed in the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1988. The charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing on the FSIS Internet Web page at
The NACMCF provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on public health issues relative to the safety and wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply, including development of microbiological criteria and review and evaluation of epidemiological and risk assessment data and methodologies for assessing microbiological hazards in foods. The Committee also provides scientific advice and recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Departments of Commerce and Defense.
Mr. Brian Ronholm, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA, is the Committee Chair; Dr. Susan T. Mayne, Director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), is the Vice-Chair; and Dr. James Rogers, FSIS, is the Executive Secretary.
FSIS will make all materials reviewed and considered by NACMCF regarding its deliberations available to the public. Generally, these materials will be made available as soon as possible after the full Committee meeting. Further, FSIS intends to make these materials available in electronic format on the FSIS Web page (
In order to meet the electronic and information technology accessibility standards in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, NACMCF may add alternate text descriptors for non-text elements (graphs, charts, tables, multimedia, etc.). These modifications only affect the Internet copies of the documents.
Copyrighted documents will not be posted on the FSIS Web site, but will be
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, and audiotape) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice; Extension of Comment Period.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is interested in identifying ways to stimulate increased competition in the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) marketplace and identify procurement or systems features that are barriers to new entrants. FNS is also seeking suggestions which will improve procurement of the delivery of EBT transaction processing services through modifications to, or replacement of, the existing business model. The procurement and implementation of EBT systems by State agencies administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) needs to be sustainable for all parties involved.
The landscape of EBT is in a heightened state of change, due in part to the recent decision by one of three primary companies providing EBT transaction processing services for SNAP and WIC to no longer solicit or accept any new prepaid card business, including for SNAP and WIC EBT services. In addition, there are numerous EBT projects moving toward the October 1, 2020, statutorily-mandated deadline for WIC Program implementation.
This Request for Information (RFI) seeks to obtain input from EBT stakeholders and other financial payment industry members and interested parties, regarding options and alternatives available to improve the procurement and current operational aspects of EBT. In this document, FNS has posed various questions to prompt stakeholder responses. We intend to consider and follow up on the alternatives and suggestions that appear to be most viable from both a technical and a cost/benefit standpoint.
Interested stakeholders are invited to respond to any or all of the questions that follow, and to identify issues which may not be listed.
FNS is extending the comment period to provide additional time for interested parties to review this Request for Information.
The comment period for the notice that was published on June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35932) has been extended from August 24, 2015 to October 24, 2015. To be assured of consideration, comments must be received on or before October 24, 2015.
Comments may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the public at
Andrea Gold, Director, Retailer Policy and Management Division, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, (703) 305-2434, or via email at
All SNAP State agencies and some WIC State agencies conduct EBT using magnetic stripe cards similar to debit or credit cards. Almost all EBT systems today are integrated such that all of the service requirements are provided within a single system to the relevant State agencies, often referred to as a turnkey system. Over the years, some States have obtained SNAP EBT services by contracting for individual EBT service components to one or more service providers (such as authorization platform, retailer management, transaction switching, client help desk services, and card production). A few State agencies have performed certain EBT services themselves, to control costs or meet the needs of State operations. These State-operated services may include such functions as transaction authorization, retailer training and management, EBT card distribution, and management and customer service.
In the WIC Program, several of the State agencies use smart card or chip
Contractors compete for State EBT business in a comparatively small marketplace. FNS has long encouraged healthy competition in this marketplace because the Agency believes it helps to control costs, ensures a level playing field for businesses who are interested in supporting EBT delivery processes, and encourages innovation. Two of the biggest concerns for FNS and State agencies with the limited competition within the EBT market, are the increased risk for sustainability of the industry over time, and the impact limited competition could have on pricing.
Up until most recently, in the SNAP EBT environment, there have been three dominant primary EBT contractors with State agency EBT contracts. In the WIC EBT environment, these same three on-line EBT SNAP contractors have also provided EBT on-line services for WIC. There are also two other off-line EBT contractors for WIC.
In January 2014, one of the primary contractors announced that the firm would no longer solicit or accept any new prepaid card business, which includes their EBT services. The firm is in the process of fulfilling its existing contracts but is not pursuing any further business in this area. As a result, only two of those three active primary EBT contractors remain in the market. There has been a new entrant to the SNAP market, a company that has been active in the WIC market; however, at this time, it is unclear whether any other firms will choose to enter this market. State agencies have acquired EBT service through one of two major approaches: Procurements dedicated to a single State agency, and multi-state procurements. The latter approach leverages pricing through economies of scale and standardizes requirements and contract provisions in a way that can reduce the burden on contractors of responding to separate contract solicitations by many State agencies. Typical contracts have a base period such as 5 years with several optional extension years, but there are situations where State procurement rules dictate a shorter timeframe with limited renewals. Due to the burden to develop re-procurements and manage the potential transition to a new contractor when an incumbent does not win award, it is not unusual to see a State agency choose to exercise the optional years, resulting in contract lengths of 7-10 years. It is safe to say that FNS and State agencies are interested in the best value and service for EBT projects regardless of the size of a specific State agency.
The Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79 (the Act) has also brought important changes to the SNAP EBT landscape that impacts States and SNAP EBT contractors looking forward.
That legislation removed the requirement for States and their contractors to provide no cost point-of-sale (POS) devices to all authorized SNAP retailers who were not already using a commercial payment provider. The Act also changed manual voucher processing used when retailer sales do not warrant the cost to receive a POS device from the government and for back up during system outages and disasters.
On the WIC side, while there is no new legislation at play, most of the 90 WIC State agencies are beginning to convert to an EBT delivery model to meet the October 1, 2020, deadline mandated by the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Public Law 111-296. These State agencies are acquiring services from the on-line and off-line contractors.
In sum, EBT services have developed a pricing model that has evolved since the early projects were initiated in the 1980s. Currently, contractors will bid to provide all the services, including cards, benefit account management, purchase authorization, customer service, retailer equipage and settlement to food retailers for a single cost for each household or case served in a month. Sometimes retailer equipage, pay-phone surcharges for toll-free calls and other fees have been separated from the case-month price. This pricing model allows for fluctuations in caseload related to economic changes or other growth factors. To the degree other pricing models exist, they have not taken root within either SNAP or WIC to date. Pricing can be, and often is, set up in tiers to reduce the case-month fee when certain caseload thresholds are reached either due to increases (or decreases) in household participation or if multiple State agencies have contracted together for economies of scale with the same requirements and contract standards. The major functional components of on-line EBT for SNAP and WIC are outlined in Appendix A, and off-line smart card WIC EBT is described in Appendix B.
This RFI seeks to obtain input from EBT stakeholders, other financial payments industry members and other interested parties regarding options and alternatives available to improve the procurement and operational aspects of EBT. FNS has posed various questions below to prompt stakeholder responses, and, before those, has also noted a few primary concerns and key objectives for this effort.
• Less available competition and potential that smaller State agencies may not receive affordable proposals, or even any proposals, in response to State agency solicitations.
• An increase in procurement activity and system conversions by SNAP State agencies as those using the services of the departing company migrate to the remaining processors.
• Significant increase in procurement activity and system implementation by WIC State agencies leading up to the October 1, 2020, deadline for WIC State agencies to convert to an EBT delivery system.
• Management of risks associated with greater activity in a shorter period of time.
FNS is inviting stakeholder input on how the opportunities and risks associated with these changes can best be recognized and managed. There are two main objectives:
1. Increased competition for EBT services, including that which can possibly be achieved through changes or alternatives to the current business model.
2. More stability and sustainability for this market, including that which can possibly be achieved through alternative pricing models and contract terms.
The Agency will consider all comments, and plans to follow up on alternatives and suggestions that appear to be most viable from both a technical and a cost/benefit standpoint. Responses will help inform any future actions or guidance issued by the Agency, including guidance to States on issuing EBT Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
Interested stakeholders are invited to respond to any or all of the following questions, and to identify other issues which may not be listed. Responses which clearly reference the pertinent question below would facilitate FNS' review of the stakeholder feedback.
1. Do State agency procurements provide sufficient information about the operational characteristics of their EBT projects for new entrants to the EBT market? If not, are there alternatives for potential vendors to obtain the information needed?
2. How do State Agency requirements, (such as call center response standards, transaction processing requirements, card issuance timeframes and adjustment policies), compare to commercial practices? Would adjusting some of these requirements to closely resemble the commercial world increase the interest of potential new vendors, or impact contract costs or willingness of current vendors to bid? If so, what requirements or practices should be considered?
3. Are the amounts for liquated damages and penalty clauses currently required by State agencies reasonable? If not, what would be more reasonable amounts or ways for State agencies to safeguard against such problems as project delays, unscheduled system downtime, and below-standard processing times, etc.?
4. Can more economies of scale be realized without increasing complexity through any of the following:
a. Multi-state shared services for commercial call center services, card production and delivery, training and other services?
b. The inclusion of more agencies/programs?
5. Are there requirements for vendor experience that are necessary to establish minimum qualifications to bid to provide EBT services? Are there requirements you have seen that should not be used because you believe that they unnecessarily limit competition?
6. Would any vendors be interested in providing select service components (
7. What alternative procurement models might State Agencies consider to ensure they receive viable competitive bids?
8. Should State agencies pursue coalition procurements with the benefits they bring, such as economies of scale, or does it tend to limit competition or discourage new entrants into the marketplace?
9. Does the impact of the EBT vendor assuming development and implementation costs before they begin processing transactions pose a major barrier to entering the market?
10. Are there ways to separate EBT system development/startup costs from operational costs to reduce risk for new entrants when bidding on a project? If so, what are they?
11. Are there other changes to the CPCM pricing model that would encourage potential vendors to enter the EBT market?
12. The tiered pricing model involves tiers within the CPCM pricing model, adjusted at smaller or larger intervals for different caseload levels. How can State consortia which want to procure together better realize economies of scale given their varying caseload sizes, and still benefit from a blended CPCM price based on their collective caseload volumes?
13. Are there pricing models other than the CPCM model that would be advantageous in reducing pricing risk to the vendor and still maintain sustainable prices for the State agencies? How can the disadvantages to State agencies in forecasting expenses be overcome, if costs are no longer tied to caseload levels?
Several stakeholders have advised FNS that too many procurements occurring in close succession may increase the risk that smaller State Agencies may receive fewer or even no bids, as vendors will devote scarce resources to preparing proposals for the most potentially profitable customers. Similarly, if too many implementations or conversions are scheduled in close succession, it may mean that vendors will not have sufficient technical resources to assign their top team to each one. Both of these situations represent risks which FNS would like to help State Agencies manage and mitigate.
14. Besides sharing known and estimated RFP release dates and conversion dates, what can FNS do to help State Agencies manage these risks and ensure smooth transitions?
15. Are there other areas or issues that we have not specifically asked for a response on which you would like to offer comment related to the two main objectives of this RFI?
(1) Account setup and benefit authorization—support for on-line accounts for SNAP or WIC households authorized to receive benefits;
(2) Card issuance and participant training—provide cards, equipment (PIN pads, card readers and training materials);
(3) Participant account maintenance—receive daily and monthly benefit updates from State agency systems, aging benefits and reporting;
(4) Transaction processing—approval or denial of food purchases made at authorized SNAP and WIC retailers/vendors; WIC processing includes, but is not limited to, matching of food item UPC, price and quantity;
(5) Customer service—24 x 7 toll-free call support with help desk customer service representatives and Interactive Voice Response and web portal services inquiries related to purchase activities and balances from cardholders, merchants and State agency staff;
(6) Retailer participation—support commercial third party switching services and installation and maintenance of payment terminals in smaller retail locations. Manual backup vouchers for authorizations during system interruptions or for low volume SNAP merchants;
(7) EBT settlement—daily payment to authorized retailers for approved purchases; reconciliation via reports and data file exchanges, WIC also includes food item detail;
(8) EBT reporting—administrative and batch data exchange for reporting card account activities by card number and retail location; daily financial settlement reporting and reconciliation; and,
(9) Disaster Benefit Services (SNAP only)—providing card and benefit services for natural disasters.
WIC off-line EBT processing relies on State agencies to load a smart card chip with WIC food balances that can be read in grocery store lanes. Card and Personal Identification Number (PIN) support is provided by the State agency using the clinic system that tracks and determines participant benefits. Purchases are authorized off-line in the grocery lane (without an on-line authorization) and a daily claim file is sent to the WIC EBT host for processing payment
(1) EBT host processing—processing of daily WIC claim files containing WIC transaction purchases, editing for Not-to-Exceed price limits, and pick-up of hot card, APL and reconciliation files to authorized WIC retail vendors.
(2) Retail vendor equipage & integrated support (State agency option)
(3) Customer Service (State agency option)—toll-free call center support including customer service representatives, Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and/or web portal services for cardholder and retailer and State agency staff inquiries.
(4) EBT Reporting—administrative and batch data to support all processing and authorization activities.
(5) Settlement and Reconciliation—similar to SNAP settlement but also includes food product information.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice of change to Announcement of Requirements and Registration for the U.S. Tall Wood Building Prize Competition.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in a cooperative partnership with the Softwood Lumber Board and the Binational Softwood Lumber Council is conducting a prize competition funding initiative to support the demonstration of tall wood buildings in the United States. The U.S. Tall Wood Building Prize Competition (the “Competition”) is being conducted to showcase the architectural and commercial viability of advanced wood products in tall building construction in order to support employment opportunities in rural communities, maintain the health and resiliency of the Nation's forests, and advance sustainability in the built environment.
On October 10, 2014, USDA published official competition rules in the
The Prize Purse will be used to fund one or more awards; the number of awards made will depend on the estimated amount of Eligible Expenses proposed by the winning Project Proponent Team(s). Award(s) will be made to the winning Project Proponent Team(s) to cover incremental costs of transitioning their building from a traditional structure to a wood structure,
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests from DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., and SKC, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET film) from Brazil.
Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded. PET film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Based on information Terphane submitted after the initiation of this administrative review and information collected from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Department has preliminarily determined that the record evidence indicates that Terphane currently had no reviewable entries during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to Terphane but, rather, to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review, as is our practice.
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and submit written arguments or case briefs within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise notified by the Department.
Any interested party who wishes to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days after the day of publication of this notice. A request should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to the importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (“PET film”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014. This review covers four PRC companies.
Jonathan Hill, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or co-extruded.
On December 1, 2014, Green Packing requested administrative review of subject merchandise exported by itself, and Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”) requested an administrative review of subject merchandise exported by Dongfang, Fuwei Films, Green Packing, and Wanhua. Subsequently, on March 23, 2015, Petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review of each company. No other parties requested a review with respect to Dongfang, Fuwei Films, and Wanhua. Therefore, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), is rescinding this administrative review with respect to each company. However, as Green Packing requested administrative review of itself and did not withdraw its request, the Department is continuing its review of Green Packing's exports of subject merchandise during the POR.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Further, interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, 76.72 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice; Request for information.
NIST is seeking public comment on the potential use of certain International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) standards for cryptographic algorithm and cryptographic module testing, conformance, and validation activities, currently specified by Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) directs federal agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards wherever possible. The responses to this request for information will be used to plan possible changes to the FIPS or in a decision to use all or part of the ISO/IEC standards for testing, conformance and validation of cryptographic algorithms and modules.
Comments on the potential use of ISO/IEC 19790:2014 must be received no later than 5 p.m., EST on September 28, 2015.
Written comments concerning the potential use of ISO/IEC 19790:2014 should be sent to: Information Technology Laboratory, ATTN Use of ISO/IEC 19790, Mail Stop 7730, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Electronic comments should be sent to:
Ms. Diane Honeycutt, telephone (301) 975-8443, MS 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 or via email at
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs federal agencies with respect to their use of and participation in the development of voluntary consensus standards. The NTTAA's objective is for federal agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards, wherever possible, in lieu of creating proprietary, non-consensus standards. As the implementation of commercial cryptography, which is used to protect U.S. non-national security information and information systems, is now commoditized and built, marketed and used globally, NIST is seeking comments on using the ISO/IEC 19790:2014 Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules standard as the U.S. Federal Standard for cryptographic modules (
The standards for cryptographic module testing, conformance, and validation activities are currently specified by Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2. This standard is used to ensure encryption technologies used by the U.S. Government meet minimally acceptable requirements and can demonstrate an acceptable level of conformance to the Standard that is commensurate with the risk the U.S. Government finds acceptable when using encryption technologies to protect U.S. Government information and information systems.
NIST is interested in the commercial and market effects to U.S. industry and the potential changes to visibility in cryptographic modules conformance to standards, as well as the ISO/IEC 19790:2014 standards ability to meet requirements for the U.S. Government. NIST is also interested in comments on the possible uses of ISO/IEC 19790:2014 that range from use of only selected sections, continuing with a FIPS requirement that cites a baseline version of the ISO/IEC 19790:2014, and/or full use of the ISO/IEC standard. NIST is also interested in feedback on the impacts of a potential U.S. Government requirement for use and conformance using a standard with a fee-based model where organizations must purchase copies of the ISO/IEC 19790:2014.
NIST is particularly interested in comments from commercial implementers of cryptography, testing and conformance organizations, users of cryptography, and organizations who currently require or cite FIPS 140-2 as a normative reference, on the benefits versus risks in using ISO/IEC 19790:2014 rather than FIPS 140-2 from perspectives of technology, implementations, risks and impacts to commercial IT markets. NIST requests comments on the following questions regarding the use of ISO/IEC 19790:2014, but comments on other cryptographic test and conformance issues will also be considered.
(1) Have your customers or users asked for either ISO/IEC 19790:2014 or FIPS 140-2 validations in cryptographic products?
(2) Have the markets you serve asked for either validation and have you noticed any changes in what the markets you serve are asking for?
(3) Do you think the ISO/IEC 19790:2014 standard specifies tests and provides evidence of conformance for cryptographic algorithms and modules better, equally or less as compared to FIPS 140-2 and in what areas?
(4) Is there a difference in risk that you perceive would be mitigated or accepted in use of one standard versus the other?
(5) Are the requirements in ISO/IEC 19790:2014 specific enough for your organization to develop a cryptographic module that can demonstrate conformance to this standard?
(6) Would the U.S. Government citation of an ISO standard that has a fee for access to the standard inhibit your use or implementation of this standard?
(7) Do either FIPS 140-2 or ISO/IEC 19790:2014 have a gap area that is not required for implementation, test or validation that presents an unacceptable risk to users of cryptographic modules?
The responses to this request for information will be used to plan possible changes to the FIPS or in a decision to use all or part of ISO/IEC 19790:2014 for testing, conformance and validation of cryptographic algorithms and modules. In any decision made, it is the intention of NIST to continue
Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) are issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology after approval by the Secretary of Commerce, pursuant to Section 5131 of the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-106), and the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347).
National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce.
Notice.
NIST is reconvening the
The ERCC library is a tool for generating RNA controls; any party may disseminate such controls. Intellectual property rights may be maintained on submitted sequences, but submitted sequences must be declared to be free for use as RNA controls.
NIST will compile a library of sequences to be experimentally evaluated as RNA controls. Those sequences received by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time September 30, 2015 will be considered for inclusion in this evaluation. Sequences submitted after this date may be considered in further evaluations.
Inquiries regarding ERCC participation and/or sequence submissions should be sent by email to
Sarah Munro, Jerod Parsons, or Marc Salit by email at
NIST is reconvening the
1. Design and contribution of RNA control sequences,
2. validation of RNA control molecules with multi-laboratory testing,
3. analysis of results, and
4. dissemination of ERCC products, such as validated sequences, methods, and analysis tools.
For further information on ERCC participation, please contact
NIST is collecting nucleic acid sequences to form an extended library of ERCC sequences suitable for the preparation of RNA controls. The RNA control sequences are intended to mimic endogenous RNA molecules, including mRNA, mRNA isoforms, microRNA, and other classes of biological RNA molecules. Intellectual property rights may be maintained on submitted sequences, but submitted sequences must be declared to be free for use as RNA controls. Selected sequence contributions will be experimentally evaluated based on testing of the following three RNA control hypotheses:
Sequence submissions should consist of (1) a single sequence fasta file or multi-fasta file and (2) a single text file containing the following metadata for each submitted sequence:
To submit files or for further questions on sequence submission please contact
15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of four Letters of Authorization.
In accordance with regulations issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as amended, we hereby give notification that we, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), have issued four 1-year Letters of Authorization (Authorizations) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to take marine mammals by harassment incidental to their military readiness activities associated with the routine training, testing, and military operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar within the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean.
These Authorizations are effective from August 15, 2015, through August 14, 2016.
Electronic copies of the Navy's March 31, 2015, application letter and the Authorizations are available by writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, by telephoning the contact listed here (See
Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines harassment as “(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment].”
Authorization may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if we find that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for certain subsistence uses. In addition, we must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. The regulations also must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar are in effect through August 15, 2017 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart X. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA sonar system. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the August 20, 2012,
On March 31, 2015, we received an application from the Navy requesting a renewal of four Authorizations, originally issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 51969, August 28, 2012) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean under the regulations issued on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012): one for the United States Naval Ship (USNS) VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), one for the USNS ABLE (T-AGOS 20), one for the USNS EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and one for the USNS IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23). On June 30, 2015, the Navy submitted an addendum to the SURTASS LFA application for 2015-2016 to reflect consideration of the presence of individuals of the western distinct population segment of spotted seal (
NMFS has renewed the first cohort of 2012 Authorizations on an annual basis in 2013 (78 FR 57368, September 18, 2013) and again in 2014 (79 FR 49501, August 21, 2014). The Navy's 2015 application for renewal requests that these four Authorizations become effective on August 15, 2015, for a period not to exceed one year.
The Navy submitted quarterly mission reports for the periods of August 2014 through May 2015 within the required timeframes. These quarterly reports include the dates and times of the military readiness activities; location of each SURTASS LFA sonar vessel; mission operational area; marine mammal observations; and records of any delays or suspensions of sonar operations. The Navy must also report on the number of marine mammals detected by visual, passive, and active acoustic monitoring and the estimated percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A and Level B harassment. The reports indicate the following:
• The Navy conducted a total of seven missions from August 15, 2014, through May 14, 2015, in the western North Pacific Ocean, which totaled 14.4 days and resulted in 35.8 hours of LFA sonar transmissions.
• The cumulative total days of SURTASS LFA sonar operations for the VICTORIOUS (T-AGOS 19), ABLE (T-AGOS 20), EFFECTIVE (T-AGOS 21), and IMPECCABLE (T-AGOS 23), were 99.8, 99.3, 94.9, and 100 percent below the annual levels contemplated in the Final Rule for each vessel respectively (
• The cumulative total hours of SURTASS LFA sonar transmissions for the VICTORIOUS, ABLE, EFFECTIVE, and IMPECCABLE were 99.7, 99.4, 92.6, and 100 percent below the levels contemplated in the Final Rule for each vessel respectively (
• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level B harassment has not exceeded the 12 percent cap. For each stock, the percentage of take was well below the levels authorized in the 2014 Authorizations.
• The total percentage of each marine mammal stock taken by Level A harassment has not exceeded the levels authorized in the 2014 Authorizations. In fact, the Navy reported no incidences of Level A harassment takes.
The operational tempo, number of active transmission hours, marine mammal detections, behavioral observations, and level of anticipated take of marine mammals fall within the scope and nature of those contemplated by the Final Rule and authorized in the 2014 Authorizations.
The Navy has submitted the monitoring reports on time as required under 50 CFR 218.236 and the 2014 Authorizations. We have reviewed these reports and determined them to be acceptable. Based on these reports, the Navy has not exceeded the average annual estimated usage of the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems and remains well within the take authorized. In accordance with the current SURTASS LFA sonar regulations (50 CFR 218.230), the Navy must submit an annual report to us no later than 45 days after the 2014 Authorizations have expired. Upon receipt, we will post the annual report at:
For the 2015 to 2016 Authorization period, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of routine training, testing, and military operations of SURTASS LFA sonar in the northwest Pacific Ocean and the north-central Pacific Ocean that they requested under the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Authorizations. Similarly, the Navy expects to remain within the annual take estimates analyzed in the Final Rule. We determined that the level of taking by incidental harassment from the activities described in the Authorizations and supporting application is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the 2012 Final Rule.
Based on our review of the Navy's quarterly mission reports, the Navy complied with the required visual, passive, and acoustic monitoring measures in the Final Rule and 2014 Authorizations. The Navy also followed the required shutdown and other protocols for mitigating impacts to marine mammals while conducting operations.
The Navy is also complying with required measures under 50 CFR 218.236(d) to gain and share information on the species. The Navy reports that they are continuing to work on information transfer, declassification and archiving of ambient noise data from the Navy's Integrated Undersea Surveillance System to the public.
Based on the foregoing information and the Navy's application, we determined that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required under 50 CFR 218.234, .235, and .236 and NMFS' 2014-2015 Authorizations were undertaken and will be undertaken during the period of validity of the renewed 2015-2016 Authorizations.
The Final Rule and 2014 Authorizations include an adaptive management framework that allows us to consider new information and to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if modifications to mitigation and/or monitoring measures are appropriate and practicable. This framework includes a requirement for an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy, if either agency deems it necessary.
Section 218.241 of the Final Rule describes three scenarios that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation or monitoring measures, including: (a) Results from the Navy's monitoring from the previous year's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar; (b) compiled results of Navy-funded research and development studies; (c) results from specific stranding investigations; (d) results from general marine mammal and sound research funded by the Navy or other sponsors; and (e) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not anticipated by these regulations or subsequent Authorizations. None of the information reviewed by NMFS or the Navy resulted in any modifications to the existing mitigation or monitoring measures at this time.
On December 4, 2014, April 16, 2015, and June 18, 2015, we and the Navy convened Adaptive Management meetings to review and discuss several topics, including: The Navy's mitigation monitoring results; the Navy's efforts in declassifying and transferring marine mammal monitoring data; consideration of possible additional Offshore Biologically Important Areas (OBIAs) under the criteria specified in the Final Rule; and consideration of new information that could potentially inform decisions regarding modifying existing mitigation and/or monitoring measures. Representatives from the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission were also in attendance and participated in December 2014 and April 2015 meetings.
NMFS and the Navy continue to evaluate information relating to areas for potential consideration as OBIAs. All of these areas fall outside the areas in which the Navy may operate under the 2015 Authorizations. None of these areas is located within the Navy's mission areas for the 2015 Authorizations and the Navy will not operate SURTASS LFA sonar in these areas within the timeframes of the 2015-2016 Authorizations. Throughout the effective period of the Final Rule, we will continue consider and discuss with the Navy any relevant new information as it arises related to areas that may qualify as potential OBIAs or any other mitigation for SURTASS LFA sonar.
We have issued four Authorizations to the Navy, authorizing the incidental harassment of marine mammals, incidental to operating the four SURTASS LFA sonar systems for routine training, testing and use during military operations. Issuance of these four Authorizations is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and supported by information contained in the Navy's required reports on SURTASS LFA sonar and their application, that the activities described under these four Authorizations will have a negligible impact on marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on their availability for taking for subsistence uses.
These Authorizations remain valid through August 14, 2016, provided the Navy remains in conformance with the conditions of the regulations and the LOAs, and the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in 50 CFR 218.230 through 218.241 (77 FR 50290, August 20, 2012) and in the Authorizations are undertaken.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scientific & Statistical Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 1, 2015, beginning at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will meet to review recent stock assessment information from the U.S/Canada Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee and information provided by the Council's Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) and recommend the overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder for the 2016 fishing year. They will also review information provided by the Council's Skate PDT and recommend the OFL and ABC for the northeast skate complex for fishing years 2016-18 and address other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Risk Policy Working Group to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 10 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The panel will continue the development of a Risk Policy “Road Map,” which will address the implementation of the Council's Risk Policy across all Council-managed species; plan future work and address other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces: Its intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the environmental impacts of issuing annual Incidental Take Authorizations (ITAs) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to anthropogenic activities in the waters of Cook Inlet, AK, for the 2016 season and; its intent to institute an MMPA authorization cycle wherein companies planning to submit MMPA incidental harassment authorization applications for work to be conducted in Cook Inlet in 2016 do so by no later than October 1, 2015.
All comments, written statements, and questions regarding the proposed process and preparation of the EA must be received no later than September 11, 2015.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Sara Young, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8484.
Sections 101 (a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Cook Inlet is a semi-enclosed tidal estuary located in southcentral Alaska and home to the Cook Inlet beluga whale, a small resident population that was designated as depleted under the MMPA and listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008. The stock has not recovered, despite implementing subsistence hunting regulations in 1999, and cessation of hunting in 2007. In light of this, and in recognition of the increasing industrial activity and development in Cook Inlet, NMFS has taken a number of actions that reflect the high level of concern for the species, including:
1. On October 14, 2014, NMFS announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the effects on the human environment of issuing authorizations for the incidental take of marine mammals from activities occurring in both the state and Federal waters of Cook Inlet, AK, from Knik Arm in the northern part of the Inlet to the southern edge of Kachemak Bay on the southeastern part of the Inlet and to the southern edge of Cape Douglas on the southwestern part of the Inlet (“Cook Inlet beluga EIS”). NMFS included a 75-day public comment period for the Notice of Intent and conducted a scoping meeting in Anchorage Alaska on November 3, 2014.
2. On November 3, 2014, NMFS convened a multi-stakeholder meeting in Anchorage Alaska: Conservation and Recovery of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales in the Context of Continued Development. The purpose of the meeting was to engage stakeholders and begin exploring Cook Inlet specific solutions for mitigating and monitoring adverse effects on belugas, while also allowing for sustainable development. The first day of the two-day workshop was devoted to background and updates related to the status, ecology, and stressors of Cook Inlet belugas and the standards set by the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The second day included an exploration of measures and strategies to minimize anthropogenic impacts, promote recovery, and increase understanding of impacts, as well as a discussion of these objectives in the context of ensuring MMPA and ESA compliance for future activities. Information related to this meeting is available at:
3. In May 2015, NMFS unveiled its “Species in the Spotlight: Survive to Thrive” initiative. This initiative includes targeted efforts vital for stabilizing eight species—including the Cook Inlet beluga whale—identified among the most at risk for extinction. The approach involves intensive human efforts to stabilize these species, with the goal that they will become candidates for recovery.
4. On May 15, 2015, NMFS released the Draft Recovery Plan for Cook Inlet belugas. The population continues to show a negative trend, despite the cessation of subsistence since 2005. Although the exact cause of the continued decline in the absence of subsistence hunting is unknown, the Recovery Plan identifies likely threats, including three threats of high relative concern: noise, catastrophic events, and the cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple stressors. Threats of medium relative concern include disease, habitat loss or degradation, reduction in prey, and unauthorized take. Due to an incomplete understanding of the threats facing Cook Inlet beluga whales, NMFS is unable to identify with certainty the actions that will most immediately encourage recovery. Until we know which threats are limiting recovery, the strategy of the Recovery Plan is to focus on threats identified as medium or high concern.
The actions summarized above include multi-year efforts that are not likely to result in substantial changes in the short-term. NMFS announces here additional steps to help inform agency decision making in the interim.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The purpose of this collection is for each sector in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) groundfish fisheries to inform the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) of their progress on voluntary, non-regulatory methods they are using within their fishery cooperatives to reduce halibut mortality and to report the effectiveness of those actions in absolute reductions in halibut mortality.
At its June 2015 meeting, the Council requested that, in addition to providing the BSAI Halibut Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) Progress Report, Amendment 80 cooperatives provide their 2016 Halibut PSC Management Plans at the December 2015 Council meeting. Since 2011, all vessels and companies participating in the Amendment 80 sector have been affiliated with one of two Amendment 80 cooperatives, the Alaska Seafood Cooperative or the Alaska Groundfish Cooperative. The plans should be designed not just to accommodate the revised hard caps, but to bring savings to levels below the hard cap.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Notice of meeting of the Air University Board of Visitors.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the Air University Board of Visitors' fall meeting will take place on Monday, 16 November, 2015, from 8 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. and Tuesday, 17 November, 2015, from 7:30 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Air University Commander's Conference Room in Building 800 on Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama.
The purpose of this meeting is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the educational, doctrinal, and research policies and activities of Air University. The agenda will include topics relating to the policies, programs, and initiatives of Air University educational programs and will include an honorary degree presentation.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155 all sessions of the Air University Board of Visitors' meeting will be open to the public. Public attendance shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the Air University Board of Visitors' should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Air University Board of Visitors' until the next meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the Air University Board of Visitors' Board Chairman and ensure they are provided to members before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the Board Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during the meeting that is the subject of this notice. In accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BOV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of Board members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. Additionally, any member of the public wishing to attend this meeting should contact the person listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting for information on base entry procedures.
Lisa Arnold, Designated Federal Officer, Air University Headquarters, 55 LeMay Plaza South, Maxwell Air Force Base,
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 October 13, 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 the Douglas A. Pineda Robles, 202-377-4578.
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 ED assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the ED'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. ED is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of ED; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might ED enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might ED 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.
Abstract: Section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), mandates that the Secretary of Education “. . . shall produce, distribute, and process free of charge common financial reporting forms as described in this subsection to be used for application and reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a student for financial assistance . . .”.
The determination of need and eligibility are for the following title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: the Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.
Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education (hereafter “the Department”), subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®). After submission of the FAFSA, an applicant receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), which is a summary of the data they submitted on the FAFSA. The applicant reviews the SAR, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their submitted FAFSA data. Institutions of higher education listed by the applicant on the FAFSA also receive a summary of processed data submitted on the FAFSA which is called the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR).
The Department seeks OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information”. The aggregate burden will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1845-0001. The specific application components, descriptions and submission methods for each are listed in Table 1.
This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM), measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:
• The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;
• How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA (
• How the applicant chooses to submit any corrections and/or updates (
• The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);
• The formula applied to determine the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC) (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and
• The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.
The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2016-2017 is based upon two factors—estimating the growth rate of the total enrollment into post-
For 2016-2017, the Department is reporting a net burden decrease of −3,522,674 hours. This decrease is considered to be an adjustment in burden hours from the 2015-2016 FAFSA.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces tests, test forms, and delivery formats that the Secretary determines to be suitable for use in the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS). The Secretary also clarifies that, to provide for the transition from the performance accountability system for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) to the performance accountability system for AEFLA as reauthorized by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), this announcement will remain effective until June 30, 2017.
Jay LeMaster, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11-152, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7240. Telephone: (202) 245-6218 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On January 14, 2008, we published in the
On April 16, 2008, we published in the
On February 2, 2010, we published in the
The Secretary determined tests and test forms to be suitable for a period of either seven or three years from the date of the February 2010 notice. A seven-year approval required no additional action on the part of the publisher, unless the information the publisher submitted as a basis for the Secretary's review was inaccurate or unless the test is substantially revised. A three-year approval was issued with a set of conditions to be met by the completion of the three-year period. If these conditions were met, the Secretary would approve a period of time for which the test may continue to be used in the NRS.
On September 12, 2011, we published in the
On August 6, 2012, we published in the
On January 25, 2013, we announced in the
On December 12, 2013, we published in the
On October 29, 2014, we published in the
In this document, the Secretary announces the list of tests and test forms determined to be suitable for use in the NRS. These include: (1) The eight tests previously approved for a seven-year period from February 2, 2010 through February 2, 2017; (2) three tests previously approved for an extended period through June 30, 2015 and now approved for an extended period through February 2, 2017; and (3) one test—a revised version of a test previously approved for an extended period through June 30, 2015—for which the Secretary is providing approval through February 2, 2017. With respect to the latter four tests, although we have identified several issues that the test publishers still need to address related to the requirements in § 462.13, we are taking this action in light of the following intervening factors. These factors include (1) the Department's plan to implement new descriptors for the NRS educational functioning levels and to issue new regulations that will govern the assessment review process; (2) the Department's desire to minimize disruption for its grantees in the transition to AEFLA as authorized by WIOA, including with respect to measuring educational gain under the NRS; and (3) the attendant transition authority in section 503(c) of WIOA, which authorizes the Secretary of Education to “take such actions as the
Adult education programs must use only the approved forms and computer-based delivery formats for the tests published in this document. If a particular test form or computer delivery format is not explicitly specified for a test in this notice, it is not approved for use in the NRS.
(a) The Secretary has determined that the following test is suitable for use at all Adult Basic Education (ABE) and Adult Secondary Education (ASE) levels and at all English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:
(b) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ABE and ASE levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ESL levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:
(1)
(2)
(a) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ABE and ASE levels of the NRS until February 2, 2017:
(1)
(2)
(b) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ESL levels of the NRS until February 2, 2017:
(1)
(2)
The Secretary has determined that the following test may be used at all ESL levels of the NRS during the sunset period ending on June 30, 2016:
Basic English Skills Test (BEST) Plus. Forms A, B, and C are approved for use on paper and through the computer-adaptive delivery format. Publisher: Center for Applied Linguistics, 4646 40th Street NW., Washington, DC 20016-1859. Telephone: (202) 362-0700. Internet:
The sunset period for an expiring test allows a State and local provider to transition to other tests suitable for use in the NRS. The State and local provider may use the transition period to select new tests, purchase appropriate inventories of assessment materials, and provide training to staff.
Under certain circumstances, the Secretary may revoke the determination that a test is suitable (see 34 CFR 462.12(e)). If the Secretary revokes the determination of suitability, the Secretary announces through the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 9212.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Chairs. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 2, 2015 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 3, 2015 8:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
La Fonda on the Plaza, 100 East San Francisco Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501.
David Borak, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-9928.
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Tentative Agenda Topics:
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
○ EM Program Update
○ Presentations:
• Office of Acquisition and Project Management
• Office of Site Restoration
○ EM SSAB Chairs' Roundtable Discussions
○ Public Comment Period
Thursday, September 3, 2015
○ Presentations:
• Office of Waste Disposition
• Office of External Affairs
○ EM SSAB Chairs' Roundtable Discussions
○ Public Comment Period
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice provides the names, addresses, professional affiliations, and selected biographical data of persons recently nominated to serve on the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) established under section 25(d) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Panel was created on November 28, 1975, and made a statutory Panel by amendment to FIFRA, dated October 25, 1988. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting two new members to serve on the panel as a result of membership terms that will expire in 2015. Public comments on the current nominations are invited, as these comments will be used to assist the Agency in selecting the new chartered Panel members.
Comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0423, must be received on or before August 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0423, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Steven M. Knott, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0103; fax number: (202) 564-8382; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. Established in 1975 under FIFRA, the FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). FIFRA established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Agency.
In accordance with the statute, the SAP is composed of a permanent panel of seven members, selected and appointed by the Deputy Administrator of EPA, as designated by the Administrator from nominees submitted by both the NSF and the NIH. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting two new members to serve on the panel as a result of membership terms that will expire this year. The Agency requested nominations of experts to be selected from the fields of human toxicology, environmental toxicology, pathology, risk assessment and/or environmental biology with demonstrated experience and expertise in all phases of the risk assessment process including: Planning, scoping, and problem formulation; analysis; and interpretation and risk characterization (including the interpretation and communication of uncertainty). Nominees should be well published and current in their field of expertise. The statute further stipulates that we publish the name, address and professional affiliation in the
A Charter for the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel dated October 17, 2014 was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. App. I).
Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert comments on the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. No persons shall be ineligible to serve on the Panel by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). The Deputy Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Panel for staggered terms of 3 years. Panel members are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 3, subpart F, Standards of Conduct for Special Government Employees, which include rules regarding conflicts of interest. Each nominee selected by the Deputy Administrator, before being formally appointed, is required to submit a confidential statement of employment and financial interests, which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's sources of research support, if any.
In accordance with section 25(d)(1) of FIFRA, the Deputy Administrator shall require all nominees to the Panel to furnish information concerning their professional qualifications, educational background, employment history, and scientific publications.
With respect to the requirements of section 25(d) of FIFRA that the Administrator promulgate regulations regarding conflicts of interest, the Charter provides that EPA's existing regulations applicable to Special Government Employees, which include advisory committee members, will apply to the members of the Scientific Advisory Panel. These regulations appear in 40 CFR part 3, subpart F. In addition, the Charter provides for open meetings with opportunities for public participation.
In accordance with the provisions of section 25(d) of FIFRA, EPA, on April 21, 2015, requested that the NIH and the NSF nominate scientists to fill vacancies occurring on the Panel. The Agency requested nominations of experts in the fields of human toxicology, environmental toxicology, pathology,
1. Asa Bradman, Ph.D., University of CA, Berkeley, CA.
2. Mark G. Evans, DVM, Ph.D., ACVP, Pfizer Global Research and Development Drug Safety Research and Development, San Diego, CA.
3. John Groopman, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
4. Stephen S. Hecht, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
5. Marie Lyn Miranda, Ph.D., Rice University, Houston, TX.
6. Frederica P. Perera, Ph.D., MPH, Columbia University, New York, NY.
7. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Ph.D., University of California, Davis, CA.
8. Thomas A.E. Platts-Mills, M.D., University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
9. Michael Roe, Ph.D., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
10. Ana Diez Roux, M.D, Ph.D., MPH, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.
11. Jonathan M. Samet, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
12. David Siegel, MD, National Institute of Health, Rockville, MD.
13. Allan H. Smith, MD, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA.
14. Frank Speizer, SCD, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
15. Robert Williams, MD, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, NM.
Following are the names, addresses, professional affiliations, and selected biographical data of current nominees being considered for membership on the FIFRA SAP. The Agency anticipates selecting two individuals to fill vacancies occurring in 2015.
i. Expertise: Epidemiology control of arthropod-borne diseases including evaluation of vector ecology, habitat management, and adult control strategies, disease risk modeling using GIS and remote sensing technologies, and evaluation of chemical actions against mosquito vectors under both laboratory and field conditions.
ii. Education: Ph.D. Medical Entomology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences; MSc, Zoology, Texas A&M University; BS, Biology, St. Louis University.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Achee is a Medical Entomologist (Research Associate Professor) within the Department of Biological Sciences and holds a joint Associate Professor appointment in the Eck Institute for Global Health at the University of Notre Dame. She joined the University of Notre Dame faculty in 2013, following a 2-year position as Assistant Professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD. She has a combined 15 years of experience in vector behavior research related to the epidemiology and control of arthropod-borne diseases, including evaluation of vector ecology, habitat management and adult control strategies, disease risk modeling using GIS and remote sensing technologies, and evaluation of chemical actions against mosquito vectors under both laboratory and field conditions. She has worked in the international settings of Belize, Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Indonesia, Nepal, South Korea, Thailand, and Tanzania. Dr. Achee was the principal investigator of a research program funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation focused on the development of spatial repellents in combination push-pull systems to reduce human-vector contact for dengue prevention. She is a Working Group member of the World Health Organization (WHO) Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES), the Chair of the American Committee of Medical Entomology (ACME) of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH), a representative of the WHO Global Collaboration for the Development of Pesticides for Public Health partnership (GCDPP), Vector Control Working Group member of Roll Back Malaria and served as the lead scientist for the recent publication of the WHO Guidelines for Efficacy Testing of Spatial Repellents. She is currently the lead Principal Investigator of a multicenter intervention trial dedicated to generating evidence of the protective efficacy of spatial repellents for prevention of malaria and dengue human infections for use towards full WHO recommendations. Her latest efforts have been dedicated to co-Directing the Belize Vector and Ecology Center (BVEC) in Orange Walk Town, Belize to serve as a regional platform of excellence for research and education in arthropod-borne diseases.
i. Expertise: Pharmacological and toxicological adverse cellular outcomes, and factors that govern drug and chemical injuries including drug metabolism and nutrition.
ii: Education: Ph.D., Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, George Washington University; MS, Chemistry, Bucknell University; BA, Chemistry, Ithaca College.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Corcoran is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, Wayne State University, and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine. Dr. Corcoran earned his BA in Chemistry (Ithaca College `70), MS in Chemistry (Bucknell University `73), and Ph.D. in Pharmacology/Toxicology (George Washington University `80), before completing Postdoctoral Fellow training in Toxicology (Baylor College of Medicine and Methodist Hospital `81). Prior to his appointment at Wayne State, Dr. Corcoran served as Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutics at the State University of New York at Buffalo, followed by Associate Professor and later Professor, and Director of the Toxicology Graduate Program at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Corcoran has published over 200 original research papers, abstracts and other reports, and has received nearly $6 million in grants and contracts as Principal Investigator, Co-Principal Investigator, and Co-Investigator. He has chaired grant review panels for the NIH, the National Academies, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and has refereed papers for more than 50 national and international scientific journals. He has contributed to the training of over 150 MS and Ph.D. graduates, 3200 pharmacists, and hundreds of undergraduate research students. His research interests are multidisciplinary and translational. They focus on cellular injury and cell death, and factors that govern drug and chemical injuries, including drug metabolism and nutrition. Approaches to translate basic discoveries to improve human health involve retrospective and prospective clinical investigation of human
i. Expertise: Relationship between brain neurotransmitter systems and neurodevelopment associated with alteration by exposures to environmental toxicants.
ii: Education: Ph.D., Experimental Psychology, University of Minnesota; MA, Experimental Psychology, Western Michigan University; BS, Psychology, Western Michigan University.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta is a Professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine, Pediatrics and Public Health Sciences at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta became Chair of its Department of Environmental Medicine and Director of the NIEHS Environmental Health Sciences Center in 1998, and served as Dean for Research from 2000-2002. She then became Director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) and Chair of the Department of Environmental and Community Medicine at the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School from 2003-2007, before returning to URMC as Professor in Environmental Medicine, Pediatrics and Public Health Sciences. Dr. Cory-Slechta has served on national review and advisory panels of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Center for Toxicological Research, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control. In addition, Dr. Cory-Slechta has served on the editorial boards of the journals Neurotoxicology, Toxicology, Toxicological Sciences, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Neurotoxicology and Teratology, and American Journal of Mental Retardation. She has held the elected positions of President of the Neurotoxicology Specialty Section of the Society of Toxicology, President of the Behavioral Toxicology Society, and been named a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. Her research has focused largely on the relationships between brain neurotransmitter systems and neurodevelopment, and how such relationships are altered by exposures to environmental toxicants, including the role played by environmental neurotoxicant exposures in developmental disabilities and neurodegenerative diseases. This work has included the effects of developmental exposures to metals, pesticides, and air pollutants as well as combined exposures to metals and stress in experimental animal models as well as in human cohort studies. These research efforts have resulted in over 155 papers and book chapters to date.
i. Expertise: Development of innovative study designs and analytical methods for evaluation of new therapies for HIV-related disease.
ii. Education: ScD, Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health; SM, Bioengineering, Harvard University; SM, Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health; BS, Physics, Brown University.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. De Gruttola received his ScD in 1986 from the Biostatistics Department at HSPH—the department for which he served as Chair from 2009-2014. His research focuses on development of statistical methods required for appropriate public health response to the AIDS epidemic both within the US and internationally. The aspects of the epidemic on which he has worked include transmission of, and natural history of infection with, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), as well as research on antiretroviral treatments, including the development and consequences of resistance to treatments. The broad goals of his research include developing treatment strategies that provide durable virologic suppression while preserving treatment options after failure, and evaluating the community-level impact of packages of prevention interventions, including antiviral treatment. He served as the Director of the Statistics and Data Analysis Center of the Adult Project of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group from 1996 to 2003—the period in which highly active antiretroviral treatment was developed, and he was instrumental in designing and analyzing studies of the best means of providing such therapy. He also served from 2011-2015, as co-PI (with PI Max Essex) on a community-randomized study of a combination HIV prevention strategy in Botswana.
i. Expertise: Neurotoxicology, and risk assessment.
ii: Education: Ph.D., Veterinary Biosciences/Toxicology, University of Illinois; DVM Colorado State University; B.A. Chemistry, University of San Diego.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Dorman is a professor of toxicology in the Department of Molecular Biosciences in the College of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University. Dr. Dorman received his undergraduate training in chemistry from the University of San Diego, his DVM from Colorado State University, and he completed a combined Ph.D. and residency program in toxicology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He is a diplomat of the American Board of Veterinary Toxicology and the American Board of Toxicology. Dr. Dorman has chaired or served on numerous NRC committees. His recent NRC chairmanships include the Committee on Predictive-Toxicology Approaches for Military Assessments of Acute Exposures and the Committee on Design and Evaluation of Safer Chemical Substitutions—A Framework to Inform Government and Industry Decisions. He has been recently named as chair of the NRC's Committee on Toxicology and the Committee on Unraveling Low Dose Toxicity: Case Studies of Systematic Review of Evidence. He has served on other advisory boards for the US Navy, NASA, and USDA, and is currently a member of the National Toxicology Program's Board of Scientific Counselors. He is an elected fellow of both the Academy of Toxicological Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. The primary objective of his research is to provide a refined understanding of chemically induced neurotoxicity in laboratory animals that will lead to improved assessment of potential neurotoxicity in humans. Dr. Dorman's other research interests include clinical veterinary toxicology, nasal toxicology, pharmacokinetics, and cognition and olfaction in animals. He has over 145 peer-reviewed research publications including work with pesticides, metals, hydrogen sulfide, and a variety of industrial chemicals.
i. Expertise: Population ecology and modeling, fate and effects of toxic chemicals in sediments, and ecological risk assessment.
ii. Education: Ph.D., Coastal Oceanography, State University of New York; MSc Marine Environmental Science, State University of New York; BA Biology; BA Geology, State University of New York.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Valery E. Forbes is Dean of the College of Biological Sciences at University of Minnesota. Dr. Forbes was Director of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln from 2011-2015. From 1989-2010, she lived and worked in Denmark, most recently as the Founding Chair of the Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change and Professor of Aquatic Ecology and Ecotoxicology at Roskilde University. Dr. Forbes received her Bachelor's Degree (Biology & Geology) from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1983, a MSc (Marine Environmental Science) from SUNY-Stony Brook in 1984, and a Ph.D. (Coastal Oceanography), also from SUNY- Stony Brook in 1988. Specific research topics include population ecology and modeling, fate and effects of toxic chemicals in sediments, and ecological risk assessment. Dr. Forbes has graduated approximately 50 MSc and Ph.D. students over her career and established a Danish Graduate School in Environmental Stress Studies (GESS) based at Roskilde University. While based in Europe, Dr. Forbes served as work package leader on two major EU 7th Framework Projects: CREAM (a Marie Curie Initial Training Network on Mechanistic Effect Models for Ecological Risk Assessment of Chemicals) and NanoReTox (a multi- institution research project on The Reactivity and Toxicity of Engineered Nanoparticles: Risks to the Environment and Human Health). More recently, she has received funding from the National Institute of Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) for multi-partite initiatives to develop predictive models for the ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Dr. Forbes has published well over 100 internationally peer-reviewed articles and two books on these topics. She has served on the Danish Natural Sciences Research Council, the European Research Council and as ad hoc reviewer for numerous funding agencies from various countries. She is on the editorial board of several international journals and provides scientific advice to the private and public sectors.
i. Expertise: Epidemiology, ecology, and transmission dynamics of vector-borne illness.
ii. Education: Ph.D., Medical Zoology, Uniformed Services University; MS Medical Entomology, Texas A&M University; BS, Biology, University of Notre Dame.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. John Grieco is a Research Associate Professor of Medical Entomology and Associate Director of the Eck Institute of Global Health at the University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Indiana. Dr. Grieco's work is multidisciplinary with a focus on the biology, ecology and transmission dynamics of vector-borne illness. He has a long history of working on vector borne disease throughout the tropics and his research centers on malaria, Japanese Encephalitis, Dengue, Chagas, and rickettsial pathogens. Dr. Grieco has an extensive history in the design of novel repellents, irritants and toxicants for disease vectors. He has developed a number of field and laboratory assays for identifying and optimizing behavior modifying compounds for use in the control of mosquito, sandfly, and triatome vectors. Dr. Grieco serves as an external advisor to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers for Disease Control and the US Department of Defense in the area of Spatial Repellents and their advancement to recommendation. Dr. Grieco has co-authored the WHO guidelines for the evaluation of spatial repellents and he currently holds two patents for novel repellent compounds.
i. Expertise: Toxicogenetics, neurobehavioral, and developmental toxicology.
ii. Education: BA, Psychology, Eastern Washington University; MA, Psychology, University of Arizona; Ph.D. Physiological and Comparative Psychology, Psychopharmacology, University of Arizona.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Byron Jones is professor of Genetics, Genomics, and Informatics at the University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis. Dr. Jones received his Ph.D. training in the Departments of Psychology and Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arizona. He received postdoctoral training in neuropharmacology at the University of Arizona and in pharmacogenetics at the University of Colorado. In 1991, he was a founding member of the Department of Biobehavioral Health at The Pennsylvania State University and developed a program in pharmacogenetics and toxicogenetics at that institution. He has trained 10 Ph.D. and 8 MS students and supervised numerous undergraduate honors theses at PSU. In 1998-1999, he was awarded a Poste Orange senior visiting research position at Institute François Magendie, Bordeaux, France to study the genetics of alcohol consumption. In 2000, he was awarded a Harry Dozor visiting
i. Expertise: Development of methodologies for creating and analyzing data on the effects of the natural, built, social, and policy environments on health disparities.
ii. Education: Ph.D., Public Policy and Social Research, Brandeis University, Waltham; MEd Psychology, Western Washington University; BA, Western Washington University.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Paul D. Juarez is Professor, Preventive Medicine and founding co-director of the Research Center on Health Disparities, Equity, and the Exposome at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center. He received his Ph.D. in social policy from the Heller School, Brandeis University in 1983. Dr. Juarez currently is serving appointments on the Federal Advisory Committee on Minority Health for the US Department of Health and Human Services (2014-2018) and the Community-Level Health Promotion Study Section, Center for Scientific Review of the NIH (2013-2016). Dr. Juarez previously served as the Vice Chair, Division of Community Health, Family & Community Medicine, Meharry Medical College. While at Meharry, Dr. Juarez was PI for the Meharry Health Disparities Research Center of Excellence and directed its community engagement core. As PI, Dr. Juarez led Center activities in developing a systems approach to health disparities research. In 2011, Dr. Juarez received a grant from the EPA to increase our understanding of the environmental context of health disparities. In pursuit of this effort, he led efforts to apply an exposome framework that considers the cumulative effects of environmental exposures on human health and development at critical life stages and from conception to death. He has been at the forefront nationally in developing a methodology for creating and analyzing data on the effects of the natural, built, social, and policy environments on health disparities. To achieve this, he has established a transdisciplinary team of investigators to conduct focused studies of the environmental effects on population level health disparities that apply mathematical, spatial-temporal, statistical and computational methods, models and analytics. His recent work has focused on analyzing the effects of the exposome on black white disparities in pre-term births and lung cancer mortality.
i. Expertise: Ecological toxicology, chemical environment fate and effects, examining technologies (including genomics and green chemistry designs) to minimize environmental impacts from chemical contamination.
ii. Education: BS, Honors Biology, University of Illinois; MS, Entomology, University of Georgia; Ph.D., Ecology, University of Georgia.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Rebecca D. Klaper is a Professor at the School of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the Director of the Great Lakes Genomics Center. Dr. Klaper received her MS in Entomology in 1995 and her Ph.D. in Ecology in 2000 from the Institute of Ecology University of Georgia examining the impacts of chemicals on the population dynamics of insects. Dr. Klaper currently studies the potential impact of emerging contaminants, such as nanoparticles, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and pesticides on aquatic life and how we may design these chemicals to be sustainable and have the least environmental impact. She published some of the first studies on the impacts of nanomaterials on aquatic organisms, describing differences in toxicity among nanomaterials, discussing the possible impacts of surfactants on nanomaterial toxicology. Dr. Klaper is now one of the lead PI's for the Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology, a distributed Center of eight universities to evaluate the mechanisms by which nanomaterials may cause toxicity and investigate the potential for principles to use in the design process of these chemicals. Dr. Klaper received a AAAS-Science and Technology Policy Fellowship where she worked in the National Center for Environmental Assessment at the US Environmental Protection Agency evaluating the potential use of genomic technologies in risk assessment. She currently serves on the Board of Scientific Counselors for the US Environmental Protection Agency's Chemical Safety for Sustainability/Human Health Risk Assessment Subcommittee. She has served as a technical expert to the Alliance for the Great Lakes and the International Joint Commission regarding the potential impacts of pharmaceuticals, personal care products and other emerging contaminants on the Great Lakes. She has also served as an invited scientific expert to both the US National Nanotechnology Initiative and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development panel on nanotechnology where she has testified on the potential impact of nanoparticles on the environment and the utility of current testing strategies. She served on the National Academy of Sciences Panel to Develop a Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. She is also on the editorial board of the SETAC journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry as well as the ACS journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. Her current research focuses on (1) determining the presence of contaminants in freshwater systems; (2) the impacts of low level chronic exposures of these chemicals to fish and invertebrates in freshwater systems; (3) evaluating the ability of contaminant removal technologies to remove biological impacts of chemicals; (4) methods to quickly assess the potential impacts of a chemical, including genomic technologies; and (5) alternative options for minimizing the impacts of emerging contaminants
i. Expertise: Evaluating environmental exposures, such as metals, alcohol, tobacco, and medications, and lifestyle or physical factors, such as physical activity, body mass, genetics, and tumor characteristics.
ii. Education: Ph.D., University of Washington, Seattle, Epidemiology; MPH, Epidemiology, University of Washington; BS, Molecular Biology, The Evergreen State College.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Polly Newcomb is Head of the Cancer Prevention Program of the Public Health Sciences Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Fred Hutch), a Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Washington's School of Public Health, and a Senior Scientist at the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center. She received her doctorate in Epidemiology at the University of Washington in 1986 and completed her Post-doctoral Fellowship in the Department of Human Oncology at the University of Wisconsin in 1987. She has more than 25 years of extramurally funded research on cancer genetics, etiology, screening, and survival, demonstrating her broad expertise in the field. Her current research in relation to health and cancer includes environmental exposures such as metals, alcohol, tobacco, and medications; lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and body mass; as well as genetics and tumor characteristics. Her research has been funded by nearly a score of foundation and NIH-grants for these studies of colorectal neoplasia, breast and other cancers, and their precursors. She also participates in several international consortia. Dr. Newcomb has over 360 peer-reviewed publications, has served as a mentor for over 40 pre-doctoral, post-doctoral, and junior investigators and is on the Executive Committees of four University of Washington/Fred Hutch T32/R25 training programs. She is active in training new researchers through a National Cancer Institute “Established Investigator” award focused on colorectal cancer survival. She has served as a member of numerous NIH Study Sections, a consultant to national and international organizations, and is an Editor/Associate Editor for top tier journals such as American Journal of Epidemiology and Cancer, Epidemiology, and Biomarkers & Prevention. She has recently been awarded mentoring awards from the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and is a Fulbright Scholar (2015). She is also the President of the American Society for Preventive Oncology.
i. Expertise: Epidemiologic research in public health.
ii. Education: BA, Psychology, University of Vermont; MHS, Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health; ScD, Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.
iii. Professional Experience: Professor Melissa Perry is the elected President of the American College of Epidemiology. Dr. Melissa Perry received Master of Health Science and Doctor of Science degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. She has spent more than two decades conducting epidemiologic research and educating over 50 graduate students in public health. Prior to coming to George Washington University in 2010, Dr. Perry spent 13 years on the Harvard School of Public Health's Department of Environmental Health faculty. She is currently Chair on the Board of Scientific Counselors for the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). She is also President of the American College of Epidemiology. She is an associate editor of the Journal Reproductive Toxicology, and she serves as a standing member of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research grant study section. In 2014, Dr. Perry was elected to the prestigious international Collegium Ramazzini in recognition of her contributions to advancing occupational and environmental health and her professional integrity. From 2009-2011, she was a member of the CDC's Scientific Understanding Work Group, National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. From 2003-2007, she was a co-investigator with the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute of Arusha, Tanzania, and the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Her laboratory at the Milken Institute School of Public Health focuses on reproductive epidemiology and hormone disruptors, and her group has developed new techniques for high-volume identification of chromosomal abnormalities in sperm cells. Her research group was the first to use semi-automated imaging methods to show how pesticides are associated with sperm abnormalities. In addition to numerous book chapters and published abstracts, she has over 110 peer-reviewed publications in areas including DNA damage linked to pesticides and other chemical exposures, managing hazardous substances in the workplace, and occupational issues related to agricultural, meat-packing, and construction work. Current research on pesticides, biomarkers and hormonal effects in her laboratory focuses on identifying the mutagenic and hormonal effects of herbicide and insecticide exposure in vivo. Her interests focus on pre-disease exposure markers signaled by early mutational damage or hormone disruption, across the spectrum of pesticide exposure levels. She has been the principal investigator on research grants from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
i. Expertise: Applied insect toxicology, insect endocrinology, and insect biochemistry and physiology.
ii. Education: Ph.D., Entomology, University of California; MS, Entomology, Insect Toxicology track, University of California; BS Agronomy, Plant Breeding Track, University of Buenos Aires.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Patricia Pietrantonio is a tenured Professor and AgriLife Research Fellow in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. She is an associate member of the interdisciplinary programs in Toxicology and a member of the Faculty of Neuroscience at the same university. She received her BS in Agronomy from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, after which she was a permanent technical staff member at INTA (National Institute of Agriculture and Cattle Technology) in Castelar, Buenos Aires (1982-1987). She obtained both her MS (1990) and Ph.D. (1995) in Entomology from the University of California at Riverside (both under Prof. Sarjeet S. Gill), with emphasis in insect toxicology, biochemistry, and physiology. As a Ph.D. student, she received the Henry Comstock Award from the Entomological Society of America (ESA) for outstanding graduate student achievement. Since 1996, she has advanced through the ranks at Texas A&M University, receiving the title of
i. Expertise: Genomics and computational biology, molecular medicine, environmental health, and toxicology.
ii. Education: BS, Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemistry, University of Puerto Rico, Ph.D., Biochemical Pharmacology, The University of Texas; MD, University of Louisville Health Sciences Center.
iii. Professional Experience: Kenneth Ramos, MD, Ph.D., PharmB, works across numerous organizational units at the University of Arizona (UA) to develop precision-health strategies and approaches to health outcomes and health-care delivery. He provides senior leadership in the development of personal diagnostics and therapeutics for complex diseases, including cancer, cardiopulmonary disorders, and diabetes. Dr. Ramos also is a professor of medicine at the UA College of Medicine-Tucson in the Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Sleep, and Critical Care Medicine, where he directs a highly competitive and innovative research program in translational and clinical genetics and genomics. Dr. Ramos' research integrates approaches ranging from molecular genetics to population-based studies to understand the genomic basis of human disease. He is regarded as a leading expert in the study of gene-environment interactions and directs a competitive research program in translational and clinical genomics with a focus on genetic and epigenetic determinants of toxicity and disease, computational biology and molecular signaling. Dr. Ramos has mentored over 100 doctoral, medical, veterinary medicine, undergraduate and high school students, many of whom have gone on to successful careers in academia, medicine, government and industry. He is committed to initiatives that attract and retain minorities in science and medicine. Dr. Ramos served as SOT President from 2008-2009, and is a current member of the Continuing Medical Education Task Force, Hispanic Organization of Toxicologists Specialty Interest Group, and the Molecular and Systems Biology Specialty Section. He has been a member of SOT since 1982.
i. Expertise: Microbial biodegradation, molecular microbiology, bioluminescence sensing and ecotoxicology.
ii. Education: Ph.D., Bacteriology and Biochemistry, University of Idaho; BS, Bacteriology, North Dakota State University; AA, Liberal Arts, Bismarck Junior College.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Sayler is Distinguished University Professor, and Alvin and Sally Beaman Endowed Professor of Microbiology and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at The University of Tennessee. Dr. Sayler received his Ph.D. in Bacteriology and Biochemistry, University of Idaho, 1974; BS, Bacteriology, North Dakota State University, 1971; AA, Bismarck Junior College, Liberal Arts, 1969. He was Postdoctoral researcher in Marine Microbiology at the University of Maryland (1974-1975). He is the founding Director, Center for Environmental Biotechnology at the University of Tennessee (1986-present) and was the first Director of the UT-ORNL Joint Institute for Biological Sciences (2006-2014). As Director for the Waste Management Research and Education Institute Tennessee Center of Excellence (1991-2005) he conducted a consolidation and reorganization to create the Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment serving as interim director (2005-2006). Specializing in microbial biodegradation, molecular microbiology, bioluminescence sensing and ecotoxicology, he has directed the research of over 100 Ph.D. and MS students and postdocs during his 40 year career, with approximately 400 peer reviewed publications, 16 patents, and over 500 lectures and seminars worldwide. He serves on the Sciences Advisory Board for the US Defense Department, Strategic Environmental Research Defense Program (2011-present); and was a member of the US Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (2008-2013). He was an Executive member and Chair of the Board of Scientific Counselors for the EPA Office of Research and Development (2002-2010) and served on the EPA's Science Advisory Board drinking water committee (2002-2009), the Water Environment Research Foundation Research Council (1995-2001) and was Peer Review Chair for the EPA Exploratory Biology Program
i. Expertise: Discovery of molecular toxicological and disease pathways resulting from complex environmental exposures including techniques in new high-throughput molecular techniques and evolutionary theory, statistical analysis, and bioinformatics.
ii. Education: Ph.D., University of Kentucky; BS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Joseph R. Shaw is an Associate Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University and holds adjunct appointments in their School of Public Health and Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics. He also holds a partial appointment as a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Genomics in the School of Biosciences at the University of Birmingham, UK. Dr. Shaw earned his doctoral degree in environmental toxicology from the Graduate Center for Toxicology at the University of Kentucky in 2001. He then moved to Dartmouth College where he received an NIEHS post-doctoral fellowship to apply emerging Omics technologies to characterize mechanisms of toxicant actions. He joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington in 2007. Dr. Shaw was named an Outstanding New Environmental Scientist (ONES) by the NIEHS in 2010, and recognized as an exceptional talent in the environmental sciences by the Royal Society, UK in 2013 for his work investigating toxicant exposure, genome structure, and toxic effects on individuals and populations. Contributing to these efforts he is a founding member of the Daphnia and Fundulus Genomics Consortia where he helps lead over 600 scientists around the world working to develop new models for environmental genomics. He also helped establish the Consortium for Environmental Omics and Toxicology that seeks to apply twenty-first century technologies to predictive toxicology. Dr. Shaw has trained over 150 students in environmental genomics through the Mount Desert Island Bio Lab Workshop in environmental genomics that he co-developed in 2011. The workshop is now held annually in the US and UK. Dr. Shaw's research program has received over $6.4M in research funding from NIH, NSF, and DOD since 2002, producing over 38 publications in the area of environmental genomics and toxicology. He has served on the editorial board and in 2013, was promoted to editor for the journal “Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.” His research group seeks to discover critical, specific, and causative molecular toxicological and disease pathways resulting from complex environmental exposures. His work embraces new high-throughput molecular techniques and couples these with evolutionary theory, statistical analysis, and bioinformatics to integrate toxic-response across levels of biological organization. Current research in his laboratory focuses on (i) associating variation in genome structure with disease and toxicant response within and between populations; (ii) identifying the mechanisms of actions of chemical stress, especially metals, and (iii) elucidating the genetic and epigenetic underpinnings of mutations and establishing their role in evolved tolerance.
i. Expertise: Behavioral, immunological and neurotoxicological consequences of prenatal and neonatal drug administration and drug and environmental stress.
ii. Education: Ph.D. Physiological Psychology, from Carleton University; BA and MA (Experimental) in Psychology from St. John's University; MA equivalent in Pharmacology from Ottawa University.
iii. Professional Experience: Dr. Sonya K. Sobrian is an Associate Professor of Pharmacology at the Howard University College of Medicine, Director of the Developmental Neurobehavioral Pharmacology Laboratory, and Immediate Past Chair of the University's IACUC. Dr. Sobrian received her doctorate in Physiological Psychology from Carleton University, Ottawa Canada, and served a postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University in Developmental Neurobiology; she also added pharmacology and immunology to her graduate (MA, Neuropharmacology: Ottawa University) and post graduate (Fulbright Fellow: Immunology Research Center, Belgrade, Yugoslavia) training. During her tenure at the College of Medicine, Dr. Sobrian successfully mentored medical, graduate, and undergraduate students. She has served as President of the Neurobehavioral Teratology Society, is currently on the Editorial Advisory Board of the journal, “Neurotoxicology and Teratology”, and is Guest Editor of a special issue of the journal on “Developmental Cannabinoid Exposure: New Perspectives on Mechanisms, Outcomes, and Implications for Public Health.” Dr. Sobrian is currently on the Board of Scientific Counselors for the Department of Health & Human Services National Toxicology Program. She also served as a member of the Scientific Advisory Panel for the US EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and previously served on the EPA Toxic Substance Control Act Advisory Committee. As a visiting scientist at the National Center for Toxicological Research, Dr. Sobrian was instrumental in establishing a prenatal model of cocaine toxicity. She served on the ILSI Risk Science Institute's Expert Panel on the evaluation and interpretation of neurodevelopmental endpoints for human risk. Dr. Sobrian served as Director of the Behavioral Neuroscience Program at the National Science Foundation, where she directed and managed funding of research on the neural mechanisms underlying behavior and learning. In addition, she has served as Chair of the Board of Trustees of AAALAC International, as well as Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Capital Area Chapter of the Fulbright Association. During her tenure as an
i. Expertise: Understanding the role of environmental exposures in diabetes and obesity, evaluating the predictive utility of high throughput screening data, and methods of exposure assessment.
ii. Education: BS, Psychology, Pennsylvania State University; Ph.D., Biological Sciences, University of Missouri.
iii. Professional Experience: Kristina Thayer, Ph.D. is Deputy Director of Analysis at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Director of the NTP Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) located on the campus of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). OHAT conducts evaluations to assess the evidence that environmental chemicals, physical substances, or mixtures (collectively referred to as “substances”) may cause adverse health effects and provides opinions on whether these substances may be of concern given what is known about current human exposure levels. As Deputy Director of Analysis, she oversees OHAT and the NTP Office of the Report on Carcinogens. Before becoming director of OHAT, she held positions in the NTP Office of Liaison, Policy, and Review, the NIEHS Office of Risk Assessment Research and the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). Prior to joining the NTP/NIEHS, she was a senior scientist at the World Wildlife Fund and then at the Environmental Working Group. In addition to overseeing the development of OHAT and ORoC monographs, she has research interests in the areas of understanding the role of environmental exposures in diabetes and obesity, evaluating the predictive utility of high throughput screening data, and methods of exposure assessment. She is considered an expert on the application of systematic review methods to environmental health topics.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG), the Environmental Quality Issues (EQI) and the Pesticides Operations and Management (POM) committees will hold a joint 2-day meeting, beginning on September 21, 2015 and ending September 22, 2015. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.
The meeting will be held on Monday, September 21, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, 2015.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed in this notice under
The meeting will be held at EPA, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.) 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, Virginia, 1st Floor, South Conference Room.
Ron Kendall, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5561; fax number: (703) 305-5884; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting states and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include (but are not limited to) persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any non-government organization. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, please consult the person in this notice listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0086, is available at
1. Pollinator protection issues:
2. Briefing on a new system for data sharing that could provide opportunities for states to engage in meaningful data sharing.
3. Results of the joint project with the National Marine Fisheries Service dealing with targeted monitoring for the Endangered Species Act Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) in final biological opinions for pesticides.
4. Discuss final submittal of Pesticides of Interest National Tracking System (POINTS) recommendation paper.
5. An update on EPA's stance on treated seed.
6. Pesticide general permit reissuance update.
7. Worker Protection Standard final rule status and further update on implementation strategy or staff to discuss specific inconsistencies of personal protective equipment between label and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
8. Safer Choice related discussion.
9. Registrant agreement by EPA with Wellmark on methomyl.
10. 2,4-D report from International Agency for Research on Cancer discussion.
11. Pyrethroid re-evaluation.
12. Cannabis follow-up and update.
13. Distributor label follow-up-update on letter and enforcement by the agency.
14. Demonstrate a field inspection tool developed by the National Pesticide.
15. Information Retrieval System for use by inspectors.
16. Performance measures update.
17. Laboratory Discussion to increase regulatory awareness.
This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of workshop.
As part of the review of the air quality criteria for nitrogen oxides (NO
The workshop will be held on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:30 p.m. and ending at 4 p.m.; Wednesday, August 26, 2015, beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 4 p.m.; and Thursday, August 27, 2015, beginning at 11:30 a.m. and ending at 2 p.m.
The workshop will be held by teleconference and webinar. The call in number and Web site information for the teleconference are available to registered participants. Please register by going to
Please direct questions regarding workshop registration or logistics to Canden Byrd at
Section 109(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. EPA to conduct periodic reviews of the air quality criteria for each air pollutant listed under section 108 of the Act. Based on such reviews, EPA is to retain or revise the NAAQS for a given pollutant as appropriate. As part of these reviews, NCEA assesses newly available scientific information and develops ISA documents (formerly known as Air Quality Criteria Documents) that provide the scientific basis for the reviews of the NAAQS.
NCEA is holding this workshop to inform the Agency's evaluation of the scientific evidence for the review of the secondary NAAQS for NO
Members of the public may attend the teleconference as observers. Space in the teleconference may be limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration for the workshop is available online at
Federal Election Commission
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation on Thursday, July 16, 2015 at the conclusion of the open meeting.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
This meeting was continued at 1:00 p.m. on August 10, 2015.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 8, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
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 the Prevention Research Centers Program National Evaluation Reporting System. The information collection system is designed to monitor progress on a set of evaluation indicators; demonstrate public health impact and accountability to Congress, CDC leadership, partner organizations, and communities; increase PRC Program visibility; generate knowledge and share information within and outside the PRC Program; and facilitate PRC Program improvement.
Written comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0064 by any of the following methods:
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
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.
Prevention Research Centers Program National Evaluation Reporting System (OMB No. 0920-0650, exp. 5/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 1984, Congress passed Public Law 98-551 directing the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to establish Centers for Research and Development of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. In 1986, the CDC received lead responsibility for this program, referred to as the Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program. PRC Program awardees are managed as a CDC cooperative agreement with awards made for five years.
In 2013, the CDC published program announcement DP14-001 for the current PRC Program funding cycle (September 30, 2014—September 29, 2019). Twenty-six PRCs were selected through a competitive, external, peer-review process; the program is currently in its first year of the five year funding cycle.
Each PRC is housed within an accredited school of public health or an accredited school of medicine or osteopathy with a preventive medicine residency program. The PRCs conduct outcomes-oriented, applied prevention research on a broad range of topics using a multi-disciplinary and community-engaged approach. Research projects involve faculty from the funded school and various departments within the university, as well as community partners. Partners include, but are not limited to, state, local, and tribal health departments, departments of education, schools and school districts, community-based organizations, health providers, and other health organizations. Partners collaborate with the PRCs to assess community needs; identify research priorities; set research agendas; conduct research projects and related activities such as training and technical assistance; and disseminate research results to public health practitioners, researchers, and the general public.
Each PRC receives funding from the CDC to establish its core infrastructure and functions and support a core research project. Core research foci reflect each PRC's area of expertise and
The DP14-001 program announcement included language that was used to develop and operationalize a set of 24 PRC Program evaluation indicators. The PRC Program evaluation indicators were collaboratively developed in 2013 and 2014 with internal and external stakeholders and correspond to the PRC Program conceptual framework (or logic model). The PRC Program logic model identifies program inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. The list of indicators was revised to better reflect program needs and capture center and research activities, outputs, and outcomes.
The CDC is currently approved to collect information from the PRCs through a structured telephone interview and a web-based survey hosted by a third-party. The web-based survey is designed to collect information on the PRCs' collaborations with health departments; formal training programs and other training activities; and other-funded research projects conducted separate from their core projects or SIP research. Structured telephone interviews with key PRC informants allow PRC Program staff to collect indicator data that do not lend themselves to a survey-based methodology and require a qualitative approach.
CDC requests OMB approval to revise the information collection plan as follows:
(1) The content of the web-based survey will be updated to more closely align with revised evaluation indicators and/or to reflect the current needs of the PRC Program. In addition, the web-based survey will be migrated from a third party platform to a web-based data collection system hosted on CDC servers. Although the estimated burden per response will increase, the revised data collection system will be comprehensive and will reduce the need for follow-up clarification by PRC Program awardees.
(2) CDC will continue to conduct annual interviews (herein key informant interviews) with PRC staff to capture qualitative data about PRC activities and outcomes; however, the content of the in-depth interview will vary from year to year. In the previous OMB approval period, the annual interview focused on implementation of environmental and systems-wide strategies. CDC will continue to collect this information on a bi-annual basis (Key Informant Interview Part I). In alternate years, interview content will focus on PRC partnerships (Key Informant Interview Part II).
(3) CDC will bi-annually conduct focus group discussions to capture additional qualitative information about network formation and cohesion. Bi-annually, PRC Program awardees will be required to participate in focus group discussions about PRC Network formation and cohesion. In the same years, PRC Program awardees will be invited and encouraged, but not required, to participate in focus group discussions about Thematic Network formation and cohesion.
CDC will continue to use the information reported by PRCs to identify training and technical assistance needs, respond to requests for information from Congress and other sources, monitor grantees' compliance with cooperative agreement requirements, evaluate progress made in achieving goals and objectives, and describe the impact and effectiveness of the PRC Program.
The CDC currently funds 26 PRCs and each center will annually report the required information to the CDC. The annualized estimated burden is expected to increase. This increase equates to an estimated weekly burden of one hour per respondent and more fully accounts for the burden of preparing responses, as well as the burden of reporting responses. Web-based data collection will occur on an annual basis. The Key Informant Interview (Part I) will be conducted in years 2 and 4 of the current funding cycle, and the Key Informant Interview (Part II) will be conducted in year 3 of the current funding cycle. During the three-year OMB approval period, this equates to two Part I interviews and one Part II interview per PRC Program awardee. Both focus group discussions will take place in years 2 and 4 of the current funding cycle. This equates to one PRC Network focus group discussion and one Thematic Network focus group discussion per PRC Program awardee during the three year OMB approval period. Responses are annualized in the burden table below.
The proposed web-based data collection system will allow data entry during the entire year, which will enable respondents to distribute burden throughout each funding year. Response burden may decrease significantly in years 2 through 5, since the web-based data collection system will replicate a number of data elements from year to year, and respondents will only need to enter changes.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. CDC plans to implement revised reporting requirements in December 2015. PRC Program awardees are required to participate in information collection. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by October 13, 2015.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
Although this proposed data collection is limited to certain QHP issuers, HHS intends to phase in implementation for other entities over time. As stated in the final rule Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans; Exchange Standards for Employers (77 FR 18310; March 27, 2012), broader implementation will continue to be addressed in separate rulemaking issued by HHS, and the Departments of Labor and the Treasury (the Departments). For State-based Exchanges not addressed in the current proposal, standards will be proposed later.
Consistent with Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) section 2715A, which
3.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 11, 2015.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 or Email:
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on our proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 13, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, we invite comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our 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.
The definition of “food” under section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) See 21 U.S.C. 321(f), includes “articles used for food or drink” and thus includes alcoholic beverages. As such, alcoholic beverages are subject to the FD&C Act's adulteration and misbranding provisions, and implementing regulations, related to food. For example, manufacturers of alcoholic beverages are responsible for adhering to the registration of food facilities requirements in 21 CFR part 1 and to the good manufacturing practice regulations in 21 CFR part 110. There are also certain requirements for nutrition labeling on menus, menu boards, and other written materials for alcohol beverages served in restaurants or similar retail food establishments in 21 CFR part 101 (79 FR 71156, December 1, 2014). However, as reflected in a 1987 Memorandum of Understanding between FDA and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), TTB is responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations with respect to the labeling of distilled spirits, certain wines, and malt beverages pursuant to the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act). In TTB Ruling 2008-3, dated July 7, 2008, TTB clarified that certain beers, which are not made from both malted barley and hops but are instead made from substitutes for malted barley (such as sorghum, rice, or wheat) or are made without hops, do not meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act. Accordingly, TTB stated in its ruling that such products (other than sake, which is classified as a wine under the FAA Act), are not subject to the labeling, advertising, or other provisions of the TTB regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.
In cases where an alcoholic beverage is not covered by the labeling provisions of the FAA Act, the product is subject to ingredient and other labeling requirements under the FD&C Act and the implementing regulations that we administer. In addition, as provided for
Therefore, the beers described in the TTB's Ruling as not being a “malt beverage” are subject to the labeling requirements under the FD&C Act and FPLA, and our implementing regulations. In general, we require that food products under our jurisdiction be truthfully and informatively labeled in accordance with the FD&C Act, the FPLA, and FDA's regulations. Furthermore, some TTB labeling requirements, such as the Government Health Warning Statement under the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act and certain marking requirements under the Internal Revenue Code, continue to apply to these products.
In the
Our food labeling regulations under parts 101, 102, 104, and 105 (21 CFR parts 101, 102, 104, and 105) were issued under the authority of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the FPLA (15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, and 1455) and under sections 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 411, 701, and 721 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343, 348, 350, 371, and 379e). Most of these regulations derive from section 403 of the FD&C Act, which provides that a food product shall be deemed to be misbranded if, among other things, its label or labeling fails to bear certain required information concerning the food product, is false or misleading in any particular, or bears certain types of unauthorized claims. The disclosure requirements and other collections of information in the regulations in parts 101, 102, 104, and 105 are necessary to ensure that food products produced or sold in the United States are in compliance with the labeling provisions of the FD&C Act and the FPLA.
The primary user of the information to be disclosed on the label or labeling of food products is the consumer that purchases the food product. Consumers will use the information to assist them in making choices concerning their purchase of a food product, including choices related to substances that the consumer must avoid to prevent adverse reactions. This information also enables the consumer to determine the role of the food product in a healthful diet. Additionally, FDA intends to use the information to determine whether a manufacturer or other supplier of food products is meeting its statutory and regulatory obligations. Failure of a manufacturer or other supplier of food products to label its products in compliance with section 403 of the FD& C Act and parts 101, 102, 104, and 105 of FDA's food labeling regulations may result in a product being misbranded under the FD&C Act, subjecting the firm and product to regulatory action.
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimate of the number of respondents in table 1 is based on the number of regulatory submissions submitted to TTB for beers that do not meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the FAA Act. Based on its records of submissions received from manufacturers of such products, TTB estimates the number of respondents to be 12 and the number of disclosures annually to be 24. Thus, we adopt TTB's estimate of 12 respondents, and an annual number of disclosures per respondent of 2, in table 1 of this document.
Our estimates of the average burden per disclosure for each regulation are based on our experience with food labeling under the Agency's jurisdiction. The estimated average burden per disclosure for §§ 101.3, 101.4, 101.5, 101.9, 101.22, and 101.105 in table 1 are equal to, and based upon, the estimated average burden per disclosure approved by OMB in OMB control number 0910-0381. We further estimate that the labeling burden of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, which specifies requirements for the declaration of food allergens, will be 1 hour based upon the similarity of the requirements to that of § 101.4. Finally, FDA estimates that a respondent will spend 1 hour reading the guidance document.
Thus, we estimate that 12 respondents will each label 2 products annually, for a total of 24 labels. We estimate that the manufacturers will spend 7.25 hours (0.5 hours + 1 hour + 0.25 hour + 4 hours + 0.5 hour + 1 hour = 7.25 hours) on each label to comply with our labeling regulations and the requirements of section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, for a total of 174 hours (24
The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in our regulations. The collections of information in §§ 101.3, 101.4, 101.5, 101.9, 101.22, and 101.105 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0381. Allergen labeling of these beers under section 403(w)(1) of the FD&C Act, which was added by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0792.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Guidance for Entities Considering Whether to Register as Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” This guidance is intended to inform entities that are considering registering as outsourcing facilities under section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as added by the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA), of the regulatory implications of registration as an outsourcing facility.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Sara Rothman, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3110.
FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Guidance for Entities Considering Whether to Register as Outsourcing Facilities Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” On November 27, 2013, President Obama signed the DQSA (Pub. L. 113-54) into law. The DQSA added a new section 503B to the FD&C Act that created a category of entities called “outsourcing facilities.” Section 503B(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b(d)(4)) defines an outsourcing facility, in part, as a facility that complies with all of the requirements of section 503B, including registering with FDA as an outsourcing facility and paying associated fees. If the conditions outlined in section 503B(a) of the FD&C Act are satisfied, a drug compounded by or under the direct supervision of a licensed pharmacist in an outsourcing facility is exempt from certain sections of the FD&C Act, including section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use) and section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of human drug products under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)). Drugs compounded in outsourcing facilities are not exempt from the requirements of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing practice for drugs).
FDA has received questions about whether entities engaged in various types of activities (
In the
In response to received comments or on its own initiative, FDA made the following changes as it finalized this guidance: (1) Removed the reference to a separate guidance document that explains how outsourcing facilities should report the products they compound to FDA because that guidance is not directly related to the issue of entities considering whether to register as outsourcing facilities; (2) noted that FDA has issued separate guidance documents addressing some of the conditions of section 503B and that it intends to publish additional guidance addressing other conditions; (3) added a reference to FDA's draft guidance regarding compounding animal drug products from bulk drug substances, which addresses outsourcing facilities engaging in this activity; and (4) made grammatical and other minor editorial changes for clarity.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on registering as an outsourcing facility under section 503B of the FD&C Act. It does not create 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.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for notification of intent to participate; extension of closing date.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the closing date for the document that appeared in the
FDA is extending the closing date in the notice published June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31602). Submit notification of intent to participate by April 30, 2016.
Submit notification of intent to participate in monthly stakeholder meetings by email to
Connie Wisner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1718, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7946,
FDA is requesting that public stakeholders, including patient and consumer advocacy groups, health care professionals, and scientific and academic experts, notify the Agency of their intent to participate in periodic consultation meetings on the reauthorization of GDUFA. GDUFA authorizes FDA to collect fees from drug companies that submit marketing applications for certain generic human drug applications, certain drug master files, and certain facilities. GDUFA requires that generic drug manufacturers pay user fees to finance critical and measurable generic drug program enhancements. The statutory authority for GDUFA expires at the end of September 2017. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees for future fiscal years to fund the human generic drug review process. Section 744C(d) (21 U.S.C. 379j-43(d)) of the FD&C Act requires that FDA consult with a range of stakeholders in developing recommendations for the next GDUFA program, including representatives from patient and consumer groups, health care professionals, and scientific and academic experts. FDA initiated this process on June 15, 2015, by holding a public meeting at which stakeholders and other members of the public were given an opportunity to present their views on reauthorization (April 21, 2015, 80 FR 22204). The FD&C Act further requires that FDA continue meeting with these stakeholders at least once every month during negotiations with the regulated industry to continue discussions of stakeholder views on the reauthorization.
FDA is issuing this
If you intend to participate in continued periodic stakeholder consultation meetings regarding GDUFA reauthorization, please provide notification by email to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration
1. DUREZOL (difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion) 0.05%, Phenylephrine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution,
2. ZYLET (loteprednol etabonate and tobramycin ophthalmic suspension),
3. BETHKIS (tobramycin Inhalation Solution),
4. INTELENCE (etravirine),
5. PREZISTA (darunavir),
6. VIRAMUNE XR (nevirapine),
7. EPIDUO (adapalene and benzoyl peroxide),
8. EXJADE (deferasirox),
9. DOTAREM (gadoterate meglumine),
10. FYCOMPA (perampanel),
11. RECOTHROM (thrombin, topical [recombinant]),
12. PREVNAR 13 (Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine [Diphtheria CRM
13. PLEXIMMUNE,
14. ELANA SURGICAL KIT (HUD),
15. BERLIN HEART EXCOR PEDIATRIC VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE (VAD),
16. ENTERRA THERAPY SYSTEM, and
17. CONTEGRA Pulmonary Valved Conduit.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Walter Ellenberg at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
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
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of a final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and final environmental impact statement (EIS) for three national wildlife refuges (Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Baca National Wildlife Refuges) within the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge complex) in Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache, Colorado. In these documents, we describe alternatives, including our preferred alternative, to manage the refuge complex for the 15 years following approval of the final CCP.
You may request copies of the final CCP and final EIS, or more information, by one of the following methods. You also may request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents.
To view comments on the final CCP-EIS from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or for information on EPA's role in the EIS process, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process under
Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, 303-236-4317 (phone) or
With this notice, we announce the availability of the final CCP and final EIS for three national wildlife refuges that are part of the refuge complex. We started this process through a notice of intent in the
The EPA is charged under section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review all Federal agencies' environmental impact statements (EISs) and to comment on the adequacy and the acceptability of the environmental impacts of proposed actions in the EISs.
EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the
The notice of availability is the start of the 45-day public comment period for draft EISs, and the start of the 30-day “wait period” for final EISs, during which agencies are generally required to wait 30 days before making a decision on a proposed action. For more information, see
Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Baca National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) are located in the San Luis Valley, a high mountain basin in Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties, Colorado. A wide variety of habitats are found across the refuge complex, including wet meadows, playa wetlands, riparian areas within the flood plain of the Rio Grande and other creeks, desert shrublands, grasslands, and croplands. Totaling about 106,000 acres, the refuges are an important stopover for numerous migratory birds. The refuges support many groups of nesting, migrating, and wintering birds, including sandhill cranes, grebes, herons, ibis, ducks, geese, hawks, eagles, falcons, shorebirds, owls, songbirds, and others. Other wildlife includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, pronghorn, coyotes, and other small mammals, amphibian species, and native fish.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act) by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including, where appropriate, opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years as necessary in accordance with the Administration Act.
We started the public outreach process in March 2011. At that time and throughout the process, we requested public comments and considered them in numerous ways. Public outreach has included holding nine public meetings, mailing planning updates, maintaining a project Web site, and publishing press releases. We have considered and evaluated all the comments we have received during this process.
During the public scoping process with which we started work on the draft CCP and EIS, we, other governmental partners, Tribes, and the public raised several issues. Our final CCP and final EIS addresses both the scoping comments and the comments we received on the draft CCP and draft EIS. A full description of each alternative is in the final CCP and final EIS. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized below.
Habitat and wildlife management: There would be few changes in management of habitats and wildlife populations across the refuge complex through the manipulation of water. We would continue to manage wetland areas, wet meadows, riparian areas, and upland habitats to provide for a variety of waterbirds and other migratory birds. We would continue to protect habitat for the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and other species of concern. We would continue to produce small grains at current levels on Monte Vista NWR to provide food for spring-migrating sandhill cranes. The management of elk populations would be limited to nonlethal dispersal, agency culling, and the limited distribution (dispersal) hunts on the former State lands of Baca NWR. We would phase out the existing arrangement with The Nature Conservancy for season-long bison use within Baca NWR, and we would not use bison as a management tool in the future.
Water resources management: We would continue to manage water in the same manner, except as modified by changed State rules, regulations, and policies, and we would augment water supplies in accordance with State law.
Visitor services: We would continue to provide for limited wildlife-dependent public uses, including waterfowl and small game hunting, on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. We would not build new facilities to support visitor services. Baca NWR would remain closed to all public access except for limited guided tours and access to refuge offices.
Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: There would be few changes from current management. When the legislation passed authorizing the Baca NWR, it did not come with additional funding, and additional operations costs were absorbed into the current operations. We would seek some additional staff and operations funding to support current management needs.
Wilderness review: We would not recommend protection for any areas having wilderness characteristics or values.
Habitat and wildlife management: Although we would manage wetland and riparian areas within the refuge complex to achieve a variety of wetland types and conditions in order to support a diversity of migratory birds, we would focus on the focal species, including the federally listed southwestern willow flycatcher, greater sandhill cranes, and other migratory bird species or wildlife species that represent larger regional and landscape conservation goals. In specific areas, we would restore historical water flow patterns through more effective and efficient water management practices (
Water resources management: We would continue to work with other landowners and agencies throughout the watershed to keep flexibility as well as to protect and, if necessary, augment our water rights as State regulations evolve. Our water infrastructure, delivery, and efficiencies would require upgrades to make sure our wildlife, habitat, and visitor services objectives are met.
Visitor services: In addition to continuing waterfowl and limited small game hunting opportunities on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would offer limited elk hunting on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, and we would open Baca NWR for big game and limited small game hunting. We would improve public access on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, including allowing more access from approximately mid-July through the end of February for wildlife viewing and interpretation on roads and trails that are currently only open to waterfowl hunters during hunting season. We would also improve existing access opportunities. We would seek funding to build a visitor center and refuge complex offices at either Monte Vista NWR or Alamosa NWR to provide for safer access to the refuge complex headquarters and to provide for a modern work environment, as well as to offer a place for visitors to come and learn more about the refuge complex resources. We would permit walk-in fishing access and bank fishing just below and above the Chicago dam on Alamosa NWR (fishing from the dam would not be allowed). We would open Baca NWR for a variety of compatible, wildlife-dependent opportunities, including providing facilities to support them, including an auto tour route, trails, viewing blinds, and interpretation and environmental education programs.
Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: We would increase our efforts toward identifying and protecting the significant cultural resources found on the refuge complex. We would work with partners and volunteers to accomplish our objectives, but we would also seek increased staffing levels of both full-time and seasonal employees, as well as increased funding for operations.
Wilderness review: We would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR and adjacent to Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve that possess wilderness characteristics and values.
Habitat and wildlife management: We would take all feasible actions to restore—or mimic, where needed—the native vegetation community, based on ecological site characteristics, ecological processes, and other factors. We would restore the function of the riparian and playa areas on the Baca NWR. Where possible, we would restore natural waterflow patterns. We would phase out and end the production of small grains for migrating sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR. Similar to alternative B, we would use hunting to manage elk populations across the refuge complex. Periodically (not annually), we would use bison on Baca NWR to mimic the ecological benefit they may have once provided.
Water resources management: We would manage water to restore the hydrologic conditions, with less focus on habitat management for specific species or for providing wildlife viewing. In some years, water might not be available to meet life cycle needs for some waterfowl species. Existing water infrastructure would be removed or modified as needed.
Visitor services: We would continue to allow waterfowl and limited small game hunting on the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. Similar to under alternative B, we would open the Baca NWR for limited big game and limited small game hunting, whereas, on the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would rely more on limited public hunting or agency dispersal methods for elk management.
There may be other changes in public use, depending on the habitat management action. Some areas could be closed, or wildlife viewing would be more limited. Current public access would be evaluated on the Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs. If existing roads or trails are not needed, or if these facilities fragment habitat, they could be removed or altered. Viewing areas for sandhill cranes may be moved, depending on restoration efforts. As under alternative B, on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we would also allow for access opportunities within the hunt boundary from mid-July through the end of February. We would not build a refuge headquarters or visitor center on Monte Vista or Alamosa NWR. Except for limited hunting access to achieve our management objectives, there would be few visitor facilities or programs on Baca NWR, and most of the refuge would remain closed.
Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: Our actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except that on Baca NWR, roads that are not needed or that are fragmenting habitat would be removed.
Wilderness review: This would be the same as under alternative B; we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.
Habitat and wildlife management: Under this alternative, our habitat management practices would be a blend of alternatives A and B. We would manage wildlife habitats on the refuge complex consistent with our mission and purposes, while maximizing and emphasizing quality visitor experiences and wildlife-dependent public uses. For example, we could irrigate areas that are closer to public access to facilitate wildlife viewing. We would increase agricultural production of small grains for sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR, including the consideration of producing grain in specific places to enhance wildlife viewing. We would offer a variety of opportunities for elk hunting (
Water resources management: We would manage water similar to
Visitor services: We would provide for the widest variety of compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Similar to under alternative B, public access and visitor programs would be expanded, including building a visitor center and refuge complex at either Monte Vista or Alamosa NWR; however, there would be additional trails, viewing blinds, and seasonal auto tour routes provided across the refuge complex. Subsequently, we would increase interpretation and environmental education opportunities and seek more staff, volunteers, and partnerships to support the visitor services program. We would allow for limited fishing access on Alamosa NWR. We would also consider additional commercial uses.
Cultural resources, partnerships and refuge complex operations: Our actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except there would be greater emphasis on using students and volunteers to help us survey areas with high potential for cultural resources. We would pursue more outside partnerships and seek to increase staffing and funding to support our refuge complex operations.
Wilderness review: This would be the same as that under alternative B; we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.
We solicited comments on the draft CCP and draft EIS from August 26, 2014, through October 27, 2014 and accepted them through November 3, 2014. During the comment period we received over 1,000 letters, email, petitions (form letters), or verbal comments, and we thoroughly evaluated them all.
We made the following changes in the final CCP and final EIS from the draft CCP and draft EIS.
• Fishing on Alamosa NWR. Under alternative B, we would provide for fishing access along the banks of the Rio Grande just above and below the Chicago dam (fishing from the dam would not be allowed). This was part of broader fishing opportunity element that was considered under alternative D in the draft CCP and draft EIS. Prior to our acquisition of the property near the Chicago dam, the area was popular with local fisherman who fished for game fish like northern pike and carp. When we acquired the property, we closed the access due to concerns of having people fish off the dam. After further review, under alternative B and D, we would use signs, barriers, and increased law enforcement to keep people off the dam and allow an opportunity for bank fishing just above and below the dam. Currently, there are no nesting territories for southwestern willow flycatcher found in this area, but monitoring for these protected birds would continue. Should territories be established in the area, we would institute seasonal closures as needed. Other opportunities for fishing along the Rio Grande could be considered in the future.
• For Baca NWR, we modified several trails under alternative B and D to provide for some shorter loops and longer loops. We provided additional clarity on how the public use program would be managed on the refuge.
• We also provided additional clarification under the action alternatives about opening Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs for limited big game hunting and Baca NWR for limited big game and limited small game hunting, making it clearer that we would develop and implement a hunt plan within 1-3 years under all three action alternatives.
• Under the objectives for cultural resources, we added information about the importance of oral traditions practiced by Native Americans, and we would reach out to the Tribes regarding their oral traditions and regional knowledge about the history of the San Luis Valley.
• To emphasize the importance of water quality and monitoring and the importance of the San Luis Valley as a primary staging area for sandhill cranes from their winter grounds in northern New Mexico and the breeding grounds to the north, we added two new figures to the document: (1) Impaired waters in the San Luis Valley; and (2) Distribution of the Rocky Mountain Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. We would also initiate a research project to better understand the trends in agricultural practices in the San Luis Valley, including the amount and distribution of small grain production on private lands, the energetic demands of spring migrating cranes, and whether other changes to Monte Vista NWR's farming program are needed as a result of ongoing drought, climate changes, and changes in State groundwater regulations.
• As necessary, we updated maps, corrected errors and provided additional clarification throughout the final CCP and final EIS.
In addition to any one method in
• Our Web site:
• Public libraries:
We will document the final decision in a record of decision, which will be published in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a teleconference for the Trinity River Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG). The TAMWG is a Federal advisory committee that affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and budget oversight.
The teleconference number will be at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521.
Elizabeth W. Hadley, Redding Electric Utility, by mail at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001; by telephone at 530-339-7327; or by email at
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the TAMWG and the TMC will hold a joint teleconference meeting.
The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the TMC. The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
• FY 2016 Trinity River Restoration Plan budget.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date above, so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, or one electronic copy with a digital signature via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting.
Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will meet on September 1-2, 2015 at the National Conservation Training Center, 698 Conservation Way, Shepherdstown, WV 25443. The meeting will be held in Room #201 Instructional East. The NGAC, which is composed of representatives from governmental, private sector, non-profit, and academic organizations, was established to advise the Federal Geographic Data Committee on management of Federal geospatial programs, the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the implementation of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16. Topics to be addressed at the meeting include:
The meeting will include an opportunity for public comment during the morning of September 2. Comments may also be submitted to the NGAC in writing. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance for clearance into the meeting site. Please register by contacting Lucia Foulkes at the Federal Geographic Data Committee (703-648-4142,
The meeting will be held on September 1 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on September 2 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
John Mahoney, U.S. Geological Survey (206-220-4621).
Meetings of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee are open to the public. Additional information about the NGAC and the meeting are available at
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of an extension of a currently approved information collection (1028-0085).
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is inviting comments on an information collection request (ICR) that we have sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR concerns the paperwork requirements for the National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Activity (NLRSEORA) and describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. As required by the PRA, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this ICR. This Information Collection is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2015.
Submit written comments by September 11, 2015.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: (
Sarah Cook, Land Remote Sensing Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 516, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-6136 (phone); or
The National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Activity (NLRSEORA) is an effort that involves the development of a U.S. National consortium in building the capability to receive, process and archive remotely sensed data for the purpose of providing access to university and State organizations in a ready-to-use format; and to expand the science of remote sensing through education, research/applications development and outreach in areas such as environmental monitoring, climate change research, natural resource management and disaster analysis. Respondents are submitting proposals to acquire funding for a National (U.S.) program to promote the uses of space-based land remote sensing data and technologies through education and outreach at the State and local level and through university-based and collaborative research projects. The information collected will ensure that sufficient and relevant information is available to evaluate and select a proposal for funding. A panel of USGS Land Remote Sensing Program managers and scientists will review each proposal to evaluate the technical merit, requirements, and priorities identified in the Program's call for proposals.
This notice concerns the collection of information that is sufficient and relevant to evaluate and select proposals for funding. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We intend to release the project abstracts and primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only.
We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of public meeting (via Web Conferencing) of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of meetings of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the National Invasive Species Council, as authorized by Executive Order 13112, on a broad array of issues related to preventing the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The Council is co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. The duty of the Council is to provide national leadership regarding invasive species issues. The purpose of a meeting
Meeting of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee via web conferencing: Tuesday, August 18, 2015; 3 p.m.-5 p.m. (EDT)
U.S. Department of the Interior, Stuart Udall Building (MIB), 1849 C Street NW., Room 1548, Washington, DC 20240. All visiting members of the public must be cleared through building security prior to being escorted to the conference room.
Kelsey Brantley, National Invasive Species Council Program Specialist and ISAC Coordinator, Phone: (202) 208-4122; Fax: (202) 208-4118; Email:
Office of the Secretary, Office of Budget.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of the Office of Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior (DOI), announces the proposed extension of a public information collection required by the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (PILT) and seeks public comments on the provisions thereof. After public review, the Office of Budget will submit a renewal request for the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 13, 2015.
Send your written comments to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Office of Budget, Attn. Dionna Kiernan, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7413 MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Send any faxed comments to (202) 219-2849, attn Dionna Kiernan. Comments may also be emailed to
Individuals providing comments should reference OMB Control Number 1093-0005, “Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT Act), Statement of Federal Land Payments, 43 CFR 44.23(a).” 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.
To request a copy of the information collection request, any explanatory information and related forms, see the contact information provided in the
This notice is for renewal of information collection.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Public Law 97-258 (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), as amended, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act, was designed by Congress to help local governments recover some of the expenses they incur in providing services on public lands. These local governments receive funds under various Federal land payment programs such as the National Forest Revenue Act, the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, and the Taylor Grazing Act. PILT payments supplement the payments that local governments receive under these other programs. The FY 2016 budget proposes a one-year extension of the current PILT program, maintaining the existing formula for calculating payments to counties. That proposal is currently pending before Congress. This renewal authority is being done in anticipation of reauthorization by Congress.
The PILT Act requires that the Governor of each State furnish the Department of the Interior with a listing of payments disbursed to local governments by the States on behalf of the Federal Government under 12 statutes described in Section 6903 of 31 U.S.C. The Department of the Interior uses the amounts reported by the States to reduce PILT payments to units of general local governments from that which they might otherwise receive. If such listings were not furnished by the Governor of each affected State, the Department would not be able to compute the PILT payments to units of general local government within the States in question.
In fiscal year 2004, administrative authority for the PILT program was
(2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:
The Departments invite comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection of information and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(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 appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
“Burden” means the total time, effort, and 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 use technology and systems for the purposes 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, and to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment by using the contact information provided in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Twin Falls District RAC will meet September 10, 2015, at the Sawtooth Best Western Inn, 2653 S. Lincoln Avenue, Jerome, Idaho 83338. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end no later than 5:00 p.m. The public comment period will take place from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, (208) 736-2352.
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During the September 10th meeting, there will be an update on the University of Idaho Sage-Grouse Spring Grazing Study, an overview of the Gateway West Transmission project, a Christmas tree permit fee proposal presented by the Sawtooth National Forest, an overview of the Sage-Grouse Environmental Impact Statement Amendments, and field office updates. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements.
More information is available at
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Pecos District Resource Advisory Council's (RAC) Lesser Prairie-Chicken (LPC) Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACEC) Livestock Grazing Subcommittee will meet as indicated below.
The LPC ACEC Subcommittee will meet on September 29, 2015, at the Roswell Field Office, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, NM 88201, at 1 p.m. The public may send written comments to the Subcommittee at the BLM Pecos District Office, Attn: Adam Ortega, 2909 West 2nd Street, Roswell, New Mexico, 88201.
Adam Ortega, Range Management Specialist, Roswell Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2909 West 2nd Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201, 575-627-0204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The 10-member Pecos District RAC elected to create a subcommittee to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Pecos District, about possible livestock grazing within the LPC ACEC. Planned agenda includes a discussion of management strategies for the LPC ACEC.
For any interested members of the public who wish to address the Subcommittee, there will be a public comment period beginning at 2:15 p.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and time available, the time for individual comments may be limited.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“The Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel wire rod (“SSWR”) from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
Nathanael Comly (202-205-3174), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On August 4, 2015, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 24970, May 1, 2015) and the respondent interested party group responses with respect to the orders on SSWR from Italy, Korea, and Spain were adequate. The Commission determined that it will proceed to full reviews of the orders on SSWR from Italy, Korea, and Spain. The Commission also found that the respondent interested party group responses with respect to the orders on SSWR from Japan and Taiwan were inadequate. The Commission further determined that it will proceed to full reviews of the orders on SSWR from Japan and Taiwan to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to proceed to full reviews with respect to the orders on SSWR from Italy, Korea, and Spain. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On August 6, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree will resolve Clean Water Act and associated state claims alleged in this action by the United States, the State of West Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection against Arch Coal, Inc. and 14 of its
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed 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 proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $18.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $15.00.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 12, 2013, applicable to workers of Hewlett Packard Company, HP Enterprise Services, America Sales Operations, Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035). The certification was amended on April 23, 2015 to include workers of Hewlett Packard Company, Order Management, America Sales Operations, Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035A) and Hewlett Packard Company, Technology & Operations, Sales Operations, WW Sales Transformation, Quote to Order, Quote and Configuration, including remote workers from Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Texas, including leased workers from Modis, Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035B). Workers were engaged in activities related to the supply of order management services and post sales customer activities.
During the course of a subsequent Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) investigation, the Department reviewed the certification and administrative record of TA-W-83,035 for workers of the subject firm and received additional information regarding the aforementioned certification.
The review revealed that the workers of Hewlett Packard Company, Technology & Operations, Sales Operations, AMS Sales Operations, Lead to Order, Sales Services Support, including remote workers from Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, and Texas, reporting to Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035C) supplied support services to the subject firm and reported to the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include the workers of Hewlett Packard Company, Technology & Operations, Sales Operations, AMS Sales Operations, Lead to Order, Sales Services Support, including remote workers from Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, and Texas, reporting to Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035C). The amended notice applicable to TA-W-83,035 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Hewlett Packard Company, HP Enterprise Services, America Sales Operations, Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035); Hewlett Packard Company, Order Management, America Sales Operations, Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035A); Hewlett Packard Company, Technology & Operations, Sales Operations, WW Sales Transformation, Quote to Order, Quote and Configuration, including remote workers from Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Texas, including leased workers from Modis, Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035B); and Hewlett Packard Company, Technology & Operations, Sales Operations, AMS Sales Operations, Lead to Order, Sales Services Support, including remote workers from Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, and Texas, reporting to Omaha, Nebraska (TA-W-83,035C) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 28, 2012 through September 12, 2015, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice of a public meeting.
Pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 10), notice is hereby given to announce an open meeting of the Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship (ACA) on Tuesday, September 22, 2015 and Wednesday, September 23, 2015. The meeting will convene over a day and a half. The ACA is a discretionary committee established by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with FACA, as amended in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and its implementing regulations (41CFR 101-6 and 102-3). All meetings of the ACA are open to the public.
The meeting will begin at approximately 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, at the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, and will continue until approximately 5:00 p.m. The meeting will reconvene on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, at approximately 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time at the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 and adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m. Any updates to the agenda and meeting logistics will be posted on the Office of Apprenticeship's homepage:
The Designated Federal Official, Mr. John V. Ladd, Administrator, Office of Apprenticeship, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5311, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 693-2796 (this is not a toll-free number).
In order to promote openness, and increase public participation, webinar and audio conference technology will be used throughout the meeting. Webinar and audio instructions will be posted prominently on the Office of Apprenticeship homepage:
Meeting participants should use the visitor's entrance to access the Frances Perkins Building, one block north of Constitution Avenue on 3rd and C Streets NW. For security purposes meeting participants must:
1. Present valid photo identification (ID) to receive a visitor badge.
2. Know the name of the event you are attending: the meeting event is the Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship meeting.
3. Visitor badges are issued by the security officer at the Visitor Entrance located at 3rd and C Streets NW., as described above.
4. Laptops and other electronic devices may be inspected and logged for identification purposes.
5. Due to limited parking options, Metro rail is the easiest way to travel to the Frances Perkins Building. For individuals wishing to take metro rail, the closest metro stop to the building is Judiciary Square on the Red Line.
All meeting participants are being asked to submit a notice of intent to attend by Wednesday, September 9, 2015, via email to Mr. John V. Ladd at
1. Please indicate if you will be attending virtually, or in person, to ensure adequate space is arranged to accommodate all meeting participants.
2. If individuals have special needs and/or disabilities that will require special accommodations, please contact Kenya Huckaby on (202) 693-3795 or via email at
3. Any member of the public who wishes to file written data or comments pertaining to the agenda may do so by sending the data or comments to Mr. John V. Ladd via email at
4. See below regarding members of the public wishing to speak at the ACA meeting.
The purpose of the meeting is to focus on apprenticeship expansion and employer engagement efforts in order to seek advice from the ACA on industry issues and how best to increase Registered Apprenticeships across the country. The agenda will cover the following topics:
The agenda and meeting logistics may be updated should priority items come before the ACA between the time of this publication and the scheduled date of the ACA meeting. All meeting updates will be posted to the Office of Apprenticeship's homepage:
Signed at Washington, DC.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data for the administration of the UCX program, the current expiration date is June 31, 2016
Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 13, 2015.
Send written comments to Jeffery Haluska, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: (202) 693-2992 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Email:
The UCX law (5 U.S.C. 8521-8525) requires State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) to administer the UCX program in accordance with the same terms and conditions of the paying state's unemployment insurance law which apply to unemployed claimants who worked in the private sector. Each state agency needs to obtain certain military service information on claimants filing for UCX benefits to enable the state to determine their eligibility for benefits. As needed, most state agencies record required UCX information on the form developed by the Department, ETA 843, Request for Military Document and Information. States not using the ETA 843 record required UCX information on form ETA 841, Request for Determination of Federal Military Service and Wages. The use of these forms is essential to the UCX claims process. Information pertaining to the UCX claimant which is recorded on the ETA 841 report can only be obtained from the individual's military discharge papers, maintained by the appropriate branch of military service or the Department of Veterans' Affairs (formerly the Veterans' Administration). Without the claimant's military information, a state cannot adequately determine potential UCX eligibility of ex-servicemembers and would not be able to properly administer the program.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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,
We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comment request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Roof Control Plans for Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 11, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Roof Control Plans for Underground Coal Mines information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR part 75. In order to prevent occupational injuries resulting from falls of roofs, faces, and ribs—which are a leading cause of injuries and death in underground coal mines—regulations 30 CFR 75.215 and 75.220 to 75.223 make it mandatory for an underground coal mine operator to develop and to submit roof control plans to the MSHA for evaluation and approval. The agency evaluates each roof control plan to determine whether it is adequate for prevailing mining conditions. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a), 103(h), and 302(a) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Training Plans, New Miner Training, Newly Hired Experienced Miner Training,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 11, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Training Plans, New Miner Training, Newly Hired Experienced Miner Training information collection. Training informs miners of safety and health hazards inherent in the workplace and enables miners to identify and avoid such hazards. Training becomes even more important in light of certain conditions that can exist when production demands increase—such as an influx of new and less experienced miners and mine operators, longer work hours to meet production demands, and increased demand for contractors who may be less familiar with the dangers on mine property. This ICR covers reporting and recordkeeping as follows: regulations 30 CFR 46.3(a) requires a mine operator to develop and implement a written training plan that contains effective training programs; § 46.3(c) specifies when an operator must submit a plan to the MSHA for approval; § 46.3(e) allows for a miner or miner representative to submit written comments on a training plan; § 46.3(g) requires the mine operator to provide the miners' representative, if any, with a copy of the approved training plan within one (1) week of approval (at a mine where no miners' representative has been designated, the operator must post a copy of the plan at the mine site or provide a copy to each miner); § 46.3(h) allows a mine operator, contractor, miner, or miners' representative to appeal—in writing—the Regional Manager's decision to the MSHA Director for Educational Policy and Development; § 46.3(i) requires mine operators and contractors to make available at the mine site a copy of the current training plan for inspection by the MSHA and for examination by miners and their representatives (if the training plan is not maintained at the mine site, the operator must have the capability to provide the plan within one (1) business day upon request to the MSHA, miners, or their representatives); § 46.5(a) requires a mine operator to provide each new miner with no less than 24 hours of training; § 46.6(a) requires an operator to provide each newly hired experienced miner with certain specified training before the miner begins work; § 46.7(a) requires that before a miner performs a new task for which the miner has no experience, the operator must train the miner in the safety and health aspects and safe work procedures specific to that task; § 46.7(b) requires that if changes have occurred in a miner's regularly assigned task that affects the health and safety risks encountered by the miner, the operator must provide the miner with training that addresses the changes; § 46.8(a) requires an operator provide each miner with no less than eight (8) hours of refresher training, at least every twelve (12) months; § 46.9 requires an operator, upon completion of each training program, to record and certify on MSHA Form 5000-23 (separately cleared under control number 1219-0009) the miner has completed the training; and § 46.11(a) requires an operator to provide site-specific hazard training to specific persons before they are exposed to mine hazards. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a) and 103(h) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of opening of additional materials.
The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum (a NARA division) provides notice that we are placing the White House Central Files, Name Files, into a review-on-demand category for public access. We have identified, inventoried, and prepared these additional textual materials for public access with certain information redacted as required by law.
If you intend to submit a petition or claim asserting a legal or
The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum is located at 18001 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda, CA.
Send written petitions asserting a legal or constitutional right or privilege that would prevent or limit public access to the materials by mail to: Archivist of the United States; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Rd.; College Park, MD 20740-6001.
Gregory Cumming, Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, by telephone at 714-983-9131, or by email at
Section 104 of Title I of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA, 44 U.S.C. 2111 note) and 36 CFR 1275.42(b) of the PRMPA regulations implementing the Act, direct NARA to provide notice in the
We are making the following materials available through this notice:
Volume: 2,880.5 cubic feet available for review-on-demand.
The Name Files were used for routine materials filed alphabetically by the name of the correspondent; copies of documents in the Name Files were usually filed by subject in the Subject Files.
The alphabetical Name Files will be available to researchers on a review-on-demand basis. This means researchers may request access to the files, which we will prepare and make available within ten business days.
In accordance with 36 CFR 1275.44, any person who believes it necessary to file a claim of legal right or privilege that would prevent or limit public access to these materials must notify the Archivist of the United States in writing of the claimed right, privilege, or defense within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Researchers must have a NARA researcher card to access the materials. You may obtain a researcher card when you arrive at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion) for an amendment of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2507, which authorizes Dominion to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials at the North Anna (NA) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The requested amendment would allow the TN-32 casks to remain in their current positions subsequent to their movement during the August 23, 2011, seismic event that affected the NA ISFSI.
August 12, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0154 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Pamela Longmire, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7465; email:
On May 27, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14160A707), as supplemented November 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14317A086), Dominion submitted to the NRC a request for a license amendment in accordance with section 72.56 of Title 10 of the
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.46, the NRC has docketed, approved and issued Amendment No. 4 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2507, held by Dominion to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the NA power station in an ISFSI at the power plant site for a term of 20 years. Amendment No. 4 is effective as of the date of issuance.
Amendment No. 4 complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Act), as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings, as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, which are set forth in Amendment No. 4.
The NRC issued a letter dated July 9, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14190A179), notifying Dominion that the application was acceptable for review. In accordance with 10 CFR 72.16, a Notice of Docketing was published in the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15050A428) to document its review and evaluation of the amendment request. Also in connection with this action, the Commission prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15022A575) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15026A683). The Notice of Availability of the EA and FONSI for the NA ISFSI was published in the
As required by the Act and the NRC's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, the staff made the appropriate findings which are contained in the SER. The NRC approved and issued Amendment No. 4 to SNM-2507, held by Dominion for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel and associated radioactive materials at the NA ISFSI. Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.46(d), the NRC is providing notice of the action taken. Amendment No. 4 was effective as of the date of issuance, August 3, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Confirmatory order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a confirmatory order to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), confirming an agreement reached in an Alternative Dispute Resolution mediation session held on September 22, 2014. As part of this agreement, Entergy will take actions to review and evaluate its security procedures; strengthen its procedures and set expectations regarding the conduct of security personnel; and conduct a presentation describing the event that formed the bases for the violation and the lessons learned, to its employees and the industry. Entergy is required to have an independent safety culture assessment conducted of the security organization at its River Bend Station. Entergy is also required to notify the NRC periodically of the status of its efforts.
The confirmatory order was issued on December 3, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0135 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Christi Maier, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-001; 817-200-1217; or by email to
The text of the Order is attached.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on August 7, 2015.
The licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order hold licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the
This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on September 22, 2014, in Arlington, Texas.
On March 21, 2012, the NRC initiated a special inspection to determine the circumstances surrounding a security event, which occurred on March 18, 2012, at Entergy Operations, Inc.'s (Entergy or Licensee), River Bend Station (RBS or facility). In addition, on March 21, 2012, the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI), Region IV Field Office, initiated an investigation at RBS to determine if Entergy employees willfully violated NRC security requirements at RBS. The investigation was completed on December 31, 2013, and was documented in OI Report 4-2012-022. Based on the evidence developed during the investigation, OI's Region IV Field Office concluded that the willful actions of an unidentified individual caused Entergy to be in violation of 10 CFR part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.”
While the NRC investigation did not identify the individual responsible for the security-related violation, the OI
The NRC determined that as the result of the willful actions of an unidentified individual, Entergy failed to comply with 10 CFR part 73. The NRC described the results of the inspection and investigation in a letter to Entergy dated July 16, 2014. In response to the NRC's letter, Entergy requested ADR to resolve this matter. This confirmatory order is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process.
On September 22, 2014, the NRC and Entergy met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through the Cornell University Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator, with no decision-making authority, assists the parties in reaching an agreement on resolving any differences regarding the dispute. During the ADR session, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached. The elements of that preliminary agreement, with the exception of the section that includes SRI, are described below. The portions of the agreement that contain SRI, as well as the sections of this Confirmatory Order that address SRI, are described in the aforementioned non-public Attachment. The following description of the preliminary ADR agreement, and the required actions described in Section V of this Confirmatory Order, include references to the non-public Attachment to allow for public release of this Confirmatory Order. The publicly available elements of the agreement consist of the following:
The NRC recognizes the corrective actions that Entergy has already implemented associated with the apparent violation and preliminary finding. Entergy's corrective actions are described in the non-public Attachment.
A. The NRC and Entergy agree that a willful violation of Title 10
1. The NRC concluded that the security-related violation occurred because of the deliberate misconduct of an unidentified security officer at River Bend Station.
2. Entergy does not believe that willful intent was involved in all aspects of the violation.
B. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will revise its security procedures.
C. Within 3 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will, at each of its nuclear plants, conduct a review of its controls for SRI and communicate to the NRC the results of the review. Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will establish new controls and will provide its proposed controls to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the controls within 60 days of submittal for resolution in a manner acceptable to both parties. Entergy will implement the controls within 15 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order. The details regarding these controls are described in the non-public Attachment.
D. Within 9 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will review and evaluate the location and storage of SRI at each of its nuclear plants. The details are described in the non-public Attachment.
E. Entergy will develop a “commitment to compliance” statement or a similar document highlighting the special responsibilities of nuclear security personnel. This document will explain that nuclear security personnel need to comply with regulations and procedures, and it will describe the potential consequences if compliance does not occur. Within 12 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will require at each of its nuclear plants that nuclear security personnel read and sign the statement (subject to any collective bargaining obligations it may have). Entergy will include the reading and signing of this statement in the initial qualification process of nuclear security personnel. The details are described in the non-public Attachment.
F. Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will identify those security posts in each of its nuclear plants that should be subject to certain decorum standards that will ensure a professional environment in those areas. Once identified, Entergy will establish decorum protocols for those security posts. In addition, within 6 months of the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will provide its proposed decorum protocols to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the proposed decorum protocols within 60 days of submittal for resolution in a manner acceptable to both parties. Entergy will implement the decorum protocols within 12 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order.
G. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will prepare a “lessons learned” presentation to be delivered to Entergy nuclear employees at each of its nuclear plants describing the event that formed the basis for this violation. Prior to making the presentation, Entergy will provide its proposed presentation to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the presentation within 30 days of submittal. Entergy will deliver the presentation to Entergy nuclear employees within 12 months of this Confirmatory Order.
H. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will prepare a presentation describing the event that formed the basis for this violation. The presentation will be delivered to the Nuclear Security Working Group and the National Nuclear Security Conference (subject to acceptance of the conference-organizing committees). This presentation will include, among other subjects, the subjects covered in the non-public Attachment to this Confirmatory Order. Prior to making the presentation, Entergy will provide its proposed presentation to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the presentation within 30 days of submittal. Entergy will deliver the presentation within 12 months of this Confirmatory Order.
I. Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will ensure that an independent third party conducts a safety culture assessment of the Security organization at River Bend Station. The results will be incorporated into Entergy's corrective action program as appropriate. A copy of the completed assessment will be made available for NRC review.
J. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will prepare refresher training on the provisions of 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9 for Entergy employees at each of its nuclear plants. Prior to conducting the training, Entergy will provide its proposed refresher training plan to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the plan within 30 days of submittal for resolution in a manner acceptable to both parties. Entergy will complete administration of this refresher training
K. Notification to the NRC When Actions Are Completed
1. Unless otherwise specified, Entergy will submit written notification to the Director, Division of Reactor Safety, USNRC Region IV, 1600 East Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas 76011-4511, at intervals not to exceed 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter until the terms of the Confirmatory Order are completed, providing a status of each item in the Order.
2. Entergy will provide its basis for concluding that the terms of the Confirmatory Order have been satisfied, to the NRC, in writing
L. Inspection Follow-up
Based on the corrective actions and enhancements described above, the NRC will conduct follow-up inspections using NRC Inspection Procedure 92702, “Followup on Corrective Actions for Violations and Deviations.”
M. Administrative Items
1. The NRC and Entergy Operations, Inc., agree that the above elements will be incorporated into this Confirmatory Order and that the NRC will consider the order an escalated enforcement action.
2. The NRC and Entergy agree that the issues described in the NRC's Inspection Report and Investigation Report to Entergy Operations, Inc., of July 16, 2014 (EA-14-009) resulted in a violation of NRC security requirements. The details regarding the violation are described in the non-public Attachment.
3. In consideration of the significant corrective actions Entergy has already taken and the additional actions Entergy has committed to taking to enhance its security program, the NRC agrees to reduce the severity level of the escalated enforcement sanction. The NRC agrees to issue a Notice of Violation for a security-related violation and impose a $70,000 civil penalty for the matter discussed in the NRC's Inspection Report and Investigation Report to Entergy Operations, Inc., of July 16, 2014 (EA-14-009). The issuance of the Notice of Violation and civil penalty is considered escalated enforcement. The NRC communicates, in the non-public Attachment, the basis for its original conclusion regarding the characterization of the violation.
4. This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of Entergy Operations, Inc.
N. Within thirty days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, Entergy shall pay a civil penalty of $70,000.
O. Entergy agrees that this Confirmatory Order is to be effective upon issuance and waives its right to a hearing in connection with this Order.
P. If Entergy fulfills its commitments under this Order, the NRC will not take further enforcement action based on the violations of NRC requirements described in Enclosure 2 of the letter transmitting this Order.
On November 21, 2014, Entergy consented to issuing this Confirmatory Order with the commitments, as described in Section V below.
Since the Licensee has agreed to take additional actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this Confirmatory Order.
I find that Entergy's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Entergy's commitments be confirmed by this Confirmatory Order. Based on the above and Entergy's consent, this Confirmatory Order is effective 30 days after its issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50 and 73, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED BELOW WILL BE TAKEN AT RIVER BEND STATION AND OTHER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN ENTERGY'S FLEET AND THAT REACTOR OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 IS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THE RIVER BEND STATION:
A. The NRC and Entergy agree that a willful violation of Title 10
1. The NRC concluded that the security-related violation occurred because of the deliberate misconduct of an unidentified security officer at River Bend Station.
2. However, Entergy does not believe that willful intent was involved in all aspects of the violation.
B. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will revise its security procedures.
C. Within 3 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will, at each of its nuclear plants, conduct a review of its controls for SRI and communicate to the NRC the results of the review. Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will establish new controls and will provide its proposed controls to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the controls within 60 days of submittal for resolution in a manner acceptable to both parties. Entergy will implement the controls within 15 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order. The details regarding these controls are described in the non-public Attachment.
D. Within 9 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will review and evaluate the location and storage of SRI at each of its nuclear plants. The details are described in the non-public Attachment.
E. Entergy will develop a “commitment to compliance” statement or a similar document highlighting the special responsibilities of nuclear security personnel. This document will explain that nuclear security personnel need to comply with regulations and procedures, and it will describe the potential consequences if compliance does not occur. Within 12 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will require at each of its nuclear plants that nuclear security personnel read and sign the statement (subject to any collective bargaining obligations it may have). Entergy will include the reading and signing of this statement in the initial qualification process of nuclear security personnel. The details are described in the non-public Attachment.
F. Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will identify those security posts in each of its nuclear plants that should be subject to certain decorum standards that will ensure a professional environment in those areas. Once identified, Entergy will establish decorum protocols for those security posts. In addition, within 6 months of the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will provide its proposed decorum protocols to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the proposed decorum protocols within 60 days of submittal for resolution in a manner acceptable to both parties. Entergy will implement the decorum protocols within 12 months
G. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will prepare a “lessons learned” presentation to be delivered to Entergy nuclear employees at each of its nuclear plants describing the event that formed the basis for this violation. Prior to making the presentation, Entergy will provide its proposed presentation to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the presentation within 30 days of submittal. Entergy will deliver the presentation to Entergy nuclear employees within 12 months of this Confirmatory Order.
H. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will prepare a presentation describing the event that formed the basis for this violation. The presentation will be delivered to the Nuclear Security Working Group and the National Nuclear Security Conference (subject to acceptance of the conference-organizing committees). This presentation will include, among other subjects, the subjects covered by the non-public Attachment to this Confirmatory Order. Prior to making the presentation, Entergy will provide its proposed presentation to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the presentation within 30 days of submittal. Entergy will deliver the presentation within 12 months of this Confirmatory Order.
I. Within 6 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will ensure that an independent, third party conducts a safety culture assessment of the Security organization at River Bend Station. The results will be incorporated into Entergy's corrective action program as appropriate. A copy of the completed assessment will be made available for NRC review.
J. Within 4 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Entergy will prepare refresher training on the provisions of 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9 for Entergy employees at each of its nuclear plants. Prior to conducting the training, Entergy will provide its proposed refresher training plan to the NRC for its review. The NRC will communicate to Entergy any concerns regarding the plan within 30 days of submittal for resolution in a manner acceptable to both parties. Entergy will complete administration of this refresher training within 12 months of this Confirmatory Order.
K. Notification to the NRC When Actions Are Completed
1. Unless otherwise specified, Entergy will submit written notification to the Director, Division of Reactor Safety, USNRC Region IV, 1600 East Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas 76011-4511, at intervals not to exceed 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter until the terms of the Confirmatory Order are completed, providing a status of each item in the Order.
2. Entergy will provide its basis for concluding that the terms of the Confirmatory Order have been satisfied, to the NRC, in writing
L. Inspection Follow-up
Based on the corrective actions and enhancements described above, the NRC will conduct follow-up inspections using NRC Inspection Procedure 92702, “Followup on Corrective Actions for Violations and Deviations.”
M. Administrative Items
1. The NRC and Entergy Operations, Inc., agree that the above elements will be incorporated into this Confirmatory Order and that the NRC will consider the order an escalated enforcement action.
2. The NRC and Entergy agree that the issues in the NRC's Inspection Report and Investigation Report (EA-14-009) described in a July 16, 2014, letter to Entergy Operations, Inc., resulted in a violation of NRC security requirements. The details regarding the violation are described in the non-public Attachment.
3. In consideration of the significant corrective actions Entergy has already taken and the additional actions Entergy has committed to taking to enhance its security program, the NRC agrees to reduce the severity level of the escalated enforcement sanction. The NRC agrees to issue a Notice of Violation for a security-related violation and impose a $70,000 civil penalty for the matter discussed in the July 16, 2014, letter to Entergy Operations, Inc., regarding the NRC's Inspection Report and Investigation Report (EA-14-009). The issuance of the Notice of Violation and civil penalty is considered escalated enforcement. The NRC communicates, in the non-public Attachment, the basis for its original conclusion regarding the characterization of the violation.
4. This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of Entergy Operations, Inc.
N. Within 30 days of the date of the Confirmatory Order, Entergy shall pay a civil penalty of $70,000.
O. Entergy agrees that this Confirmatory Order is to be effective upon issuance and waives its right to a hearing in connection with this Order
P. If Entergy fulfills its commitments under this Order, the NRC will not take further enforcement action based on the violations of NRC requirements described in Enclosure 2 of the letter transmitting this Order.
The Regional Administrator, Region IV, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Entergy of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Entergy, may request a hearing within 30 days of its publication in the
This Order and its Attachments contain information up to the Security-Related Information designation, as defined in 10 CFR 73.2, and its disclosure to unauthorized individuals is prohibited by 10 CFR 73.21 and 10 CFR 73.22. Therefore, any redacted material will not be made available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or electronically in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. Any person requesting to obtain a copy of this order or portions thereof will be required to demonstrate their trust and reliability through a Federal Bureau of Investigation background check and criminal history check, as well as demonstrate a “need to know” such information.
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be effective and final thirty days after issuance of this Confirmatory Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007), as amended by 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012 (codified in pertinent part at 10 CFR part 2, subpart C). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene through the EIE. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on August 7, 2015.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a new regulatory guide (RG), RG 5.84, “Fitness-for-Duty Programs at New Reactor Construction Sites.” This RG provides guidance for implementing fitness-for-duty (FFD) requirements at nuclear power plant construction sites.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0253 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Wesley W. Held, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, telephone: 301-415-1583, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in
Revision 0 of RG 5.84 was issued with a temporary identification as Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-5036. This guidance is provided to ensure the effective and consistent implementation of the requirements in subpart K, “FFD Programs for Construction,” of part 26, “Fitness-for-Duty Programs,” in Title 10 of the
DG-5036 was published in the
This regulatory guide is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
This regulatory guide provides guidance on the methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the NRC's regulations associated with FFD programs of licensees or other entities during construction of new nuclear power reactors. The guide applies to certain current and future applicants for, and holders of, power reactor licenses and construction permits under 10 CFR part 50 and power reactor licenses and early site permits under 10 CFR part 52. Issuance of RG 5.84 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR part 50 and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of RG 5.84, the NRC has no current intention to impose the RG on current holders of 10 CFR part 50 operating licenses or 10 CFR part 52 combined licenses.
This RG could be applied to applications for certain 10 CFR part 50 operating licenses or construction permits and 10 CFR part 52 combined licenses and early site permits. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 50.109 or the relevant issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. 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, “NRC Form 664, General Licensee Registration.”
Submit comments by October 13, 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:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, Mail Stop: T-5 F53, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
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-2015-0175 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:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
• NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email:
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0175 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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company to withdraw its application dated November 12, 2014, for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License NPF-12. The proposed amendment would have revised the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Radiation Emergency Plan to relocate the Technical Support Center.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0271 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:
•
•
•
Shawn Williams, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
The NRC has granted the request of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) to withdraw its application date November 12, 2014, (ADAMS Accession No. ML14324A217), for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License NPF-12 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, located in Jenkinsville, SC.
The proposed amendment sought to revise the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Radiation Emergency Plan to relocate the Technical Support Center.
The NRC published a Biweekly Notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC to withdraw its application dated February 22, 2012, as supplemented by letters dated November 13, 2012 and February 4, 2013, for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendment would have revised the McGuire Technical Specification 3.7.7, “Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS).” Specifically, the proposed change would have the use of the NSWS pump discharge crossover valves and associated piping to cross tie McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 NSWS trains to mitigate a Loss of Service Water event.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0161 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:
•
•
•
G. Edward Miller, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2481, email:
The NRC has granted the request of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated February 22, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12061A008), for a proposed amendment to the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County, North Carolina.
The proposed amendment would have revised the McGuire Technical Specification 3.7.7, “Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS).” Specifically, the proposed change would have the use of the NSWS pump discharge crossover valves and associated piping to cross tie McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 NSWS trains to mitigate a Loss of Service Water event.
The NRC published a Biweekly Notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Interim staff guidance; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing its final Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) COL-ISG-025, “Interim Staff Guidance on Changes During Construction.” This ISG provides guidance to the NRC staff on the Preliminary Amendment Request (PAR) review process available to the combined license (COL) holders. The PAR is implemented through a license condition for use as an elective precursor to the license amendment process.
The effective date of this COL-ISG-025 is September 11, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0288 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:
•
•
•
Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3053; email:
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
On January 11, 2012 (77 FR 1749) the NRC staff issued notice for use of, and to solicit public comments on, draft COL-ISG-025,” Interim Staff Guidance on Changes During Construction under part 52 of title 10 of the
This final ISG provides guidance to the NRC staff on the PAR review process available to 10 CFR part 52 COL holders for use as an elective precursor to a LAR. The NRC staff used the draft guidance to evaluate the PAR change process during the construction of the initial nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR part 52.
The final ISG is available through the NRC's public Web site at,
The NRC issued draft COL-ISG-025, “Interim Staff Guidance on Changes during Construction Under 10 CFR part 52,” in the
The Commission received one comment submission on the second draft COL-ISG-025 from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (ADAMS Accession No. ML13304A498).
The comment summary and the NRC's response for this submission are addressed below:
Issuance of this ISG does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule), or be regarded as backfitting under Commission and Executive Director for Operations guidance, and is not otherwise inconsistent with any of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. This ISG does not contain any new requirements for COL applicants or holders under 10 CFR part 52, or for licensees of existing operating units licensed under 10 CFR part 50. Rather,
This ISG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Imposition Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Imposition Order to Bradley D. Bastow, D. O. imposing a civil penalty of $7,000. On November 6, 2014, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty—$7,000 to Bradley D. Bastow, D. O. for failing to comply with a Confirmatory Order issued on September 3, 2013.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0208 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:
•
•
•
Thomas Marenchin, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2979, email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bradley D. Bastow, D. O., (Bastow or the Licensee) is the holder of Materials License No. 21-32316-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the
An inspection of the Licensee's activities was conducted between March 27 and May 5, 2014, with continued in-office inspection through June 20, 2014. These inspections revealed that the licensee was not complying with the terms of a Confirmatory Order signed on September 13, 2013, to rectify previous willful violations. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee by letter dated November 6, 2014. The Notice states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the Licensee violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violations.
The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter dated December 6, 2014. In response, the Licensee acknowledged the basic facts in the Notice, although the Licensee characterized them as being “administrative deficiencies.”
As part of its answer to the Notice, the Licensee requested mitigation of the civil penalty by awarding
The Licensee then requested complete mitigation of the civil penalty due to financial hardship. The Licensee indicated that it had experienced an overall loss of revenue, due to the facility being shut down, and was carrying tremendous debt. It further indicated that financial solvency was questionable.
The NRC has reviewed the Licensee response and concluded that Corrective Action credit remained inappropriate. As stated in the NRC Enforcement Policy, Corrective Action credit is designed to encourage licensees to: (1) Take the immediate actions necessary upon discovery of a violation that will restore safety, security, and compliance with the license, regulations, or other requirements; and (2) develop and implement (in a timely manner) the lasting actions that will not only prevent recurrence of the violation at issue, but will be appropriately comprehensive, given the significance and complexity of the violation, to prevent occurrence of
The NRC considered the Licensee's request for consideration of financial hardship. The NRC requested information that provided the basis for the financial hardship claim. However, the Licensee stated that it was unable to provide such information. Lacking any evidence supporting the financial hardship claim, the NRC concluded that there was insufficient basis to mitigate the civil penalty.
Therefore, after full consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the NRC staff has determined that the violations occurred as stated and that the penalty proposed for the violations designated in the Notice should be imposed.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may provide relaxation or rescission of the above payment upon demonstration by Bradley D. Bastow, D. O., of good cause. To show good cause the Licensee must, at a minimum, provide:
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Bradley D. Bastow, D. O., must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 30 days of its publication in the
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
If a person other than Bradley D. Bastow, D. O., requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 30 days from the date this Order is published in the
This Order shall be effective as of the date of signing by the Director, Office of Enforcement. If payment has not been made by the time specified above, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On April 24, 2015, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to the proposed rule change, nor does it mean that the Commission will ultimately disapprove the proposed rule change. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to comment on the proposed rule change.
As described more fully in the Notice, the MSRB proposed to adopt new Rule G-42, on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors and proposed amendments to Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors (the “proposed rule change”).
Proposed Rule G-42 would establish the core standards of conduct and duties of municipal advisors when engaging in municipal advisory activities, other than municipal advisory solicitation activities (“municipal advisors”). In summary, the core provisions of Proposed Rule G-42 would:
• Establish certain standards of conduct consistent with the fiduciary duty owed by a municipal advisor to its municipal entity clients, which includes, without limitation, a duty of care and of loyalty;
• Establish the standard of care owed by a municipal advisor to its obligated person clients;
• Require the full and fair disclosure, in writing, of all material conflicts of interest and legal or disciplinary events that are material to a client's evaluation of a municipal advisor;
• Require the documentation of the municipal advisory relationship, specifying certain aspects of the relationship that must be included in the documentation;
• Require that recommendations made by a municipal advisor are suitable for its clients, or that it determine the suitability of recommendations made by third parties when appropriate; and
• Specifically prohibit a municipal advisor from engaging in certain activities, including, in summary:
○ Receiving excessive compensation;
○ delivering inaccurate invoices for fees or expenses;
○ making false or misleading representations about the municipal advisor's resources, capacity or knowledge;
○ participating in certain fee-splitting arrangements with underwriters;
○ participating in any undisclosed fee-splitting arrangements with providers of investments or services to a municipal entity or obligated person client of the municipal advisor;
○ making payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to perform municipal advisory activities, with limited exceptions; and
○ entering into certain principal transactions with the municipal advisor's municipal entity clients.
In addition, the proposed rule change would define key terms used in Proposed Rule G-42 and provide supplementary material. The supplementary material would provide additional guidance on the core concepts in the proposed rule, such as the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, suitability of recommendations and “Know Your Client” obligations; provide context for issues such as the scope of an engagement, conflicts of interest disclosures, excessive compensation, the impact of client action that is independent of or contrary to the advice of a municipal advisor, and the applicability of the proposed rule change to 529 college savings plans (“529 plans”) and other municipal entities; provide guidance regarding the definition of “engage in a principal transaction;” recognize the continued applicability of state and other laws regarding fiduciary and other duties owed by municipal advisors; and, finally, include information regarding requirements that must be met for a municipal advisor to be relieved of certain provisions of Proposed Rule G-42 in instances when it inadvertently engages in municipal advisory activities.
Section (a) of Proposed Rule G-42 would establish the core standards of conduct and duties applicable to municipal advisors. Subsection (a)(i) of Proposed Rule G-42 would provide that each municipal advisor in the conduct of its municipal advisory activities for an obligated person client is subject to a duty of care. Subsection (a)(ii) would provide that each municipal advisor in the conduct of its municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client is subject to a fiduciary duty, which includes, without limitation, a duty of loyalty and a duty of care.
Proposed supplementary material would provide guidance on the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. Paragraph .01 of the Supplementary Material would describe the duty of care to require, without limitation, a municipal advisor to: (1) Exercise due care in performing its municipal advisory activities; (2) possess the degree of knowledge and expertise needed to provide the municipal entity or obligated person client with informed advice; (3) make a reasonable inquiry as to the facts that are relevant to a client's determination as to whether to proceed with a course of action or that form the basis for any advice provided to the client; and (4) undertake a reasonable investigation to determine that the municipal advisor is not basing any recommendation on materially inaccurate or incomplete information. The duty of care that would be established in section (a) of Proposed Rule G-42 would also require the municipal advisor to have a reasonable basis for: Any advice provided to or on behalf of a client; any representations made in a certificate that it signs that will be reasonably foreseeably relied upon by the client, any other party involved in the municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product, or investors in the municipal entity client's securities or securities secured by payments from an obligated person client; and, any information provided to the client or other parties involved in the municipal securities transaction in connection with the preparation of an official statement for any issue of municipal securities as to which the advisor is advising.
Paragraph .02 of the Supplementary Material would describe the duty of loyalty to require, without limitation, a
Paragraph .03 of the Supplementary Material would specify that a municipal advisor is not required to disengage from a municipal advisory relationship if a municipal entity client or an obligated person client elects a course of action that is independent of or contrary to advice provided by the municipal advisor.
Paragraph .04 of the Supplementary Material would specify that a municipal advisor could limit the scope of the municipal advisory activities to be performed to certain specified activities or services if requested or expressly consented to by the client, but could not alter the standards of conduct or impose limitations on any of the duties prescribed by Proposed Rule G-42. Paragraph .04 would provide that, if a municipal advisor engages in a course of conduct that is inconsistent with the mutually agreed limitations to the scope of the engagement, it may result in negating the effectiveness of the limitations.
Paragraph .07 of the Supplementary Material would state, as a general matter, that, municipal advisors may be subject to fiduciary or other duties under state or other laws and nothing in Proposed Rule G-42 would supersede any more restrictive provision of state or other laws applicable to municipal advisory activities.
Section (b) of Proposed Rule G-42 would require a municipal advisor to fully and fairly disclose to its client in writing all material conflicts of interest, and to do so prior to or upon engaging in municipal advisory activities. The provision would set forth a non-exhaustive list of scenarios under which a material conflict of interest would arise or be deemed to exist and that would require a municipal advisor to provide written disclosures to its client.
Subsection (b)(i)(A) would require a municipal advisor to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest of which the municipal advisor becomes aware after reasonable inquiry that could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor's ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the client in accordance with the applicable standards of conduct (
Under subsection (b)(i), if a municipal advisor were to conclude, based on the exercise of reasonable diligence, that it had no known material conflicts of interest, the municipal advisor would be required to provide a written statement to the client to that effect.
Subsection (b)(ii) would require disclosure of any legal or disciplinary event that would be material to the client's evaluation of the municipal advisor or the integrity of its management or advisory personnel. A municipal advisor would be permitted to fulfill this disclosure obligation by identifying the specific type of event and specifically referring the client to the relevant portions of the municipal advisor's most recent SEC Forms MA or MA-I
Paragraph .05 of the Supplementary Material would provide that the required conflicts of interest disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to inform the client of the nature, implications and potential consequences of each conflict and must include an explanation of how the municipal advisor addresses or intends to manage or mitigate each conflict.
Paragraph .06 of the Supplementary Material would provide that a municipal advisor that inadvertently engages in municipal advisory activities but does not intend to continue the municipal advisory activities or enter into a municipal advisory relationship
Section (c) of Proposed Rule G-42 would require each municipal advisor to evidence each of its municipal advisory relationships by a writing, or writings created and delivered to the municipal entity or obligated person client prior to, upon or promptly after the establishment of the municipal advisory relationship. The documentation would be required to be dated and include, at a minimum:
• The form and basis of direct or indirect compensation, if any, for the municipal advisory activities to be performed, as provided in proposed subsection (c)(i);
• the information required to be disclosed in proposed section (b), including the disclosures of conflicts of interest, as provided in proposed subsection (c)(ii);
• a description of the specific type of information regarding legal and disciplinary events requested by the Commission on SEC Form MA and SEC Form MA-I, as provided in proposed subsection (c)(iii), and detailed information specifying where the client may electronically access the municipal advisor's most recent Form MA and each most recent Form MA-I filed with the Commission;
• the date of the last material change to the legal or disciplinary event disclosures on any SEC Forms MA or MA-I filed with the Commission by the municipal advisor, as provided in proposed subsection (c)(iv);
• the scope of the municipal advisory activities to be performed and any limitations on the scope of the engagement, as provided in proposed subsection (c)(v);
• the date, triggering event, or means for the termination of the municipal advisory relationship, or, if none, a statement that there is none, as provided in proposed subsection (c)(vi); and
• any terms relating to withdrawal from the municipal advisory relationship, as provided in proposed subsection (c)(vii).
Proposed Rule G-42(c) also would require municipal advisors to promptly amend or supplement the writing(s) during the term of the municipal advisory relationship as necessary to reflect any material changes or additions in the required information.
Section (d) of Proposed Rule G-42 would provide that a municipal advisor must not recommend that its client enter into any municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product unless the municipal advisor has determined, based on the information obtained through the reasonable diligence of the municipal advisor, whether the transaction or product is suitable for the client. Proposed section (d) also contemplates that a municipal advisor may be requested by the client to review and determine the suitability of a recommendation made by a third party to the client. If a client were to request this type of review, and such review were within the scope of the engagement, the municipal advisor's determination regarding the suitability of the third-party's recommendation regarding a municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product would be subject to the same reasonable diligence standard—requiring the municipal advisor to obtain relevant information through the exercise of reasonable diligence.
As to both types of review, the municipal advisor would be required under proposed section (d) to inform its municipal entity or obligated person client of its evaluation of the material risks, potential benefits, structure and other characteristics of the recommended municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product; the basis upon which the advisor reasonably believes the recommended transaction or product is, or is not, suitable for the client; and whether the municipal advisor has investigated or considered other reasonably feasible alternatives to the recommended municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product that might also or alternatively serve the client's objectives.
Paragraph .04 of the Supplementary Material would provide that a municipal advisor and its client could limit the scope of the municipal advisory relationship to certain specified activities or services. The MSRB notes that a municipal advisor would not be permitted to alter the standards of conduct or duties imposed by the proposed rule with respect to that limited scope.
Paragraph .08 of the Supplementary Material would provide guidance related to a municipal advisor's suitability obligations. Under this provision, a municipal advisor's determination of whether a municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product is suitable for its client must be based on numerous factors, as applicable to the particular type of client, including, but not limited to: the client's financial situation and needs, objectives, tax status, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, experience with municipal securities transactions or municipal financial products generally or of the type and complexity being recommended, financial capacity to withstand changes in market conditions during the term of the municipal financial product or the period that municipal securities to be issued are reasonably expected to be outstanding, and any other material information known by the municipal advisor about the client and the municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product, after the municipal advisor has conducted a reasonable inquiry.
In connection with a municipal advisor's obligation to determine the suitability of a municipal securities transaction or a municipal financial product for a client, which should take into account its knowledge of the client, paragraph .09 of the Supplementary Material would require a municipal advisor to know its client. The obligation to know the client would require a municipal advisor to use reasonable diligence to know and retain essential facts concerning the client and
The MSRB notes that a client could at times elect a course of action either independent of or contrary to the advice of its municipal advisor. Paragraph .03 of the Supplementary Material would provide that the municipal advisor would not be required to disengage from the municipal advisory relationship on that basis.
Subsection (e)(i)(A) would prohibit a municipal advisor from receiving compensation from its client that is excessive in relation to the municipal advisory activities actually performed for the client. Paragraph .10 of the Supplementary Material would provide additional guidance on how compensation would be determined to be excessive. Included in paragraph .10 are several factors that would be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a municipal advisor's compensation relative to the nature of the municipal advisory activities performed, including, but not limited to: The municipal advisor's expertise, the complexity of the municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product, whether the fee is contingent upon the closing of the municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product, the length of time spent on the engagement and whether the municipal advisor is paying any other relevant costs related to the municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product.
Subsection (e)(i)(B) would prohibit municipal advisors from delivering an invoice for fees or expenses for municipal advisory activities that does not accurately reflect the activities actually performed or the personnel that actually performed those activities.
Subsection (e)(i)(C) would prohibit a municipal advisor from making any representation or submitting any information that the municipal advisor knows or should know is either materially false or materially misleading due to the omission of a material fact, about its capacity, resources or knowledge in response to requests for proposals or in oral presentations to a client or prospective client for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to perform municipal advisory activities.
Subsection (e)(i)(D) would prohibit municipal advisors from making or participating in two types of fee-splitting arrangements: (1) Any fee-splitting arrangement with an underwriter on any municipal securities transaction as to which the municipal advisor has provided or is providing advice; and (2) any
Subsection (e)(i)(E) would, generally, prohibit a municipal advisor from making payments for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to perform municipal advisory activities. However, the provision contains three exceptions. The prohibition would not apply to: (1) Payments to an affiliate of the municipal advisor for a direct or indirect communication with a municipal entity or obligated person on behalf of the municipal advisor where such communication is made for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement to perform municipal advisory activities; (2) reasonable fees paid to another municipal advisor registered as such with the Commission and MSRB for making such a communication as described in subsection (e)(i)(E)(1); and (3) payments that are permissible “normal business dealings” as described in MSRB Rule G-20.
Subsection (e)(ii) of Proposed Rule G-42 would prohibit a municipal advisor to a municipal entity, and any affiliate of such municipal advisor, from engaging in a principal transaction directly related to the same municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product as to which the municipal advisor is providing or has provided advice. The ban on principal transactions would apply only with respect to clients that are municipal entities. The ban would not apply to principal transactions between a municipal advisor (or an affiliate of the municipal advisor) and the municipal advisor's obligated person clients. Although such transactions would not be prohibited, the MSRB notes that all municipal advisors, including those engaging in municipal advisory activities for obligated person clients, are currently subject to the MSRB's fundamental fair-practice rule, Rule G-17.
Paragraph .07 of the Supplementary Material would provide an exception to the ban on principal transactions in subsection (e)(ii) in order to avoid a possible conflict with existing MSRB Rule G-23, on activities of financial advisors. Specifically, the ban in subsection (e)(ii) would not apply to an acquisition as principal, either alone or as a participant in a syndicate or other similar account formed for the purpose of purchasing, directly or indirectly, from an issuer all or any portion of an issuance of municipal securities on the basis that the municipal advisor provided advice as to the issuance, because such a transaction is the type of transaction that is addressed, and, in certain circumstances, prohibited by Rule G-23.
For purposes of the prohibition in proposed subsection (e)(ii), subsection (f)(i) would define the term “engaging in a principal transaction” to mean “when acting as a principal for one's own account, selling to or purchasing from the municipal entity client any security or entering into any derivative, guaranteed investment contract, or other similar financial product with the municipal entity client.” Further, paragraph .11 of the Supplementary Material would clarify that the term “other similar financial products,” as used in subsection (f)(i), would include a bank loan but only if it is in an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more and is economically equivalent to the purchase of one or more municipal securities.
Section (f) of Proposed Rule G-42 would provide definitions of the terms “engaging in a principal transaction,” “affiliate of the municipal advisor,”
Paragraph .12 of the Supplementary Material emphasizes the proposed rule's application to municipal advisors whose municipal advisory clients are sponsors or trustees of municipal fund securities.
The proposed amendments to Rule G-8 would require each municipal advisor to make and keep any document created by the municipal advisor that was material to its review of a recommendation by another party or that memorializes its basis for any conclusions as to suitability.
As noted above, the Commission received fifteen comment letters on the proposed rule change.
One commenter stated that the addition of “without limitation” in Proposed Rule G-42(a)(ii) raises significant and unnecessary ambiguities, as a fiduciary duty is generally understood to encompass a duty of care and duty of loyalty.
Three commenters expressed concerns regarding the differing timing of documentation required by sections (b) and (c) of Proposed Rule G-42.
One commenter suggested merging the two “catch-all provisions” in subsections (b)(i)(A) and (b)(i)(G) because it is not clear what the difference is between the two paragraphs.
One commenter stated that contingent fees that are based on the completion of a transaction, but not on the size of a transaction, are not a conflict of interest.
Two commenters expressed concerns with disclosing information regarding legal or disciplinary events through reference to the municipal advisor's most recent Form MA and Form MA-I.
One commenter requested the MSRB provide more clarity about the term “detailed information” in the requirement in subsection (c)(iii) that the municipal advisor provide “detailed information specifying where the client may electronically access the municipal advisor's most recent Form MA and each most recent Form MA-I filed with the Commission.”
One commenter supported section (d)'s requirements to inform clients about reasons for a recommendation, however, it stated that greater clarity through a non-exclusive list of examples of how regulated entities could comply with the regulation was needed.
Another commenter requested the MSRB provide a more concise definition of the term “suitable” to enable municipal advisors to comply with the requirements and stated that the “perfunctory list of generic factors” for consideration in paragraph .08 of the Supplementary Material failed to provide municipal advisors with a clear definition of such an important term.
One commenter expressed concern that the language in subsection (d)(ii) implies that municipal advisors would be permitted to make a recommendation to a client that is unsuitable, which seemed contrary to the proposed rule's duty of care and loyalty requirements.
Two commenters expressed concern that documentation requirements for recommendations are too burdensome.
Four commenters expressed concern regarding the duty of care standard, as expressed in paragraph .01 of the Supplementary Material, which requires municipal advisors to undertake “a reasonable investigation” to avoid basing recommendations on “materially inaccurate or incomplete information.”
One commenter expressed support for the prohibition on delivering inaccurate invoices, but requested the addition of materiality and knowledge qualifiers (
Ten commenters expressed a variety of concerns (as summarized below) with the prohibition of certain principal transactions in Proposed Rule G-42(e)(ii).
Two commenters expressed concerns that the prohibition on principal transactions is overbroad and inconsistent with existing regulatory regimes regarding financial professionals.
Three commenters argued for an exemption to the principal transaction prohibition when advice is provided to a municipal entity client that is incidental to or ancillary to a broker-dealer's execution of securities transactions, including transactions involving municipal bond proceeds or
Another commenter suggested the MSRB modify the ban on principal transactions in the case of brokerage of bond proceed investments.
One of the commenters suggested the exception could include certain disclosure and client consent provisions similar to Investment Advisers Act Temporary Rule 206(3)-3T that permits investment advisers that are also broker-dealers to act in a principal capacity in transactions with certain advisory clients.
Three commenters expressed concern that the language in section (e)(ii) limiting the principal transaction prohibition to transactions “directly related to the same municipal securities transaction or municipal financial product” is vague or overly broad.
One commenter argued that any prohibition should be more narrowly tailored to prevent principal transactions directly related to the advice provided by the municipal advisor.
Two commenters addressed concerns regarding the impact of the principal transaction prohibition on affiliates of municipal advisors.
One commenter suggested that an investment vehicle such as a mutual fund that is advised by a municipal advisor or its affiliate should not itself be an “affiliate” of the municipal advisor solely on the basis of the advisory relationship.
Several commenters expressed concerns with proposed paragraph .11 of the Supplementary Material under which a bank loan would be subject to the prohibition on principal transactions if the loan was “in an aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more and economically equivalent to the purchase of one or more municipal securities.”
One of the commenters expressed general concern that banking organizations that are required to operate through a variety of affiliates and subsidiaries would fall within the scope of the “common control” definition in the statute and the prohibition would prevent a banking organization from providing ordinary bank services to a municipal entity.
Similarly, another commenter suggested that a municipal advisor should be able to satisfy its fiduciary obligation to a municipal entity by procuring bids for the proposed financing (and thus make a principal
One commenter argued that bank loans “should be excluded in their entirety from Proposed Rule G-42.”
One commenter commented on the language of paragraph .11 of the Supplementary Material, arguing that the phrase “economically equivalent” is “too ambiguous and does not provide clarity.”
Another commenter expressed confusion regarding the “economically equivalent” language.
One commenter suggested the proposed subsection (e)(ii) be revised to permit an otherwise prohibited principal transaction where the municipal entity is represented by more than one municipal advisor, including a separate registered municipal advisor with respect to the principal transaction.
Two commenters stated that the reference to MSRB Rule G-23 in paragraph .07 of the Supplementary Material was unnecessary or enhances the possible conflict between Proposed Rule G-42 and Rule G-23.
One commenter suggested that the safe harbor in paragraph .06 of the Supplementary Material for inadvertent advice be expanded to include the prohibition on principal transactions.
One commenter argued that the inadvertent advice provision in paragraph .06 of the Supplementary Material creates a loophole that would allow broker dealers to serve as financial advisors (without a fiduciary duty) and then switch to serving as an underwriter by claiming that such advice was inadvertent.
One commenter requested an exemption to the suitability standard in proposed section (d) and paragraph .08 of the Supplementary Material for “sophisticated municipal issuers.”
Two commenters requested the proposed rule change only apply prospectively to municipal advisory relationships entered into, or recommendations of municipal securities transactions or municipal financial products to an existing municipal entity or obligated person client made, after the effective date of the proposed rule change.
One commenter suggested that all supplementary material be removed and moved to separate written interpretative guidance to afford the subjects more
One commenter expressed concerns with the lack of a pay-to-play rule for non-dealer municipal advisors, arguing that non-dealer municipal advisors should be subject to a rule based on the framework of MSRB Rule G-37 limiting municipal advisors to a limit of $250 per election to a candidate for whom the contributor is eligible to vote.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Sections 15B(b)(2),
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is inconsistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by September 11, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by September 28, 2015.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
MSRB. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2015-03 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2015. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 28, 2015.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to equipment and communication on the Exchange's trading floor. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
[(a) No Trading Permit Holder shall establish or maintain any telephone or other wire communications between his or its office and the Exchange without prior approval by the Exchange. The Exchange may direct discontinuance of any communication facility terminating on the floor of the Exchange.
(b)
(1) Requirements and conditions that apply to the use of telephone services at the equity option posts shall include the following:
(A) Only those quotations that have been publicly disseminated pursuant to Rule 6.43 may be provided over telephones at the post.
(B) Trading Permit Holders may give their clerks their PIN access code. Although both Trading Permit Holders and clerks may use telephones, Trading Permit Holders will have priority. Each Trading Permit Holder will be responsible for all calls made using that Trading Permit Holder's PIN access code.
(C) Clerks will not be permitted to establish a base of operation utilizing general use telephones at the equity option posts. This means, for example, that a clerk may not monopolize the use of a telephone receiver on a telephone that has multiple lines if all of those lines are not dedicated to the Trading Permit Holder for whom the clerk works.
(D) The Exchange may provide for the taping of any telephone line into the equity option posts or may require Trading Permit Holders to provide for the tape recording of a dedicated line at the equity option posts at any time. Trading Permit Holders and their clerks using the telephones consent to the Exchange tape recording any telephone or line.
(E) The telephones may be used for voice service only, unless they have been specifically approved for other uses.
(F) The Exchange may prohibit the use of any telephone technology that interferes with the normal operation of the Exchange's own systems or facilities or that the Exchange determines interferes with its regulatory duties.
(G) Orders transmitted by registered Exchange market-makers may be entered over the outside telephone lines directly to the equity option posts. All other orders may be entered over the outside telephone lines to the equity option posts only during outgoing telephone calls that are initiated at the equity option posts.
(H) Only those individuals that are properly qualified in accordance with Chapter IX of the Rules of the Exchange, and all other applicable rules and regulations, may accept orders from public customers pursuant to this Rule.
.01 A Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization which has been granted approval of any means of communication under this rule shall be responsible for assuring compliance with all Exchange rules and requirements in connection with any business conducted by means of such electronic or telephonic communication.]
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules regarding equipment and communication on the Exchange trading floor. More specifically, the Exchange is proposing to delete the current rule on the topic, Exchange Rule 6.23, and introduce more relevant rules governing the use of communication devices
Next, proposed Rule 6.23(b) specifically states that the Exchange will retain the authority to deny, limit or revoke the use of any communication device.
Next, proposed Rule 6.23(c) codifies the current policy that allows any communication device to be utilized to receive orders in and out of the trading crowd, provided that audit trail and record retention requirements of the Exchange are met.
Further, proposed Rule 6.23(d) specifies that, after providing notice to an affected Trading Permit Holder and complying with the applicable laws, the Exchange may provide for the recording of any telephone line on the floor of the Exchange or require TPHs to provide for the recording of a fixed phone line on the floor of the Exchange, and that TPHs utilizing telephones consent to the Exchange recording any telephone or line.
Next, proposed Rule 6.23(e) prohibits the use of communication devices to disseminate quotes and/or last sale reports originating on the Exchange trading floor in any manner that would serve to provide a continuous or running state of the market; however, the proposed rule specifically states that, “an associated person of a TPH may use a communications device to communicate quotes that have been disseminated pursuant to Rule 6.43 and/or last sale reports to other associated persons of the same TPH business unit.” Further, as proposed, an associated person of a TPH may use a communications device to communicate an “occasional, specific, quote that has been disseminated pursuant to Rule 6.43
Next, proposed Rule 6.23(f) requires that any use of any communications device on the trading floor shall comply with applicable laws, rules, policies, and procedures of the Commission and Exchange including all record retention and audit trail requirements. Proposed Rule 6.23(f) would also require that orders are systemized using Exchange systems or proprietary systems approved by the Exchange in accordance with Exchange Rule 6.24.
Next, proposed Rule 6.23(g) requires TPHs to maintain records related to the “use of communication devices, including, but not limited to, logs of calls placed; emails; and chats, for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place.” Although similar to Amex and Arca Rules on the subject,
Finally, proposed Rule 6.23(h) authorizes the Exchange to designate more specific communication devices that will not be permitted on the Exchange trading floor or other operational requirements via circular. Given the propensity for technology to continue to evolve, the Exchange believes this proposed text will allow the Exchange to change the exact requirements from time to time as needed while continuing to provide TPHs specifications on the allowed technology and communication mechanism.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 30 days following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the effective date of the proposed changes.
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 does not believe the proposed changes are unfairly discriminatory as they are applied to all TPHs trading on the Exchange trading floor, a similarly situated group, equally. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed changes designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because they are more appropriately designed to monitor the equipment and communications on a modern trading floor. Without the proposed changes, the current Exchange rules do not adequately address the relevant communication tools. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules intend to foster cooperation and coordination by introducing new means of communication to the Exchange trading floor. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that all equipment and communication on the Exchange trading floor will adhere to all other applicable statutes and the Act.
CBOE 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. More specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any intramarket competition because it will be applicable to all TPHs trading on the Exchange trading floor. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposed changes will impose any intermarket burden because the Exchange trading floor will operate in a similar manner only with more relevant equipment and communication requirements.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Waiver of the operative delay will provide TPHs guidance regarding the use of equipment and communications on the Exchange floor that is more relevant to the current electronic marketplace than that provided by the current rule and thereby prevent confusion by TPHs and investors. Moreover, the proposed rule requires TPHs to register a communication device before using it for business purposes on the Exchange floor, and prohibits the Exchange from designating the registration requirement as not applicable to any TPHs. The Commission believes that the proposed rule's registration requirement will enable the Exchange to track the use of communication devices on the Exchange floor and to more effectively identify any communication device records to inspect pursuant to CBOE Rule 17.2. The Commission notes that the proposal is patterned after several provisions of the proposed rule after Amex Rule 902NY(i)—Telephones on the Trading Floor and Arca Rule 6.2(h)—Telephones on the Options Floor, and that the substance of this proposal was published in a prior proposed rule change which was published for the entire 21 day comment period.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend its end-of-day price discovery policies and procedures for credit default swap (“CDS”) contracts to incorporate certain enhancements.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend its CDS End-of-Day Price Discovery Policy (the “EOD Price Discovery Policy”) to make certain enhancements to the end-of-day submission and firm trade process for CDS contracts. ICE Clear Europe also proposes to adopt a new Price Submission Disciplinary Framework (the “Disciplinary Framework”) that addresses missed price submissions by Clearing Members for CDS contracts. ICE Clear Europe does not otherwise propose to change its Clearing Rules or Procedures in connection with these amendments.
Under the EOD Price Discovery Policy, ICE Clear Europe currently utilizes a “cross and lock” algorithm as part of its CDS price discovery process. Under this algorithm, standardized bids and offers derived from Clearing Member submissions are matched by sorting them from highest to lowest and lowest to highest levels, respectively. This sorting process pairs the Clearing Member submitting the highest bid price with the Clearing Member submitting the lowest offer price, the Clearing Member submitting the second highest bid price with the Clearing Member submitting the second-lowest offer price, and so on. The algorithm then identifies crossed and/or locked markets. Crossed markets are the Clearing Member pairs generated by the sorting and ranking process for which the bid price of one Clearing Member is above the offer price of the matched Clearing Member. The algorithm identifies locked markets, where the bid and the offer are equal, in a similar fashion.
Whenever there are crossed and/or locked matched markets, the algorithm applies a set of rules designed to identify standardized submissions that are “obvious errors.” The algorithm sets a high bid threshold equal to the preliminary end-of-day (“EOD”) level plus one bid-offer width (“BOW”), and a low offer threshold equal to the preliminary EOD level minus one BOW. The algorithm considers a Clearing Member's standardized submission to be an “obvious error” if the bid is higher than the high bid threshold, or the offer is lower than the low offer threshold.
Clearing Member pairs identified by the algorithm as crossed or locked markets may be required from time to
ICE Clear Europe proposes to impose certain consequences under the Firm Trade methodology for Clearing Members providing price discovery submissions deemed to be obvious errors. As revised, the process for determining potential Firm Trades will now include all standardized submissions, including those classified as obvious errors (and as a result submissions that are obvious errors may result in Firm Trades). However, obvious errors will not be used in the calculation of the final EOD level, as under the current framework. Thus, ICE Clear Europe will effectively execute its current EOD algorithm twice: initially in the same way it does today (eliminating obvious errors) to generate the final EOD levels, and again, without excluding obvious errors, to generate Firm Trades and related reversing transactions.
To limit the potential exposure created through Firm Trades that include a bid or offer from an obvious error submission, ICE Clear Europe will adjust Firm Trade prices, where appropriate, to fall within a predefined band on either side of the EOD price such that the potential profit or loss (“P/L”) realized by unwinding the trade at the EOD level is capped.
To prevent Clearing Members from receiving Firm Trades with large P/L impact in certain index instruments that are less actively traded, and for which it is therefore more difficult and/or more expensive to manage the associated risk, ICE Clear Europe will automatically generate reversing transactions at the end-of-day price level for specific index CDS instruments (
ICE Clear Europe is also revising the EOD Price Discovery Policy to remove the option for Clearing Members to provide end-of-day price submissions for single name CDS instruments in terms of spread and associated recovery rate. Under the revised approach, Clearing Members will be required to provide price submissions (or equivalent “points upfront” submissions) for all single name CDS instruments. Clearing Members may provide a recovery rate, which the Clearing House will use for purposes of its own analysis. Accordingly, the Clearing House will no longer need to convert spread submissions for single name instruments into a price level for purposes of the EOD price determination process. Various conforming changes have been made throughout the policy as a result.
ICE Clear Europe also proposes to implement a new Disciplinary Framework, which addresses failures by a Clearing Member to provide required EOD price submissions for CDS Contracts in which they hold cleared open interest with the Clearing House (“Missed Submissions”). For purposes of the Disciplinary Framework, obvious errors (as described above) with respect to CDX index CDS contracts will also be treated as Missed Submissions (since such instruments are not subject to Firm Trade requirements). ICE Clear Europe will impose a cash assessment on Clearing Members for each Missed Submission, generally ranging from $1,000 to $4,000, depending on whether the Missed Submission related to an index or single-name, whether it occurred on an announced firm trade date and whether the related contract is actively traded. For single name CDS contracts, the framework also specifies an aggregate daily maximum assessment per Clearing Member for multiple Missed Submissions and a daily maximum assessment per Clearing Member per risk sub-factor.
As part of a new summary assessment process, ICE Clear Europe will determine on a monthly basis whether a Clearing Member has any Missed Submissions and provide the Clearing Member a notice of assessment with details of such Missed Submissions. The notice of assessment will include information about the date, type, quantity and assessment amount for the relevant Missed Submission(s). The Disciplinary Framework also provides a procedure for a Clearing Member to dispute a notice of assessment. A Clearing Member will have fifteen days from the notice of assessment to dispute the notice or seek to have it waived or rescinded. The Clearing House may grant a waiver of an assessment for certain specified reasons. A conditional waiver may be granted for the first instance of a Missed Submission for a particular instrument, provided that the Clearing Member does not have another Missed Submission in that instrument within 90 days. The Clearing House may grant an unconditional waiver where Missed Submissions result from extraordinary circumstances outside of the Clearing Member's control, such as market-wide disruptions. The imposition of a cash assessment on a Clearing Member does not preclude ICE Clear Europe from taking any other disciplinary action against a Clearing Member under the Rules and Procedures, including for persistent failures to meet the requirements of the EOD Price Discovery Policy.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
In addition, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the new Disciplinary Framework provides an appropriately tailored set of cash assessments for Missed Submissions by Clearing Members, in light of the importance of end-of-day price submissions to the Clearing House risk management and settlement procedures. The framework is thus consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(G) of the Act.
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The enhancements to ICE Clear Europe's price discovery process apply uniformly to all Clearing Members. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the adoption of the policy amendments will adversely affect competition among Clearing Members, or the ability of market participants to clear contracts generally. The Clearing House also does not believe that the amendments will reduce access to clearing CDS contracts generally or limit market participants' choices for clearing CDS.
The amendments may result in certain additional costs for Clearing Members that are required to enter into Firm Trades as a result of obvious errors in their submissions, or are subject to cash assessments as a result of Missed Submissions. ICE Clear Europe believes that these additional costs are warranted to enhance the integrity of the price submission process, and are in any event generally within the control of the Clearing Member. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2015-013 and should be submitted on or before September 2, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 19, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the “Exchange” or the “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to modify the process by which the Exchange's trading system opens trading at the beginning of the day and after trading halts.
As is the case today, under the proposal, if there is executable interest prior to the opening, ISE's trading system would first calculate a range of prices within which to open the options series (“Boundary Prices”). To determine the Boundary Prices, the trading system would use ISE market makers' quotes. Specifically, the trading system would use the quotes of ISE's Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) quotes, or in their absence, the best quotes of ISE's Competitive Market Makers (“CMMs”) on the corresponding side (PMMs, together with CMMs, “ISE Market Makers”).
As explained in the Notice, in the first iteration, the trading system would attempt to derive the opening price to be at or better than either: The PMM's best bid and offer, or in the absence of a PMM quote, the best bid and offer of CMMs (“ISE Market Maker Quotes”);
According to the Exchange, if after the first iteration there remained unexecuted orders and quotes that would lock or cross each other, the trading system would initiate a second
In the second iteration, the trading system would again determine the execution price at which the maximum number of contracts could trade at or within the widened Boundary Prices. Once the trading system determines the second execution price, orders and quotes would be processed as follows—market orders would be given priority before limit orders and quotes, then limit orders and quotes would be given priority by price. For limit orders and quotes with the same price, priority would be accorded first to Priority Customer Orders over Professional Orders and quotes. Priority Customer Orders with the same limit price would be executed in random order while Professional Orders and quotes with the same limit price would be executed pro-rata based on size. If the Boundary Prices in the second iteration were calculated using the ABBO, any remaining Public Customer Orders, but not Non-Customer Orders, that would lock or cross a bid or offer from another exchange would be processed in accordance with Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901.
If after the second iteration there remained unexecuted orders and quotes that lock or cross each other, the trading system would initiate a third iteration.
If after the third iteration there remained unexecuted orders and quotes that lock or cross each other, the trading system would initiate the fourth and final iteration.
Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act,
After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
On July 30, 2009, pursuant to Section 11(A)(a)(3)(B) of the Act
According to the Exchange, with respect to the operation of the second, third, and fourth iterations of its proposed opening process, it is relying on the trading rotation exception. Specifically, if the second iteration utilizes the ISE Market Maker Quotes, to the extent the iteration results in any trade-throughs, the Exchange represents that “such trade-throughs are permissible pursuant to Section 5(b)(ii) of the Linkage Plan, the Trading Rotation exception, which permits a participant exchange to trade through a Protected Quotation disseminated by an Eligible Exchange during a trading rotation.”
In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission noted that it intended to further assess whether the Exchange's proposed iterative opening process complies with the Options Linkage Plan and the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act.
In its letter, ISE argues that, unlike the trade-through exception for equities under Regulation NMS, the Options Linkage Plan does not state that the trade-through exception for opening transactions is limited to “single price auctions.”
In the ISE Letter, the Exchange also disputes the Commission's interpretation in the Options Linkage Approval Order that the trade-through exception in Section 5(b)(ii) of the Plan is for a trading rotation that is “effectively a single price auction to price the option.”
ISE argues, moreover, that the rationale for the Linkage Plan's trading rotation exception applies equally to single price auctions and iterative openings.
Finally, ISE contends that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to disapprove its proposed rule change because the new process is designed to provide away market protection to Public Customer Orders.
After thoroughly reviewing the Exchange's assertions in the Notice and the ISE Letter, including the one comment received,
Section 5(b)(ii) of the Plan carries forward the current Trade-Through exception in the old plan and
(emphasis added).
The Commission acknowledges that the text of Section 5(b)(ii) of the Options Linkage Plan refers to the trade-through exception during a “trading rotation,” not a “single price auction.” But as even the Exchange notes in the ISE Letter, the Options Linkage Plan also does not define the term “trading rotation” nor provide additional clarification to what the trading rotation exception under Section 5(b)(ii) means.
The Commission acknowledges that the ISE's proposed iterative opening process, unlike its current process, would provide away market protection for Public Customer Orders. For the reasons discussed above, however, the Commission cannot find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Options Linkage Plan or the Act. Further, the Commission does not agree with the Exchange that the decision of other options exchanges not to comment on the proposed rule change equates to agreement with ISE's interpretation of the trading rotation exception. It would be inappropriate for the Commission to draw any such conclusion unless explicitly stated by a commenter. As ISE itself noted, “exchanges may have several reasons for not commenting on a proposed rule change.”
Finally, in analyzing the proposed rule change, and in making its determination to disapprove the rule change, the Commission has considered whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation,
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2014-24), be, and hereby is, disapproved.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 23, 2015, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 23, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
This order approves the rule as proposed.
As stated in the Notice, FINRA is proposing to adopt Rule 2272 to govern sales or offers of sales of securities on the premises of any military installation to members of the U.S. Armed Forces or their dependents.
To comply with the requirements of Section 15A(b)(14) of the Exchange Act,
Proposed FINRA Rule 2272 requires that, prior to engaging in sales or offers of sales of securities on the premises of a military installation to any member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a dependent thereof, a FINRA member must clearly and conspicuously disclose in writing: (1) The identity of the member offering
The proposed rule also mandates that a FINRA member satisfy the suitability obligations imposed by FINRA Rule 2111 when making a recommendation on the premises of a military installation to any member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a dependent thereof.
Finally, the proposed rule requires that no FINRA member cause a person to receive a referral fee or incentive compensation in connection with sales or offers of sales of securities on the premises of a military installation with any member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a dependent thereof, unless such person is an associated person of a registered broker-dealer who is appropriately qualified consistent with FINRA rules, and the payment complies with applicable federal securities laws and FINRA rules.
As noted above, the Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule change.
Two commenters suggested extending the scope of the proposed rule to cover offers and sales of securities to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their dependents both off and on the premises of a military installation.
In its response, FINRA acknowledged that some of the concerns the rule is designed to address would also be raised by off-base sales.
One commenter proposed the creation of a standardized disclosure form covering each element of Rule 2272, and requiring broker-dealers to offer a written attestation that proposed investments are suitable for the prospective investor.
FINRA responded that a standard disclosure form would be unnecessary because FINRA allows a risk-based approach to documenting compliance with Rule 2111.
Another commenter stated that the disclosure obligations should be expanded to require that persons associated with any broker-dealer disclose, both verbally and in writing: (1) If they served in the U.S. Armed Forces and the status of their discharge; (2) that any former military service does not relate to their financial advice offered; and (3) that a service member should not feel compelled to invest because of that associated person's former military service.
In response to the commenter, FINRA noted that—as the commenter had observed
One commenter proposed to expand the suitability requirements of the proposed rule to include military-specific factors for broker-dealers to consider when making sales or offers of sales of securities to military personnel, or alternatively that FINRA provide guidance to broker-dealers regarding the application of the proposed rule.
In response to both commenters, FINRA noted that recommendations concerning retirement accounts, including Thrift Savings Plan accounts, are subject to FINRA Rule 2111, requiring a member firm and its registered representatives to consider the customer's investment profile, including their financial situation, risk tolerance, and other concerns.
One commenter encouraged FINRA to focus on financial education for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and suggested that FINRA produce programs to reach service members and their dependents.
After carefully considering the proposed rule, the comments submitted, and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission is approving the rule change as proposed. Based on its review of the record, the Commission finds that FINRA Rule 2272 as proposed is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
As discussed above, Rule 2272 would govern sales or offers of sales of securities on the premises of any military installation to members of the U.S. Armed Forces or their dependents. The proposed rule would require broker-dealers to disclose their identity and that the securities are neither offered nor approved by the federal government, as well as to comply with FINRA suitability obligations. The rule would also ban referral fees unless paid to an associated person of a FINRA member and the payment complies with applicable federal securities laws and FINRA rules.
The Commission takes note of the strong commenter support for both the specific provisions and broad aim of the underlying rule: Protecting members of the U.S. Armed Forces from dishonest and unscrupulous practices.
The Commission acknowledges the suggestion by two commenters to expand the scope of Rule 2272 to cover sales off as well as on military installations.
The Commission also acknowledges the concerns raised by some commenters that Rule 2272 should incorporate a requirement for a standardized disclosure form.
The Commission also notes the concern raised by a commenter that military veterans associated with member firms could assert undue
Finally, while the Commission appreciates the concerns raised by one commenter suggesting that additional suitability criteria be considered, including those related to the government's Thrift Savings Plan,
In light of the statutory requirements under Section 15A(b)(14) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 16, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Code of Procedure (Rule Series 9000) governs FINRA's disciplinary process, and includes: Rule 9120, Definitions, Rule Series 9200, Disciplinary Proceedings, Rule Series 9300, Review of Disciplinary Proceeding by National Adjudicatory Council and FINRA Board; Application for SEC Review, Rule Series 9500, Other Proceedings, and Rule Series 9800, Temporary Cease and Desist Orders. FINRA's temporary cease and desist authority, introduced on a pilot basis in 2003
Rule 9840(a)(1) provides that a TCDO shall be imposed if the Hearing Panel finds “by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged violation specified in the notice has occurred.” FINRA believes this is too high an evidentiary threshold to obtain a TCDO, which FINRA considers a critical investor protection tool. FINRA notes that the evidentiary standard to get a TCDO is the same one needed to find a violation in the concurrent underlying disciplinary proceeding. FINRA states that it creates an administrative challenge to have to make the same evidentiary presentation in the temporary cease and desist proceeding as in the subsequent underlying disciplinary proceeding, but on an expedited basis. Therefore, FINRA has proposed to lower the evidentiary
FINRA proposed to amend Rule 9556, which sets forth expedited procedures for enforcing violations of TCDOs and PCDOs. Under current Rule 9556, if a member or person fails to comply with a TCDO or PCDO, FINRA may issue a notice stating that the failure to comply within seven days of the notice will result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or a suspension or bar from associating with any member and also stating what the respondent must do to avoid such action. FINRA is concerned that a respondent could abuse the current expedited procedure by a repeated pattern of “violate and cure,” where a respondent could violate a cease and desist order and then cure that violation before the effective date of the notice.
Proposed Rule 9556(h) describes a new expedited proceeding for the respondent of a TCDO or PCDO that fails to comply with that order and has previously been served with a notice under Rule 9556(a) for a failure to comply with any provision of the TCDO or PCDO. In contrast with other expedited proceedings described by Rule 9556, proposed Rule 9556(h)(3) provides that a respondent's compliance with the TCDO or PCDO is not grounds for dismissing the Rule 9556(h) proceeding.
FINRA proposed to amend the rules that govern service of documents in temporary cease and desist proceedings and other related expedited proceedings to make the rules consistent. Currently, some rules explicitly address service by facsimile and on counsel, while others do not. FINRA proposed to explicitly allow service by facsimile and on counsel, as well as by email, across all temporary cease and desist and expedited proceedings.
FINRA states that email service is particularly important in expedited proceedings and will allow parties to receive information quickly and will remove unnecessary burdens and inefficiencies. FINRA notes that where the proposed revisions permit email service, they also require duplicate service through other means such as overnight courier or personal delivery.
FINRA also proposed to clarify the process for imposing PCDOs in disciplinary proceedings. FINRA states that these changes are procedural in nature and do not reflect any change to FINRA's prior representations concerning the context in which it will seek PCDOs.
FINRA seeks to expand the pool of persons eligible to serve on a Hearing Panel. Currently, Rule 9820(a) requires that the three-person Hearing Panel appointed to preside over a temporary cease and desist proceeding include two panelists who are current or former Governors, Directors, or National Adjudicatory Council members, and at least one Panelist who is an associated person. FINRA states that the current rules limit the pool of potential panelists for temporary cease and desist proceedings and that other adjudicatory proceedings, including the disciplinary proceeding that underlies the temporary cease and desist proceeding and the various Rule 9556 expedited proceedings to enforce a cease and desist order, are not limited in this manner.
FINRA proposed to amend Rule 9820 to permit the following persons to sit on Hearing Panels that preside over temporary cease and desist proceedings: Persons who currently serve or previously served on a District Committee; previously served on the National Adjudicatory Council; previously served on a disciplinary subcommittee of the National Adjudicatory Council or the National Business Conduct Committee; previously served as a member of the Board of Directors of FINRA Regulation or of the Board of Governors of FINRA; or currently serve or previously served on a committee appointed or approved by the Board of Governors of FINRA, but do not serve currently on the National Adjudicatory Council or as a member of the Board of Directors of FINRA Regulation or of the Board of Governors of FINRA. Each panelist must be associated with a member of FINRA or retired therefrom.
FINRA also proposed to amend the process to obtain an extension of deadlines for issuing decisions in temporary cease and desist proceedings and responding to requests to modify, set aside, limit or suspend a TCDO. Under current Rule 9840(a), the Hearing Panel's deadline for issuing its written decision can be extended by the Hearing Officer with the consent of the parties “for good cause shown.” FINRA believes that the Hearing Panel should have flexibility where it can make a good cause showing of why it needs additional time to prepare its decision or respond to a Rule 9850 request. The proposed changes to Rules 9840(a) and 9850 would permit the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief Hearing Officer to extend the deadlines for issuing decisions and responding to Rule 9850 applications where good cause is shown and eliminate the requirement for consent of the parties.
FINRA also proposed to: (i) Require FINRA's prosecuting department to file a memorandum of points and authorities with the notice initiating a temporary cease and desist proceeding; and (ii) permit the Hearing Officer to order a party to furnish to all other parties and the Hearing Panel such information as deemed appropriate, including any or all of the pre-hearing submissions described in Rule 9242(a). FINRA states that the requirement to file a memorandum of points and authorities at the initiation of the proceeding will provide more context to
FINRA further proposed to require a member firm that is the subject of a TCDO to provide a copy of the order to its associated persons, within one business day of receiving it. FINRA states that because of the significant nature of the harm that a TCDO is aimed at stopping, there is a heightened need to ensure that the persons who may act on behalf of the member firm are made aware of the contents of a TCDO imposed against the member firm.
After careful review, the Commission finds that FINRA's proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 15A of the Act
FINRA proposed to amend the evidentiary standard that must be met before imposing a TCDO from a preponderance of the evidence to a likelihood of success on the merits. The commenter expressed support for this amendment, noting that because a lesser showing is required at the TCDO stage, more time and effort could be devoted to meeting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard at the disciplinary stage.
The Commission believes that FINRA's proposed change to the evidentiary standard should improve FINRA's ability to initiate and resolve cases involving conversion of assets more quickly than under the current standard, which requires the same evidentiary showing that is required in the concurrent underlying disciplinary proceeding. The Commission agrees with FINRA's statement that the proposed rule change “maintains all of the meaningful existing restraints” on its TCDO authority.
The Commission also believes that the adoption of an expedited proceeding for failure to comply with a TCDO or PCDO will aid in the protection of investors and thus further the public interest and is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by removing the opportunity for a respondent to repeatedly violate a cease and desist order and then cure that violation before the effective date of the notice of failure to comply without any consequence to the respondent. The Commission also believes that the proposed expedited proceeding provides a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with members because the proceeding can only occur after the respondent has been served with notice of failure to comply with the TCDO or PCDO, and the procedure of the expedited proceeding is governed by existing Rule 9559.
Expanding the pool of persons eligible to serve on Hearing Panels should ensure that there is an adequate pool of persons available to serve on both the temporary cease and desist proceeding and the concurrent underlying disciplinary proceeding. Further, permitting the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief Hearing Officer to extend the deadlines for Hearing Panels to hold hearings, issue decisions, and respond to Rule 9850 applications where good cause is shown retains the requirement of the current rule that there must be a showing of good cause to obtain an extension, but requires that this showing be made to the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief Hearing Officer, rather than the Hearing Officer presiding over the proceeding, as the current rule requires. Thus, the requirement for the parties to consent to an extension of time is no longer necessary, as the person who is making the decision is not involved in the proceeding.
FINRA's administrative proposals to (i) require FINRA's prosecuting department to file a memorandum of points and authorities with the notice initiating a temporary cease and desist proceeding; and (ii) permit the Hearing Officer to order a party to furnish to all other parties and the Hearing Panel such information as deemed appropriate, including any or all of the pre-hearing submissions described in Rule 9242(a) should enable FINRA to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of
Requiring a member firm that is the subject of a TCDO to provide a copy of the order to its associated persons should help prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by ensuring that the persons who may act on behalf of the member firm are made aware of the contents of a TCDO imposed against the member firm.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 15A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to (i) establish an additional transaction fee rebate for Priority Customer
Currently, the Exchange credits each Member the per contract amount resulting from each Priority Customer order transmitted by that Member that is executed electronically on the Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes (excluding Qualified Contingent Cross Orders,
The amount of the rebate is calculated beginning with the first executed contract at the applicable threshold per contract credit with rebate payments made at the highest achieved volume tier for each contract traded in that month. For example, under the current Program, a Member that executes a number of Priority Customer contracts equal to 2.40% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed options during a particular calendar month, such Member will currently receive a credit of $0.17 for each Priority Customer contract executed during that month, even though there are lower incremental percentages for lower volume tiers leading up to the 2.4% volume threshold.
The current Priority Customer Rebate Program table designates the following monthly volume tiers and corresponding per contract credits
The Exchange proposes to amend Section (1)(a)(iii) of its Fee Schedule to reflect a new schedule of percentage thresholds of national customer volume, and new corresponding monthly per contract credits. Specifically, the new thresholds will be as set forth in the following table:
The Exchange
The proposed new monthly volume thresholds and per contract credits will apply to MIAX Select Symbols,
The Exchange also proposes to delete Tier 5 of the Priority Customer Rebate Program, which currently affords a rebate of $0.17 [sic] per contract for contracts executed when the total volume for the month exceeds of 2.4% of the national customer volume. Under the proposal, all contracts (other than Select Symbols) traded in a particular month when the Tier 4 volume threshold of 1.75% of the national monthly customer volume is exceeded will receive a credit of $0.17, and contracts executed in non-Select symbols in excess of 1.75% of national monthly customer volume will receive a supplemental rebate of $0.03 per contract. The Exchange believes that this new, increased rebate obviates the need for the Tier 5 threshold. The Exchange is proposing amendments to the Fee Schedule to delete references to the Tier 5 threshold throughout.
All other aspects of the Program will remain unchanged. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the per contract credit for PRIME Agency Orders. Consistent with the current Fee Schedule, the Exchange will continue to aggregate the contracts resulting from Priority Customer orders transmitted and executed electronically on the Exchange from affiliated Members for purposes of the thresholds above, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A. In the event of a MIAX System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on MIAX, the Exchange will adjust the national customer volume in multiply-listed options for the duration of the outage. A Member may request to receive its credit under the Priority Customer Rebate Program as a separate direct payment.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage Members to direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that increased Priority Customer volume will attract more liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants. Increased retail customer order flow should attract professional liquidity providers (Market Makers), which in turn should make the MIAX marketplace an attractive venue where Market Makers will submit narrow quotations with greater size, deepening and enhancing the quality of the MIAX marketplace. This should provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads for other market participants and result in a corresponding increase
The specific volume thresholds of the Program's tiers are set based upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels. The volume thresholds are intended to incentivize firms to increase the number of Priority Customer orders they send to the Exchange so that they can achieve the next threshold, and to encourage new participants to send Priority Customer orders as well. Increasing the number of orders sent to the Exchange will in turn provide tighter and more liquid markets, and therefore attract more business overall. Similarly, the different credit rates at the different tier levels are based on an analysis of current revenue and volume levels and are intended to provide increasing “rewards” to MIAX participants for increasing the volume of Priority Customer orders sent to, and Priority Customer contracts executed on, the Exchange. The specific amounts of the tiers and rates are set in order to encourage suppliers of Priority Customer order flow to reach for higher tiers.
The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the general revenues of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposal is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Program and the proposed increase in the per contract rebate is reasonably designed because it will encourage providers of Priority Customer order flow to send that Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange in order to receive an increasing per contract credit with each volume tier achieved. The Exchange believes that the proposed new tier structure and supplemental rebate should improve market quality for all market participants. The proposed changes to the rebate program are fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they apply equally to all Priority Customer orders. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. Furthermore, the proposed increase in credits for executing higher percentages of total national customer volume is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rates and changes encourage Members to direct increased amounts of Priority Customer contracts to the Exchange. Market participants want to trade with Priority Customer order flow. To the extent Priority Customer order flow is increased by the proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange including sending more orders and providing narrower and larger sized quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order flow. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by encouraging Members to direct their Priority Customer orders to the Exchange, which should enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of contracts traded on MIAX. Respecting the competitive position of non-Priority Customers, the Exchange believes that this rebate program should provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the number of trading opportunities on MIAX for all participants, including non-Priority Customers, who will be able to compete for such opportunities. This should benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it increases rebates and thus encourages market participants to direct their customer order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, enhancing the existing volume based customer rebate program to attract order flow is consistent with the goals of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition, because market participants will have another additional pricing consideration in determining where to execute orders and post liquidity if they factor the benefits of the proposed rebate program into the determination.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
On June 10, 2015, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC has stated that the proposed rule change is intended to correct inconsistent provisions regarding the Risk Management Subcommittee, described in detail as follows. ICC has stated that, in describing the independence requirements for certain Risk Management Subcommittee members in Rule 511(a)(iii), the rule mistakenly referred to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Regulation 1.3(ccc), a proposed regulation that, to date, the CFTC has not adopted. ICC proposes revising Rule 511(a)(iii) to remove the improper reference to CFTC Regulation 1.3(ccc) and replace the rule cite with a reference to ICC's Independence Requirements, which are defined in Rule 503.
Additionally, Independent Risk Management Subcommittee managers were previously defined as “Independent Public Directors” in Rules 511 and 512. ICC proposes re-defining such independent Risk Management Subcommittee managers to “Independent ICE Subcommittee Managers” and updating references in Rules 511 and 512 to reflect the new defined term. ICC also proposes clarifying language to specify that such Independent ICE Subcommittee Managers are appointed by the ICC Board. Finally, ICC proposes revising Rule 512 to clarify that for purposes of Rule 507(a), which sets forth meeting frequency requirements, the Risk Management Subcommittee shall meet when deemed necessary or desirable by the Risk Management Subcommittee or its chairperson.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Currently, the independence requirements in ICC Rule 511 for certain Risk Management Subcommittee members incorrectly reference a CFTC regulation that has not been adopted. The proposed rule change would replace the incorrect CFTC rule citation with the requirement that certain members of the Risk Management Subcommittee meet ICC's Independence Requirements as defined in ICC Rule 503
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Closed Meeting.
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.
Thursday, August 13, 2015.
Cancellation of Meeting.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. has been cancelled.
For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold its regular business meeting on September 10, 2015, in Binghamton, New York. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the
September 10, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.
DoubleTree by Hilton Binghamton, Grand Riverside Room, 225 Water Street, Binghamton, NY 13901.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Informational presentation of interest to the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin area; (2) resolution to correct Exhibit A attached to Resolution No. 2013-11; (3) release of proposed rulemaking for public comment; (4) amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the Water Resources of the Susquehanna River Basin; (5) ratification/approval of grants; (6) regulatory compliance matter for Downs Racing L.P.; (7) Panda Power Funds request for transfer of ownership of Hummel Station LLC (Docket Nos. 20081222 and 20081222-2); and (8) Regulatory Program projects. The business meeting may also include requests to extend emergency certificates for Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. and Furman Foods, Inc.
Projects, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and request for conditional transfer listed for Commission action are those that were the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on August 6, 2015, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 80 FR 39190, July 8, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to attend the business meeting and encouraged to review the Commission's Public Meeting Rules of Conduct, which are posted on the Commission's Web site,
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Determination Regarding Waiver of Discriminatory Purchasing Requirements under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
Scott Pietan, Director of International Procurement Policy, (202) 395-9646, or Arthur Tsao, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 395-6987, Office of the United States Trade Representative.
On October 29, 2014, the WTO Committee on Government Procurement approved the accession of New Zealand to the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Agreement on Government Procurement (“GPA”). New Zealand submitted its instrument of accession to the Secretary-General of the WTO on July 13, 2015. The GPA will enter into force for New Zealand on August 12, 2015. The United States, which is also a party to the GPA,
Section 1-201 of Executive Order 12260 of December 31, 1980 delegated the functions of the President under sections 301 and 302 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“the Trade Agreements Act”) (19 U.S.C. 2511, 2512) to the United States Trade Representative.
1. New Zealand has become a party to the GPA and will provide appropriate reciprocal competitive government procurement opportunities to United States products and services and suppliers of such products and services. In accordance with section 301(b)(1) of the Trade Agreements Act, New Zealand is so designated for purposes of section 301(a) of the Trade Agreements Act.
2. Accordingly, beginning on August 12, 2015, with respect to eligible products (namely, those goods and services covered under the GPA for procurement by the United States) of New Zealand and suppliers of such products, the application of any law, regulation, procedure, or practice regarding government procurement that would, if applied to such products and suppliers, result in treatment less favorable than that accorded—
(A) To United States products and suppliers of such products, or
(B) To eligible products of another foreign country or instrumentality which is a party to the GPA and suppliers of such products,
shall be waived. This waiver shall be applied by all entities listed in United States Annexes 1 and 3 of GPA Appendix 1.
3. The Trade Representative may modify or withdraw the designation in paragraph 1 and the waiver in paragraph 2.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice and request for public comment.
The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) is seeking the views of interested parties on the operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA), as amended by the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) (19 U.S.C. 2701
Public comments are due at USTR no later than 5 p.m., October 5, 2015.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made at
For procedural questions concerning written comments, contact Yvonne Jamison, Office of the United States Trade Representative, at (202) 395-9666. All other questions should be directed to Duncan Walker, Office of the Western Hemisphere, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street NW., Room 523, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-6135.
Interested parties are invited to submit comments on any aspect of the program's operation, including the performance of CBERA and CBTPA beneficiary countries under the criteria described in sections 212(b), 212(c), and 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA, as amended. Those criteria may be accessed at
Section 212(f)(1) of CBERA requires USTR to report the performance of each beneficiary country or CBTPA beneficiary country under the criteria of section 213(b)(5)(B) which includes,
(1) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a commitment to undertake its obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) on or ahead of schedule and participate in negotiations toward the completion of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) or another free trade agreement.
(2) The extent to which the country provides protection of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
(3) The extent to which the country provides internationally recognized worker rights including—
(I) The right of association;
(II) The right to organize and bargain collectively;
(III) A prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor;
(IV) A minimum age for the employment of children; and
(V) Acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
(4) Whether the country has implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in Section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
(5) The extent to which the country has met U.S. counter-narcotics certification criteria under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(6) The extent to which the country has taken steps to become a party to and implement the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption.
(7) The extent to which the country applies transparent, nondiscriminatory and competitive procedures in
Section 212(f)(1), also requires the USTR to report the results of the general review of the beneficiary countries under sections 212(b) and (c) of CBERA. Pursuant to Section 212(b), of the CBERA, the President may not designate any country a CBI beneficiary country in the following circumstances:
(1) if such country is a Communist country;
(2) if such country—
(A) has nationalized, expropriated or otherwise seized ownership or control of property owned by a United States citizen or by a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 per centum or more beneficially owned by United States citizens,
(B) has taken steps to repudiate or nullify—
(i) any existing contract or agreement with, or
(ii) any patent, trademark, or other intellectual property of, a United States citizen or a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 per centum or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, the effect of which is to nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise seize ownership or control of property so owned, or
(C) has imposed or enforced taxes or other exactions, restrictive maintenance or operational conditions, or other measures with respect to property so owned, the effect of which is to nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise seize ownership or control of such property, unless the President determines that—
(i) prompt, adequate, and effective compensation has been or is being made to such citizen, corporation, partnership, or association,
(ii) good-faith negotiations to provide prompt, adequate, and effective compensation under the applicable provisions of international law are in progress, or such country is otherwise taking steps to discharge its obligations under international law with respect to such citizen, corporation, partnership, or association, or
(iii) a dispute involving such citizen, corporation, partnership, or association, over compensation for such a seizure has been submitted to arbitration under the provisions of the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, or in another mutually agreed upon forum, and promptly furnishes a copy of such determination to the Senate and House of Representatives;
(3) if such country fails to act in good faith in recognizing as binding or in enforcing arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens or a corporation, partnership or association which is 50 per centum or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, which have been made by arbitrators appointed for each case or by permanent arbitral bodies to which the parties involved have submitted their dispute;
(4) if such country affords preferential treatment to the products of a developed country, other than the United States, which has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on United States commerce, unless the President has received assurances satisfactory to him that such preferential treatment will be eliminated or that action will be taken to assure that there will be no such significant adverse effect, and he reports those assurances to the Congress;
(5) if a government-owned entity in such country engages in the broadcast of copyrighted material, including films or television material, belonging to United States copyright owners without their express consent;
(6) unless such country is a signatory to a treaty, convention, protocol, or other agreement regarding the extradition of United States citizens; and
(7) if such country has not or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights (as defined in section 2467(4) of this title) to workers in the country (including any designated zone in that country).
Section 212(c) of CBERA requires the President to take into account,
(1) Whether the beneficiary country has demonstrated a commitment to undertake its obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) on or ahead of schedule and participate in negotiations toward the completion of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) or another free trade agreement.
(2) The extent to which the country provides protection of intellectual property rights consistent with or greater than the protection afforded under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
(3) The extent to which the country provides internationally recognized worker rights including—
(I) The right of association;
(II) The right to organize and bargain collectively;
(III) A prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor;
(IV) A minimum age for the employment of children; and
(V) Acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
(4) Whether the country has implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in Section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
(5) The extent to which the country has met U.S. counter-narcotics certification criteria under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(6) The extent to which the country has taken steps to become a party to and implement the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption.
(7) The extent to which the country applies transparent, nondiscriminatory and competitive procedures in government procurement, and contributes to efforts in international fora to develop and implement rules on transparency in government procurement.
In order to ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions via
The Web site offers the option of providing comments by filling in a “Type Comment” field or by attaching a document using the “Upload file(s)” field. We expect that most submissions will be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is sufficient to type “See attached” in the “Type Comment” field.
Submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) are preferred. If an application other than those two is used, please identify in your submission the specific application used. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should
We strongly urge submitters to use electronic filing. If an on-line submission is impossible, alternative arrangements must be made with Ms. Jamison prior to delivery for the receipt of such submissions. Ms. Jamison may be contacted at (202) 395-9666. General information concerning the Office of the United States Trade Representative may be obtained by accessing its Web site:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by September 11, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. U.S. Code authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. Respondents conducting general operation and flight of aircraft or any activity that could encroach on airspace must apply for approval.
Written comments should be submitted by October 13, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. 14 CFR part 121 prescribes the requirements governing air carrier operations. The information collected is used to determine air operators' compliance with the minimum safety standards and the applicants' eligibility for air operations certification.
Written comments should be submitted by October 13, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by September 11, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The rule allows some experienced pilots who would otherwise qualify as flight instructors or check airmen, but who are not medically eligible to hold the requisite medical certificate, to perform flight instructor or check airmen functions in a simulator.
Written comments should be submitted by October 13, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves requirements for certain repair stations to provide documentation showing that persons handling hazmat for transportation have been trained following DOT guidelines.
Written comments should be submitted by October 13, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by September 11, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. This collection is necessary in order to determine applicants' qualifications for certification as Aviation Medical Examiners (AMEs).
Written comments should be submitted by October 13, 2015.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 51 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on July 23, 2015. The exemptions expire on July 23, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On June 22, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 51 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 35705). The public comment period closed on July 22, 2015, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 51 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 51 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 44 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 22, 2015,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 51 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that 13 individuals have applied for a medical exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). In accordance with the statutory requirements concerning applications for exemptions, FMCSA requests public comments on these requests. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that exemptions must provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than if they were not granted. If the Agency determines the exemptions would satisfy the statutory requirements and decides to grant theses requests after reviewing the public comments submitted in response to this notice, the exemptions would enable these 13 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA- 2014-0386 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has authority to grant exemptions from many of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), as amended by Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) (Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107, 401). FMCSA has published in 49 CFR part 381, subpart C final rules implementing the statutory changes in its exemption procedures made by section 4007, 69 FR 51589 (August 20, 2004).
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
FMCSA also issues instructions for completing the medical examination report and includes advisory criteria on the report itself to provide guidance for medical examiners in applying the hearing standard. See 49 CFR 391.43(f). The current advisory criteria for the hearing standard include a reference to a report entitled “Hearing Disorders and Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers” prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor, in 1993.
FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be permitted to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Further, the Agency asks for comments on whether a driver who cannot meet the hearing standard should be limited to operating only certain types of vehicles in interstate commerce, for example, vehicles without air brakes. The statute and implementing regulations concerning exemptions require that the Agency request public comments on all applications for exemptions. The Agency is also required to make a determination that an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, go to
Mr. Alcozer, 35, holds an operator's license in Illinois.
Mr. Bowers, 59, holds a class A CDL in Georgia.
Mr. Emmell, 41, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Epitacio, 34, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Flores, 35, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Ingram, 32, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Jones, 39, holds an operator's license in Washington.
Mr. Lewis, 46, holds a class A CDL in North Carolina.
Mr. Lynn, 44, holds an operator's license in Arizona.
Mr. Oliver, 59, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Patrick, 30, holds an operator's license in Washington.
Mr. Pineiro, 46, holds an operator's license in New Jersey.
Mr. Wilkerson, 38, holds a class A CDL in Alabama.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business September 11, 2015. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 44 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0065 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 44 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Afseth, 77, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Afseth understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Afseth meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Amaro, 50, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no
Mr. Bair, 43, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bair understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bair meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nevada.
Mr. Brown, 53, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brown understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Ms. Chezum, 70, has had ITDM since 2008. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2015 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Chezum understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Chezum meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2015 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Mr. Copley, 53, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Copley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Copley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from West Virginia.
Mr. Coryea, 49, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Coryea understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coryea meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Corzine, 50, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Corzine understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Corzine meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Crouse, 32, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Crouse understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crouse meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Draper, 42, has had ITDM since 1979. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Draper understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. Emmert, 33, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Emmert understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Emmert meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Firn, 58, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Firn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Firn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Fortman, 30, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fortman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fortman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.
Mr. George, 42, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. George understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. George meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Harkanson, 43, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harkanson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harkanson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hazel, 61, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hazel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hazel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico.
Mr. Henderson, 55, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Henderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico.
Mr. Jacobs, 55, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jacobs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jacobs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Vermont.
Mr. Lane, 55, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no
Mr. Leffingwell, 72, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leffingwell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leffingwell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Leventhal, 26, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leventhal understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leventhal meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Connecticut.
Mr. McMonagle, 44, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McMonagle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McMonagle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Meckley, 63, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Meckley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Meckley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Maryland.
Mr. Moore, 59, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Moore understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moore meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.
Mr. Moore, 59, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Moore understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moore meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Munoz, 31, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Munoz understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Munoz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Nalley, 36, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nalley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Nolte, 52, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nolte understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nolte meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Owens, 54, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Owens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Owens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Pruitt, 69, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pruitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pruitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Ransom, 60, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ransom understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ransom meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Reber, 63, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reber understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reber meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Rice, 48, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rice understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rice meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Robinson, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Robinson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robinson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Savarese, 23, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Savarese understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Savarese meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Sawyer, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sawyer understands
Mr. Schizzano, 52, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schizzano understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schizzano meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Seago, 53, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Seago understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Seago meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Solem, 34, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Solem understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Solem meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Sprague, 48, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sprague understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sprague meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico.
Mr. Vance, 29, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vance understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vance meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Vaughan, 34, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vaughan understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vaughan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Vicario, 72, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vicario understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vicario meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Yeska, 51, has had ITDM since 1974. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yeska understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yeska meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C.. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, to submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 15 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective September 13, 2015. Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2007-27897], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 15 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 15 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 15 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 66 FR 41656; 68 FR 44837; 70 FR 41811; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419; 74 FR 41971; 76 FR 54530; 78 FR 78477). Each of these 15 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2007-27897), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 34 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted July 23, 2015. The exemptions expire on July 23, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On July 22, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (80 FR 35699). That notice listed 34 applicants' case histories. The 34 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 34 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 34 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, complete loss of vision, retinal detachment, corneal scarring, Descemet's folds, congenital amblyopia, prosthetic eye, macular hole, central scotoma, congenital glaucoma, staphyloma, refractive amblyopia, total cataract with iris synechia, retinal scar, optic nerve injury, cataract, mydriasis, amblyopia with exotropia, aphakia, and posterior senechiae. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Twenty-four of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The 10 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of four to 43 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 34 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging four three to 35 years. In the past three years, four drivers were involved in crashes, and three drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 22, 2015 notice (80 FR 35699).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 34 applicants, four drivers were involved in crashes, and three drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 34 applicants listed in the notice of June 22, 2015 (80 FR 35699).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 34 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 34 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs for up to 2 years in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2015-0117 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001, or via email at
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption for up to a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statutes allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce. The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Mr. Arroyo is a 33 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free for one year. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2006. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Arroyo receiving an exemption.
Mr. Barnwell is a 43 year-old class A CDL holder in Michigan. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1990. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Barnwell receiving an exemption.
Mr. Brelsford is a 40 year-old class A CDL holder in Maine. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2010. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Brelsord receiving an exemption.
Mr. Coleman is a 43 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1994. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Coleman receiving an exemption.
Mr. Horst is a 65 year-old driver in Maryland. He has a history of a single seizure in 2009. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Horst receiving an exemption.
Mr. Jolley is a 40 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Jolley receiving an exemption.
Mr. McCarthy is a 68 year-old class B CDL holder in Massachusetts. He has a history of a single seizure in 1998. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. McCarthy receiving an exemption.
Mr. Ray is a 49 year-old driver in Iowa. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2006, although he experiences stereotypical auras. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Ray receiving an exemption.
Mr. Schuelke is a 54 year-old class A CDL holder in Wisconsin. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Schuelke receiving an exemption.
Mr. Troendle is a 38 year-old class A CDL holder in Iowa. He has a history of a brain tumor and has remained seizure free since 2014. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Troendle receiving an exemption.
Mr. Underwood is a 42 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2003. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Underwood receiving an exemption.
Mr. Wagner is a 40 year-old class A CDL holder in Illinois. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1997. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Wagner receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to grant Ford Motor Company's (Ford) exemption application to allow motor carriers to operate Ford's Transit-based commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that do not meet the exhaust system location requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The FMCSRs require (1) the exhaust system of a bus powered by a gasoline engine to discharge to the atmosphere at or within 6 inches forward of the rearmost part of the bus and (2) the exhaust system of every truck and truck tractor to discharge to the atmosphere at a location to the rear of the cab or, if the exhaust projects above the cab, at a location near the rear of the cab. Although the Ford Transit does not meet these requirements, it has undergone performance-based testing which demonstrates that the exhaust system achieves a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation. Ford performed carbon monoxide (CO) concentration tests which used CO monitors at various locations within the vehicle to measure the concentration of CO ingress into the occupant compartment (from the vehicles' own powertrain and exhaust system) under various driving conditions including idle and top speed. The tests showed that the resulting CO concentration is below every threshold used by Federal agencies. FMCSA has concluded that the limited 2-year exemption will achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the rule restricting the location of exhaust systems on CMVs to ensure that exhaust fumes will not affect the driver's alertness or health or the health of passengers.
This exemption is effective August 12, 2015 and ending August 14, 2017.
Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-0676, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Ford applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.83 to allow motor carriers to operate Ford-manufactured Transit-based CMVs that do not comply with the exhaust system location requirements. A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Section 393.83, “Exhaust systems,” includes requirements regarding the location of exhaust systems on CMVS to ensure that exhaust fumes will not affect the driver's alertness or health or the health of passengers. Specifically, § 393.83(c) states that “[t]he exhaust system of a bus powered by a gasoline engine shall discharge to the atmosphere at or within 6 inches forward of the rearmost part of the bus”; § 393.83(e) states that “[t]he exhaust system of every truck and truck tractor shall discharge to the atmosphere at a location to the rear of the cab or, if the exhaust projects above the cab, at a location near the rear of the cab.”
Ford noted in its application that, while its Transit-based CMVs may not satisfy the specific exhaust system location requirements of § 393.83, it has several internal requirements applicable to the design of the tailpipe system that ensure the system will provide high levels of safety for its customers. According to the application:
. . . Ford's requirements address passenger compartment exhaust gas intrusion and management of high temperature components. These requirements include testing of the system and basic design requirements for the location of the tailpipe in relation to underbody components like the brake lines and fuel lines.
Most significantly Ford uses internal performance based tests that demonstrate the system achieves a level of safety equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation. The main test of interest is the Carbon Monoxide Concentration test. This performance based test uses CO monitors at various locations in the vehicle to measure the concentration of CO ingress into the occupant compartment (from vehicles' own powertrain and exhaust system) under various driving conditions including idle and top speed.
Ford tested the 2015 model year Transit in accordance with “Ford global common engineering test procedures,” which limits carbon monoxide (CO) levels to 27 parts-per-million (ppm) for a 30 minute Time Weighted Average (TWA) during continuous driving. Ford stated that the 27 ppm limit is based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Acute Exposure Guideline Level limits for CO exposure for 8 hour TWA, which is more severe than both the Occupational Safety & Health
Additionally Ford stated that it has internal requirements to establish the appropriate clearance required between a vehicle and the ground to meet a minimum level of on-road functionality. Ford has specific departure angle requirements for their vehicle to reduce tailpipe contact with the ground, curbs, ramps, etc., during various driving modes which may result in damage to the exhaust system that may adversely affect the exhaust function.
FMCSA published a notice of the application in the
The Agency received one comment, from an anonymous commenter. The commenter expressed concern “that over time after the vehicle is initially manufactured, the exhaust system will be subject to wear and tear and as such may not perform to the same standard that it did upon original manufacture. Although Ford was able to demonstrate that the system was able to detect potentially dangerous situations with the exhaust at the time of manufacture, we will truly have no understanding of how that system will perform 10 or 15 years later.”
FMCSA acknowledges the commenter's concern that exhaust systems, like other vehicle components and equipment, are subject to wear and tear as vehicles age. However, 49 CFR part 396 requires a motor carrier to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain all motor vehicles subject to its control (§ 396.3(a)), and ensure that all parts and accessories are in safe and proper operating condition at all times (§ 396.3(a)(1)). Further, § 396.17 requires every CMV to be inspected at least once every 12 months in accordance with the provisions of Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III of the FMCSRs, “Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,” which includes a review of the vehicle's exhaust system. Finally, FMCSA expects that, as these exhaust systems wear out, vehicle owners will replace them with exhaust systems identical or equivalent to the original equipment, ensuring an equivalent level of performance.
As noted below, this temporary exemption is valid for a limited period of 2 years, and any party possessing information that would demonstrate that motor carriers using Ford Transit-based CMVS are not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
The FMCSA has evaluated the Ford exemption application. The Agency believes that granting the temporary exemption to allow the operation of Model Year 2015 Ford Transit-based gas bus models (of all gross vehicle weight ratings), vans over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, and corresponding future Transit-based models of the same design produced during the effective period of the exemption will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption. Ford conducted performance-based testing that demonstrates that the design of the exhaust system for the Model Year 2015 and later Fort Transit CMVs (1) results in CO exposure limits that are well below EPA, OSHA, and NIOSH established thresholds, and (2) will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 2-year period, beginning August 12, 2015 and ending August 14, 2017. During the temporary exemption period, motor carriers will be allowed to operate Model Year 2015 Ford Transit-based gas bus models (of all gross vehicle weight ratings), vans over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, and corresponding future Transit-based models of the same design produced during the effective period of the exemption that do not meet the exhaust system location requirements. The exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that motor carriers using Ford Transit-based CMVs are not achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a person operating a vehicle covered by the exemption.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 26 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted June 6, 2015. The exemptions expire on June 6, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On May 6, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (80 FR 26139). That notice listed 26 applicants' case histories. The 26 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 26 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 26 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including prosthetic eye, corneal scarring, complete loss of vision, amblyopia pseudophakia secondary to a cataract, glaucoma, and aniosometropic amblyopic correction, field of vision loss, scarring, esotropia, strabismic amblyopia, hyphema, strabismus, cataract, torn retina, macular scar, retinal scar, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Eighteen of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The eight individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of four to 30 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 26 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from three to 40 years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes, and two were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the May 6, 2015 notice (80 FR 26139).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 26 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and two were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 26 applicants listed in the notice of May 6, 2015 (80 FR 26139).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 26 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 26 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 20 individuals. FMCSA has statutory
This decision is effective September 16, 2015. Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 20 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 20 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 20 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR 180; 72 FR 9397; 74 FR 6211; 76 FR 25762; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 41975; 78 FR 52602; 78 FR 56986; 78 FR 78477). Each of these 20 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2013-0029; FMCSA-2013-0030), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, got to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 23 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted July 7, 2015. The exemptions expire on July 7, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On June 3, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (80 FR 31636). That notice listed 23 applicants' case histories. The 23 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 23 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 23 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia,
The six individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of two to 25 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 23 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from two to 53 years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 3, 2015 notice (80 FR 31636).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 23 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 23 applicants listed in the notice of June 3, 2015 (80 FR 31636).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 23 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the modified Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before September 11, 2015.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Safety Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kebo Chen, Staff Director, Railroad Safety Information Management Division, RRS-22, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6079). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On April 24, 2015, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
FRA received two comments in response to the notice, from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and an article titled “DOT Takes Additional Actions on Crude Oil Trains—Incident Report ICR,” originally posted on the blog Chemical Facility Security News by Peter Coyle on April 20, 2015. The substance of both comments, along with FRA's responses to those comments is discussed below. You may also review the full text of the comments online at
BEA's comment generally expresses support for the information collection activities associated with FRA's accident/incident reporting regulations, and references specific FRA forms that the BEA uses in its analysis that are different than the form this ICR covers. FRA appreciates BEA's comment, but notes that the comment relates to FRA forms that are outside the scope of this ICR. This ICR is limited to modifying the existing instructions on Form FRA F 6180.54 titled “Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report” and does not impact FRA's information collection activities under other FRA accident/incident reporting forms.
In his comment, Mr. Coyle asserts that FRA's proposed collection of information related to crude oil train accidents is of limited usefulness and “will provide almost nothing in the way of information that can be used for analytical purposes.” Mr. Coyle suggests that FRA design a new report “specifically for rail accidents and incidents involving damaged and leaking rail cars containing crude oil.” Mr. Coyle also asserts that combining the number of cars loaded with crude oil and crude oil residue cars in the data collection will “about double the number of cars involved in accidents and damaged in accidents since most
In response to Mr. Coyle's concern that the proposed information collection will not provide useful information for analytical purposes, FRA acknowledges that the proposed modifications will not capture all information about an accident that FRA needs to fully analyze an accident. FRA believes these simple modifications will, however, make this data more readily accessible to FRA and help to capture more specific information on the behavior of tank cars transporting crude oil in accident conditions. As Mr. Coyle suggests FRA should do, FRA intends to continue considering other options for gathering additional information concerning rail cars carrying crude oil (and other hazardous materials) involved in reportable accidents. However, implementation of any significant changes by FRA (such as the development of a new form) will necessitate a notice and comment rulemaking, a time consuming process. FRA does not want to wait for the completion of a rulemaking proceeding to begin making changes to improve the existing data collection. FRA believes that utilizing the existing SSB in the short term is the most efficient and expeditious method of improving FRA's information collection activity. FRA will, however, continue to evaluate additional, more comprehensive, methods of improving the agency's overall information collection activities related to the transportation of hazardous materials by railroad.
In response to Mr. Coyle's assertion that combining the number of cars loaded with crude oil and crude oil residue cars in the data collection will double the number of cars reported to be in accidents and damaged in accidents, FRA notes that residue cars, including cars carrying residue amounts of crude oil, are already included in the counts of all hazardous materials cars in blocks 8, 9, and 10 of FRA Form 6180.54. These current counts will not change as a result of the additional information collection in the SSB of Form FRA F 6180.54. Thus, FRA believes Mr. Coyle's assertion is incorrect.
Finally, Mr. Coyle asserts that “since there is no effort being made to determine what types of tank cars are actually in use and the rate of failure (measured by leaks) for each type of tank car, the FRA will not be able to adequately describe how the continuing change of the makeup of the crude oil tank car fleet will affect the failure rate of the fleet.” However, FRA again notes that the agency intends for the SSB as described in FRA's April 24, 2015 notice to be a short term method of obtaining some additional information on the number and behavior of tank cars transporting crude oil involved in FRA reportable accidents. FRA will continue to evaluate whether it needs more data as part of a comprehensive, long-term improvement in its information collection activities for the rail transportation of crude oil and the rail transportation of hazardous materials in general.
FRA received no other comments. After careful consideration of each of the comments discussed above, FRA reevaluated and certified this information collection activity under 5 CFR 1320.5(a), and is now forwarding this ICR to OMB for review and approval under 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the nature of the ICR and the expected burden. FRA is submitting the proposed revisions to OMB for clearance as the PRA requires.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and Request for Information.
The United States Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) has developed a new Treasury electronic retirement savings bond to give working individuals (particularly those not currently saving) a new opportunity to begin saving for retirement.
Individuals can continue to participate in
Treasury requests information and public comment on possible options for (1) communicating effectively with account holders about considerations and options for transferring their
Submit comments on or before Friday, October 23, 2015.
See
•
•
Kimberly Reese, at (304) 480-7929 or
The newly-developed retirement savings bond is the only investment that can be held by a
To be simple and convenient for new savers, the bond has been designed as an add-on security. This means that, instead of having a fixed denomination, such as $100 or $1,000, the amount of the bond grows with contributions plus interest. Therefore, an individual may make initial and subsequent contributions in any amount (subject to the Roth IRA contribution limits), on a regular basis or from time to time, and need not acquire multiple bonds because all contributions are added to the principal amount of the bond. Because the bond is the only investment that may be held in a
The amount in the
Account holders can choose to transfer their
Treasury recognizes that some account holders may not actively select a destination for their
This section describes potential approaches for the transfer of
Under any of the approaches outlined below, the financial agent would notify a
An account holder who does not provide transfer instructions after reaching the Transfer Threshold would ultimately receive a notice stating that the account balance will be transferred to a specified private sector Roth IRA.
As described below, Treasury is considering alternative possible approaches for the process of automatically transferring the
One approach Treasury is considering is to approve a number of specified Roth IRA providers that are willing to open and maintain Roth IRAs for
Another approach Treasury is considering is to approve a single Roth IRA provider (instead of multiple providers) that is willing to open and maintain Roth IRAs for
Comments are invited on possible alternatives to, or variations on, the potential approaches outlined above that should be considered.
The public is invited to comment on any aspect of these possible approaches, including the specific issues listed below and suggestions or other information for the design of this process. In particular, suggestions are requested on how to provide appropriate consumer protections without imposing undue or unnecessary requirements, conditions, costs, or complexity.
• Which potential approach outlined above—multiple possible default destinations or a single default destination—would result in both the best end user and the best service provider experience?
• What are the inherent risks and benefits of the potential approaches outlined above from an end user as well as a service provider perspective?
• What are the key topics, messages, and information Treasury should provide to account holders about their options, and about saving for retirement more generally, when they are considering the transfer of their account balances? When and in what form should these communications and related retirement savings education occur? How can Treasury make the best use of
• How far in advance, how often, and in what form (
• As part of the notification process under either scenario described above, should the financial agent include a list of available Roth IRA providers to help account holders choose their own Roth IRA providers, in addition to a list of the providers selected to receive automatic transfers of
○ If so, what eligibility criteria should Treasury consider in selecting providers to be on that potentially broader list of Roth IRA providers? How should the eligibility criteria be similar to or different from the eligibility criteria for a provider to accept automatically-transferred accounts?
○ What information about each provider and its IRAs, investments, and services (and the associated fees and expenses) should be provided? Should the information about different providers be made readily comparable and, if so, how? Should a Treasury-provided internet portal be made available (or be linked to) for this purpose?
• To what extent could or should Treasury partner with outside organizations or use other means of communication besides direct contact from the financial agent to promote awareness of the Transfer Threshold and transfer options? Specific examples are requested, together with explanations as to why they would be effective.
• As part of the process for opening a
• What eligibility criteria should Treasury consider in selecting providers to receive automatic transfers?
• Should Treasury impose any specific guidelines or conditions on providers? If so, what types of guidelines or conditions should there be? How long should they remain in effect or should they be indefinite?
• Is there a particular number of Roth IRA providers that should be selected among those that are willing to accept automatic transfers of
• How would the number of providers on the list affect the willingness of potential providers to participate as recipients of automatic transfers?
• What factors are likely to make a Roth IRA provider willing (or unwilling) to be selected to receive automatically transferred
• Are there potential requirements that would discourage Roth IRA providers from choosing to be on the list of institutions that accept automatically transferred
• Are there potential circumstances that would cause providers to wish to decline receipt of an automatically transferred
• If there are multiple providers receiving automatically transferred
• Should Treasury establish guidelines for the types and/or amounts of fees or other charges that providers that accept automatic transfers may charge the account holder? If so, how? What types and levels of fees or other charges should be permitted? How should they be disclosed?
• How would any such guidelines affect the willingness of such providers to participate?
• Should any such guidelines require that all such providers charge the same fees, or should varying fees be permitted?
• What types of investment options should providers that accept automatic transfers be permitted or required to offer, and what policies, fees, or determining factors should be considered?
• Should these or other providers be required to provide a default investment option for automatically transferred accounts, and, if so, what should that default investment option be (for example, a target date fund)?
• Should the default investment be different depending upon the characteristics (
• Should providers be required to offer alternative investment options in addition to a default option? If so, should there be specific criteria for the types of alternative investment options, for example having at least one “safe” (principal-protected) alternative investment option?
• Are there key or unique features of
• What other operational, legal, or regulatory issues should Treasury be aware of or take into consideration in developing a
Comments should refer to docket number FISCAL-2015-0001, and should also include (1) the supporting rationale; and (2) alternative approaches, if any, that should be considered, including specific examples and options. All comments received will become part of this docket, and in general, will be published on
31 CFR part 347.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Amended notice of intent to enter into an amended Enhanced-Use Lease (EUL).
The Secretary of VA intends to amend the scope and terms of an existing EUL that was entered into during the month of December 2011, totaling approximately 4.6 acres of land, for the purpose of constructing and developing 102 units of supportive housing for Veterans. Since that time market conditions have changed making the original scope infeasible. This notice provides details on the current scope and terms of the proposed amended EUL. The EUL lessee will finance, design, develop, manage, maintain and operate up to 78 units of housing for eligible Veterans, on approximately 5.4 acres of land in one or more phases at the Grand Island VAMC campus for eligible homeless Veterans, and Veterans at risk of homelessness, on a priority placement basis, and provide supportive services that guide resident Veterans toward attaining long-term self-sufficiency.
Edward L. Bradley III, Office of Asset Enterprise Management (044), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7778.
As required under Section 211(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 112-154, this amended EUL will adhere to the prior version of VA's EUL statute dated as of December 30, 2011.
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 A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 7, 2015 for publication.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice; correction.
On July 31, 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs published a notice in the
These corrections will be effective as of August 12, 2015.
Mr. Andrew Trevayne, Assistant Director for Loan and Property Management (261), Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-8795 (Not a toll-free number).
In the
Second, in the last sentence of the
| 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 |