Page Range | 50543-50753 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
80 FR 50715 - Application of Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. for Certificate Authority | |
80 FR 50749 - Presidential Innovation Fellows Program | |
80 FR 50663 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
80 FR 50708 - In the Matter of Internal Fixation Systems, Inc., File No. 500-1; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
80 FR 50588 - Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings | |
80 FR 50623 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
80 FR 50607 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
80 FR 50649 - Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless | |
80 FR 50644 - Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test | |
80 FR 50709 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
80 FR 50577 - Safety Zone; Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH | |
80 FR 50575 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone; Correction | |
80 FR 50576 - Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System; Notice of Arrival Information Collection | |
80 FR 50662 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee; Meeting | |
80 FR 50576 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, Bronx, NY | |
80 FR 50616 - Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation Project | |
80 FR 50599 - Foreign-Trade Zone 122-Corpus Christi, TX; Authorization of Production Activity; M & G Resins, LLC (Polyethylene Terephthalate and Terephthalic Acid); Corpus Christi, TX | |
80 FR 50598 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Subzone 98A, (Passenger Motor Vehicles), Vance, Alabama | |
80 FR 50610 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
80 FR 50632 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
80 FR 50634 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc. | |
80 FR 50634 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From Close Care Gap, PSO | |
80 FR 50585 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2015 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Hogfish | |
80 FR 50626 - Gold Connect, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment | |
80 FR 50629 - Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
80 FR 50628 - Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
80 FR 50625 - Inbox Group, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
80 FR 50641 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Identifying Experts in Prevention Science Methods To Include on NIH Review Panels (OD) | |
80 FR 50611 - Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia | |
80 FR 50650 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act | |
80 FR 50669 - New Postal Product | |
80 FR 50621 - 5440 Hydro, Inc; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
80 FR 50621 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
80 FR 50620 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
80 FR 50619 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 50622 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Lake Charles Liquefaction Project | |
80 FR 50595 - Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer | |
80 FR 50649 - Notice of Public Meeting, Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New Mexico | |
80 FR 50652 - Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture; Grant of a Permanent Variance | |
80 FR 50596 - Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board | |
80 FR 50712 - Hours of Service of Drivers: CRST Expedited Inc., Application for Exemption | |
80 FR 50711 - Hours of Service of Drivers; National Star Route Mail Contractors Association; Application for Exemption | |
80 FR 50717 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2006-47 | |
80 FR 50716 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
80 FR 50717 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form W-8CE | |
80 FR 50640 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish Dealers Certificate | |
80 FR 50636 - Lisa Marie Coroniti: Debarment Order | |
80 FR 50670 - Notice of Public Meeting of Presidio Institute Advisory Council | |
80 FR 50710 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California | |
80 FR 50709 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
80 FR 50638 - Collecting On-Farm Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Data; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
80 FR 50636 - Technical Document for Using the Inactive Ingredient Database; Establishment of a Public Docket | |
80 FR 50587 - Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems; Reopening of Comment Period | |
80 FR 50559 - Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act | |
80 FR 50635 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics (BSC, NCHS) | |
80 FR 50642 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 50564 - Housing Choice Voucher Program: Streamlining the Portability Process | |
80 FR 50681 - Archstone Alternative Solutions Fund and A.P. Management Company, LLC; Notice of Application | |
80 FR 50671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus | |
80 FR 50683 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule | |
80 FR 50707 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule | |
80 FR 50685 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Customer Rebate Program | |
80 FR 50678 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rules 7014 and 7018 | |
80 FR 50689 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.6, Definitions; Rule 11.8, Order Types; Rule 11.9, Priority of Orders; Rule 11.10, Order Execution; and Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers | |
80 FR 50677 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of the Rule Change To Allow Market Orders To Sell in No-Bid Series To Be Entered Into the Electronic Order Book From a PAR Workstation | |
80 FR 50701 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Implementation of a Fee on Securities Lending and Repurchase Transactions With Respect to Shares of the CurrencyShares® Euro Trust and the CurrencyShares® Japanese Yen Trust | |
80 FR 50635 - Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Correction | |
80 FR 50639 - Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 50650 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
80 FR 50558 - Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations | |
80 FR 50597 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Automated Export System (AES) Program | |
80 FR 50662 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection | |
80 FR 50669 - International Mail Contract | |
80 FR 50589 - Periodic Reporting | |
80 FR 50670 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
80 FR 50631 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex in Winchester County, Virginia | |
80 FR 50663 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 | |
80 FR 50714 - 30-day Notice and Request for Comments: Continuation of Six Collections | |
80 FR 50590 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Alcoa BART | |
80 FR 50579 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Alcoa BART | |
80 FR 50642 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
80 FR 50642 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
80 FR 50642 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 50710 - Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statement, Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Corridor, Virginia | |
80 FR 50596 - Boundary Description and Final Map for Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River, Umatilla National Forest (OR and WA), Wallowa Whitman National Forest (WA) and Bureau of Land Management (WA). | |
80 FR 50554 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters) Helicopters | |
80 FR 50550 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) Helicopters | |
80 FR 50615 - Extension of Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training | |
80 FR 50599 - Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports | |
80 FR 50591 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Regional Haze Plan Amendment-Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh | |
80 FR 50582 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana; Correction | |
80 FR 50616 - Notice for EV Everywhere Logo Design Competition | |
80 FR 50593 - Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares | |
80 FR 50622 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
80 FR 50629 - SES Performance Review Board | |
80 FR 50543 - Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2014-2015 Marketing Year | |
80 FR 50595 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 50618 - Appalachian Mountain Club; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
80 FR 50551 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
80 FR 50544 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
80 FR 50556 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
80 FR 50719 - Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Bonneville Power Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule recommended by the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee) that further revised the quantity of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order. The salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and 46 percent, respectively, and was subsequently increased to 1,280,561 pounds and 54 percent in a separate rulemaking action. This action further increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage to 57 percent for the 2014-2015 marketing year. This change is expected to help maintain orderly marketing conditions in the Far West spearmint oil market.
Effective August 21, 2015.
Barry Broadbent, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
The handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West is regulated by the order and is administered locally by the Committee. Under the authority of the order, salable quantities and allotment percentages were established for both Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year. However, during the course of the 2014-2015 marketing year, it became evident to the Committee and the industry that demand for Native spearmint oil was greater than previously projected and an intra-seasonal increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil was necessary to adequately supply the increased demand. The salable quantity and allotment percentage was subsequently increased from 1,090,821 pounds and 46 percent to 1,280,561 and 54 percent in a separate rulemaking action. The increased salable quantity and allotment percentage proved insufficient to fully supply demand and were further increased in the interim rule to 1,351,704 pounds and 57 percent. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the interim rule that increased the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,280,561 pounds to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage from 54 percent to 57 percent.
In an interim rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 39 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that only two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 22 of the 39 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be
The use of volume control regulation allows the spearmint oil industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Without volume control regulation, the supply and price of spearmint oil would likely fluctuate widely. Periods of oversupply could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to future crop years. Periods of undersupply could lead to excessive price spikes and could drive end users to source their flavoring needs from other markets, potentially causing long-term economic damage to the domestic spearmint oil industry. The order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry since 1980 and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.
This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from or handle on behalf of producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year, which ended on May 31, 2015. The 2014-2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and the allotment percentage initially set at 46 percent. In a separate rulemaking action, the salable quantity was increased to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage was increased 54 percent. This rule continues in effect the action that further increased the 2014-2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,351,704 and the allotment percentage to 57 percent.
The Committee reached its decision to recommend a further increase in the salable quantity and allotment after consideration of all available information. With the increase, the Committee believes that the industry will be able to satisfactorily meet the current market demand for this class of spearmint oil. This rule amends the salable quantity and allotment percentage previously established for Native spearmint oil in § 985.233. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the February 18, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before May 29, 2015. One comment was received. The comment was non-substantive in nature and did not address the merits of the rule. Accordingly, no changes were made to the rule. For the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.
Accordingly, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 985 and that was published at 80 FR 16547 on March 30, 2015, is adopted as a final rule, without change.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-18-02 for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). AD 98-18-02 required inspections to detect cracks in the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment and in the adjacent butt strap and skin panel, and correction of discrepancies. This new AD continues to require inspections for cracks. This new AD also requires a modification by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles, replacement of both sealing angles and cold expansion of the attachment holes if necessary, and post-repair repetitive inspections and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the vertical web of the center spar sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent analyses that showed that the inspection threshold and interval specified in AD 98-18-02 must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8. We are issuing this AD to prevent crack formation in the sealing angles, which could rupture the sealing angle and lead to subsequent crack formation in the bottom skin of the wing, and result in reduced structural integrity of the center spar section of the wing.
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 24, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)). AD 2006-07-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the
Although we proposed to supersede AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), this AD instead supersedes AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998). AD 98-18-02 required inspections using an earlier revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, which is the appropriate source of service information for doing the inspections required by this AD. This change to the proposed actions is explained in the “Request to Supersede a Different AD” paragraph in the preamble of this final rule.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2012-0194, dated September 25, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:
Fatigue testing applied to a test airframe confirmed the initiation of cracks on the sealing angles of the centre spar, adjacent to rib 8, which could lead to the rupture of the sealing angles and the subsequent crack initiation in the bottom skin of the wing.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [French Civil Aviation Authority] France issued * * * [an earlier AD][which corresponds to FAA AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718, (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998)] to require inspection of centre spar sealing angles adjacent to pylon rear attachment fittings of Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) wings.
Early cracks reported on an in-service aeroplane prompted Airbus to conduct additional investigations. Based on the results, DGAC France issued * * * [an AD that superseded the earlier DGAC AD], to require modification of the affected aeroplanes as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6033 (Airbus Mod 8609), as well as post-modification repetitive inspections. [DGAC France AD 2003-290(B)R1 (
Since DGAC France AD 2003-290(B)R1 was issued [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530))], a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the centre spar, adjacent to rib 8.
For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 2003-290(B)R1, which is superseded, and requires the accomplishment instructions at the new thresholds and intervals given by Revision 07 of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6027.
The required actions also include repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting for cracks, modifying the airplane by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8 if necessary, replacing both of the forward and aft sealing angles with new sealing angles and cold expanding the attachment holes if necessary, and doing post-repair repetitive inspections and corrective actions if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.
UPS requested that AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), be superseded and AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), remain a stand-alone AD to address potential conflicts with the inspection interval differences. UPS stated that AD 98-18-02 refers to Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing inspections required by AD 98-18-02.
UPS also stated that the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, as the
We agree with the commenter's request and rationale. We have revised this AD to supersede AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), and require inspections using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. This AD does not retain the inspections specified in Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994, and required by AD 98-18-02. In addition, AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), is not superseded by this AD. Therefore, we have removed paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) from this AD and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs.
We have also revised the “prompted by” sentence in the SUMMARY section of this final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD to specify the AD “was prompted by reports of cracking in the vertical web of the center spar sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent analyses that showed that the inspection threshold and interval specified in AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8.”
UPS requested that we revise the compliance times in the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) to reflect specific times regardless of the aircraft utilization rate. UPS stated that a comment response in AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), noted that the FAA did not concur with the “average flight time” (“AFT”) compliance time methodology as it may not address the unsafe condition in a timely manner. UPS stated that paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD specify that the compliance time is at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, which establishes the initial and repetitive inspection compliance times based on AFT methodology. UPS requested changing the compliance times in paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD to reflect specific values regardless of the aircraft utilization rate to provide consistency in the compliance times for the actions required by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.
We disagree with the commenter's request to revise the compliance times in this AD. At the time the FAA issued AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), the required actions in Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994, contained inspection thresholds and intervals based on airplane flight cycles, and provided instructions for adjusting the flight cycle threshold and interval using each individual airplane's AFT utilization. The FAA did not agree with the AFT method because it could result in a different inspection threshold and interval for each individual airplane, and the FAA did not agree with adjusting a flight cycle based threshold and interval using the average flight time utilization without also having a related flight hour based threshold and interval. In Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, the inspection thresholds and intervals are now based on the accumulation of both flight cycles and flight hours, and are listed in tables appropriately grouping airplanes with AFT utilization above 1.5 hours, and airplanes with AFT utilization at or below 1.5 hours. The changes made in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, have addressed the FAA's original concerns with the AFT method. Therefore, the current AFT method is acceptable for this AD.
We acknowledge that a fixed compliance time for a fleet could be easier for operators to schedule and record compliance. Therefore, under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if a proposal is submitted that is supported by technical data that includes fatigue and damage tolerance analysis. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UPS requested that we combine paragraphs (i) through (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) because the complexity of the paragraphs could easily result in incorrect interpretation of the proposed requirements and be counterproductive to the intent of the rule. The commenter stated that the requirements are distributed over five separate paragraphs. The commenter recommended that the requirements be revised by first requiring operators to identify whether Repair Drawing R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033 was done and then by specifying the corresponding actions and compliance times for the affected airplanes.
We acknowledge the requirements are complex. However, we disagree with the request to combine paragraphs (g) through (k) of this AD (which were designated as paragraphs (i) through (m) in the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014)). As stated previously, we are superseding AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), to prevent any incorrect interpretation of the inspection compliance times. This AD corresponds to EASA AD 2012-0194, dated September 25, 2012, and both ADs refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, for compliance times, which specifies the affected airplanes and corresponding compliance times. Paragraph (k) of this AD also specifies exceptions to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, in order to clarify certain actions and compliance times. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.
UPS requested that the header for paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) be revised from “Initial Compliance Times” to “Inspection Compliance Times.” (Paragraph (j) of the proposed AD is redesignated as paragraph (h) of this AD.) UPS stated that “Initial Compliance Times” implies that requirements for subsequent or repetitive actions will be defined elsewhere in the final rule.
We agree to revise the header for paragraph (h) of this AD; however we do not agree to use the terminology specified by the commenter. The requirements for subsequent and
In addition, we have clarified the corrective action statement in paragraph (i) of this AD by also referring to paragraph (g) of this AD, which contains the repetitive interval for the inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
UPS requested that we remove the sentence “For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD” from paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014), which is designated as paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. UPS stated that the FAA included this sentence in the NPRM because there is a “potential” for operators to do repairs that do not adequately address the unsafe condition. UPS commented that adding a reference to the applicable AD on repair documentation does not address the root cause of repair documentation availability. UPS stated that previously approved repairs for an AD should have been vetted as part of the corrective action and AD development process. However, if a repair is not identified during that process, the operator is still responsible for adhering to the Airworthy Product provision in an AD. UPS added that the Airworthy Product provision, in conjunction with FAA Advisory Circular 120-77, “Maintenance and Alteration Data,” dated October 7, 2002 (
We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals specifically refer to this AD. We have revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD accordingly (designated as paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014)).
In addition, to address misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA approved, which is also FAA approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information. This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. Once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
UPS requested that we clarify paragraphs (k) and (l) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014). UPS stated that paragraph (l) of the proposed AD specifies “post-modification” actions, but paragraph (k) refers to accomplishing a “repair” using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. UPS noted that Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, includes subsequent inspection requirements for airplanes on which the actions specified in repair drawing R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033 were done. UPS concluded that the intent of paragraph (l) of the proposed AD was for repairs outside of Repair Drawing R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033.
We agree that clarification is necessary regarding which action is the “modification” specified in paragraph (j) in this AD, which was designated as paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014). We have replaced the text “After modification of the airplane, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011,” with the following text: “For airplanes on which the modification specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R571504040 has been done.”
UPS requested that we revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) to clarify that airplanes are excluded from the applicability if Airbus Modification 8608 is incorporated “in production.”
We agree with the commenter. Airbus Modification 8608 is a production modification. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly by adding “in production” to the text.
UPS requested that the paragraph designation for paragraph (o)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) be revised because there are only two sub-paragraphs in paragraph (o) of the proposed AD.
We agree. Paragraph (o) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) has been redesignated as paragraph (m) of this AD. Therefore, we have redesignated paragraph (o)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) as paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.
We have revised the compliance time exception in paragraph (k)(4) of this AD, designated as paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014), to clarify the specified compliance times are since first flight of the airplane.
We have also revised the reference to “paragraph (k)(3) of this AD” within paragraph (g) of this AD to specify “paragraph (k) of this AD” for the compliance time exception.
We have also replaced the word “repairing” with the word “inspecting” in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD because that paragraph specifies compliance times for inspection requirements.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014).
Airbus has issued the following service information:
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting, and repair.
• Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011, describes procedures for modifying the airplane by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8, including doing the eddy current inspections for cracks of the bolt holes.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it takes 8 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $14,280, or $680 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 42 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $13,570 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus Modification 8608 is incorporated in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the vertical web of the center spar sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent analyses that showed that the inspection threshold and interval specified in AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8. We are issuing this AD to prevent crack formation in the sealing angles; such cracks could rupture the sealing angle and lead to subsequent crack formation in the bottom skin of the wing, and resultant reduced structural integrity of the center spar section of the wing.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
For all airplanes, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD concurrently. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the values as specified in the “Repeat Interval” column in Table 1 or Table 2 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, as applicable to the airplane configuration and utilization; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.
(1) Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting for cracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.
(2) Unless already done: Modify the airplane by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8, adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting, including doing the eddy current inspections for cracks
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Threshold Inspection,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.
(2) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Grace Period,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(1), or (g)(2) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, repair the crack by replacing both of the forward and aft sealing angles with new sealing angles and cold expansion of the attachment holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. The corrective actions, as required by this paragraph, do not constitute as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
For airplanes on which the modification specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R571504040 has been done: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, or before further flight after doing the modification, whichever occurs later, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for repetitive post-repair inspections and corrective actions, and do those actions.
(1) Where Note 01 and Note 02 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify to contact Airbus for inspection requirements, this AD requires, at the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Grace Period,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, inspecting using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specifies a compliance time in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Grace Period,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify a choice between flight cycles or flight hours, this AD requires a compliance time within the specified flight cycles or flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(4) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify compliance times in the “Threshold Inspection” column for pre-modification 8609, those compliance times are flight cycles or flight hours since first flight of the airplane.
(5) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify compliance times in the “Threshold Inspection” column for any post modification or repair, this AD requires compliance within the applicable compliance time specified in the “Threshold Inspection” column of Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. Those compliance times are flight cycles or flight hours since accomplishing the modification or repair.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 04, dated August 4, 1999.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 05, dated November 21, 2002.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 06, dated March 2, 2005.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2012-0194, dated September 25, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2001-13-51 for Bell Model 206L-4, 407, and 427 helicopters. AD 2001-13-51 required inspecting certain driveshafts for a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue and replacing a driveshaft if there is a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue. AD 2001-13-51 also required notifying the FAA within 10 days if a crack is found in the driveshaft. This new AD retains the inspection requirement of AD 2001-13-51, expands the applicability to include the Model 429 helicopter, and removes the reporting requirement. This AD is intended to prevent failure of a driveshaft, loss of drive to the main rotor system, and a subsequent emergency landing.
This AD is effective September 24, 2015.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Matthew Fuller, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On August 22, 2014, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (79 FR 54922, September 15, 2014) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2001-13-51, Amendment 39-12443 (66 FR 48535, September 21, 2001). AD 2001-13-51 applied to Bell Model 206L-4, 407 and 427 helicopters. AD 2001-13-51 required visually inspecting driveshaft, part number (P/N) 206-340-300-105, for a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue and replacing a driveshaft if there is a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue. AD 2001-13-51 also required notifying the FAA within 10 days if a crack is found in the driveshaft and prohibited interchanging a driveshaft between different models if the driveshaft has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter.
After we issued AD 2001-13-51, the Model 429 helicopter was certificated. TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued Canadian AD CF-2002-03R3, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2013, to add Model 429 helicopters to the applicability and to require removing any driveshaft, part number (P/N) 206-340-300-105, if it has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter.
The NPRM proposed to retain the inspection requirements of AD 2001-13-51, expand the applicability to include the Model 429 helicopters, and remove the reporting requirement.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 54922, September 15, 2014).
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCAA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the Canadian AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCAA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The TCCA AD requires following the compliance time specified in the Bell ASBs, which allows more time, based on the hours TIS, for removing the driveshaft. This AD requires replacing the driveshaft before accumulating 1,250 hours TIS.
We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-01-123, Revision A, dated February 22, 2006, for Bell Model 206L-4 helicopters and ASB No. 427-01-04, Revision A, dated March 31, 2006, for Bell Model 427 helicopters. Both ASBs describe inspecting the Historical Service Record of the engine-to-transmission driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, to determine whether the driveshaft has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter and removing the driveshaft if it has ever been installed on a Model 407 helicopter. We also reviewed Bell ASB No. 407-01-45, Revision B, dated April 23, 2013, for Bell Model 407 helicopters, which describes an engine-to-transmission driveshaft 1,250-Hour overhaul. TCCA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2002-03R3, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2013, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
We estimate that this AD affects 970 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. We estimate 0.25 work-hour to determine whether the driveshaft has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter for a total cost of $22 per helicopter or $21,340 for the fleet. If a driveshaft has been installed on a Model 407 helicopter, we estimate 1 work hour to inspect the driveshaft for a cost of $85 per helicopter, and 2 work hours and $39,724 for required parts to replace a driveshaft for a cost of $39,894 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model 206L-4, 407, 427, and 429 helicopters with an engine-to-transmission driveshaft assembly (driveshaft), part number (P/N) 206-340-300-105, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a driveshaft due to cracking of the flex frame on the forward end of the driveshaft. This condition could result in loss of drive to the main rotor system and a subsequent emergency forced landing.
This AD supersedes AD 2001-13-51, Amendment 39-12443, Docket No. 2001-SW-29-AD (66 FR 48535, September 21, 2001).
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), determine whether driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter, and record this on the component history card or equivalent record. If driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter:
(i) For Bell Model 206L-4, 407, and 427 helicopters, within 25 hours TIS, inspect each driveshaft for a crack, a loose bolt or nut, and red powder residue. If there is a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue, replace the driveshaft with an airworthy driveshaft before further flight.
(ii) For all affected Bell model helicopters, on or before accumulating 1,250 hours TIS, replace each driveshaft with an airworthy driveshaft.
(2) Do not install driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, on any helicopter if it has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matthew Fuller, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-01-123, Revision A, dated February 22, 2006; ASB No. 427-01-04, Revision A, dated March 31, 2006; and ASB No. 407-01-45, Revision B, dated April 23, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF-2002-03R3, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2013. You may view the TCCA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300 Main Rotor Drive System.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that on airplanes equipped
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 24, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email account.airworth
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0186, dated August 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During A320 Neo review, Airbus design office identified that on A320 family aeroplanes equipped with sharklets, discretes used to activate the load alleviation function are connected on various flight computers using the same ground point. In that case, the ground point segregation is no longer effective and a single failure could lead to loss of sharklet identification by the flight computers, inducing a return to the wing tip fence (no sharklet configuration) behaviour.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced control of the aeroplane, depending on aeroplane configuration and flight phase.
It has been determined that Airbus mod 156108 restores the correct segregation. However, since introduction of sharklet mod 160500 and mod 160023, a number of aeroplanes equipped with sharklets have been delivered without incorporating mod 156108. In addition, mod 156108 was not included in certain SBs [service bulletins] that introduce the sharklet device in service onto aeroplanes with a reinforced wing, previously operated with a wing tip fence. Airbus mod 156108 has now been introduced into Airbus SB A320-57-1186 at Rev.03 and will be introduced at next revisions of SB A320-57-1173 and SB A320-57-1187.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published SB A320-27-1240 for in-service installation of mod 156108.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires modification of the sharklet ground connection.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 3520, January 23, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3520, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3520, January 23, 2015).
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1240, dated June 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modification of the sharklet ground connection. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 46 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $347 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $70,702, or $1,537 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification (mod) 160500 or mod 160023 has been embodied in production, and those that have been modified in service through the Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1173, A320-57-1186, or A320-57-1187, except those on which Airbus mod 156108 has been embodied in production.
(1) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(2) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(3) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports that on airplanes equipped with sharklets, discretes (used to activate the load alleviation function) are connected on various flight computers using the same ground point. In these cases, the ground point segregation is no longer effective, and a single failure could lead to loss of sharklet identification by flight computers causing a return to the wing tip fence (no sharklet configuration) performance. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of sharklet identification by the flight computers and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the sharklet ground connection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1240, dated June 18, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0186, dated August 19, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1240, dated June 18, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-21-01 for Eurocopter France Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. AD 2013-21-01 required certain inspections of each tail rotor pitch horn assembly (pitch horn) for a crack, replacing a cracked pitch horn before further flight, and a one-time visual inspection of pitch horns above certain hours time-in-service (TIS). This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2013-21-01 but requires a repetitive visual inspection for all pitch horns regardless of hours TIS. This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn and is intended to detect a crack in the pitch horn to prevent failure of the pitch horn, loss of the anti-torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective September 24, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On May 30, 2014, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (79 FR 32881, June 9, 2014) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2013-21-01, Amendment 39-17625 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013) and add a new AD. AD 2013-21-01 applied to Eurocopter France Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters and required a one-time visual inspection of each pitch horn with 135 or more hours TIS for a crack and replacing the pitch horn if there is a crack. AD 2013-21-01 also required a dye-penetrant inspection of any pitch horn before it is installed. AD 2013-21-01 was prompted by AD No. 2013-0133, dated June 28, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. EASA advises of an ongoing investigation of a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn for which a cause has not been determined. The EASA AD requires repetitive visual inspections of each pitch horn for a crack and replacing the pitch horn with a serviceable assembly if a crack is found.
The NPRM proposed to continue to require the visual inspection for the pitch horn but to require it for all pitch horns regardless of hours TIS. The NPRM also proposed to require repeating the visual inspection every 165 hours TIS and changing the requirement for the dye penetration inspection so that it only applies to pitch horns that are not new. Also, since we issued AD 2013-12-01, Eurocopter France changed its name to Airbus Helicopters. The NPRM proposed to reflect that change.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 32881, June 9, 2014).
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.
The EASA AD applies to Eurocopter Model AS350BB that does not have an FAA type certificate and therefore is not a part of this AD. The EASA AD does not apply to Eurocopter Model AS350C or AS350D1, but this AD does because those models have an FAA type certificate and may have the applicable pitch horn installed. This AD requires a dye-penetrant inspection before installing a pitch horn; the EASA AD does not.
We reviewed a Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB), Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013, with four different numbers. EASB No. 05.00.74 is for Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, and D helicopters; and EASB No. 05.00.65 is for Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters. EASB No. 05.00.74 and EASB No. 05.00.65 are co-published as one document along with EASB No. 05.00.49 and EASB No. 05.00.44, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD. These EASBs specify Airbus
EASA classified these EASBs as mandatory and issued EASA AD No. 2013-0133, dated June 28, 2013, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
We estimate that this AD will affect 938 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work hour. We estimate 0.1 work hours to visually inspect a pitch horn for a total cost of $8.50 per helicopter or $7,973 for the fleet, per inspection cycle. We estimate 1 work hour to do a dye-penetrant inspection for a total cost of $85 per helicopter. We estimate 1 work hour to replace a part, if necessary, and a cost for required parts of $1,946, for a total cost of $2,031 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters with tail rotor hub pitch horn (pitch horn) assembly, part number (P/N) 350A121368.01, 350A121368.02, 350A121368.03, or 350A121368.04, with a pitch horn, P/N 350A121368.XX, where XX stands for a two-digit dash number, installed, certificated in any category. The pitch horn may be marked with either the pitch horn assembly P/N or pitch horn P/N.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn. This condition could result in failure of a pitch horn, loss of the anti-torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes 2013-21-01, Amendment 39-17625 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013).
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) For parts with 155 or less hours time-in-service (TIS), before exceeding 165 hours TIS, or for parts with more than 155 hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 165 hours TIS, visually inspect each pitch horn for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.74 or No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1 and both dated June 25, 2013, as appropriate for your model helicopter.
(2) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the pitch horn with an airworthy pitch horn.
(3) Do not install a pitch horn, P/N 350A121368 (any dash number), with more than 0 hours TIS on any helicopter unless it has passed a dye penetrant inspection for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of Eurocopter EASB No. 05.00.74 or No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1 and both dated June 25, 2013, as appropriate for your model helicopter.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0133, dated June 28, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6400 Tail Rotor.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013).
(i) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.74, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013.
(ii) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.65, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013.
Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.74 and No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1, and both dated June 25, 2013, are co-published as one document along with Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.49 and No. 05.00.44, both Revision 1, and both dated June 25, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod. This AD requires replacement of left and right fixed control rods and lever assemblies of the elevator control system. We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod, which could lead to un-commanded elevator movement of the associated control surface, a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surfaces, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 24, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-44, dated December 9, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:
During an engineering review of the Elevator Control system, it was discovered that a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod could lead to uncommanded elevator movement of the associated control surface. This uncommanded movement may cause a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surface resulting in reduced controllability of the aeroplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the existing elevator lever assemblies and control rods with newly designed ones, which will prevent a disconnect between the components of the elevator control system should a failure occur.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The
SkyWest Airlines and Mesa Airlines Inc. requested that we include Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, in paragraph (g) of this AD. Both commenters also requested that we revise paragraph (h) of this AD to include credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014. SkyWest Airlines indicated that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, includes changes to some steps and addition of others that deal with the rigging pins P2 and P3. SkyWest Airlines pointed out that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, also makes a change to Sheet 1 of 1 of Figure 4, which consists of adding part numbers to the item descriptions.
We agree with the request to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, in paragraph (g) of this AD and revise paragraph (h) of this AD to include credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014. Although some steps have changed, the procedures remain the same in both revisions of the service information. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15528, March 24, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15528, March 24, 2015).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the elevator lever assemblies and control rods. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $6,712 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,160,800, or $7,902 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 10002 through 10337 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, S/Ns 15001 through 15298 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod. We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod, which could lead to un-commanded elevator movement of the associated control surface, a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surfaces, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 9,200 flight hours or 5 years, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Replace the left and right fixed control rods and lever assemblies of the elevator control system with newly designed control rods and lever assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, dated December 12, 2013; Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision A, dated April 1, 2014; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-44, dated December 9, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule, order on clarification; correction.
This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM12-11-003) which was published in the
Effective October 7, 2015.
On July 16, 2015, the Commission issued a Final Rule in the above
In FR Doc. 2015-17919 appearing on page 43949 in the
1. On page 43949, in the second column, § 157.216(b)(2)(i)(A) of the regulatory text is revised to read as follows:
“(A) Will not exceed the cost limit in § 157.208(d) for activities under the prior notice provisions;”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) to award priority review vouchers (PRVs) to tropical disease product applicants when the applications meet certain criteria. The FD&C Act lists the diseases that are considered to be tropical diseases for purposes of obtaining PRVs, and also provides for Agency expansion of that list to include other diseases that satisfy the definition of “tropical diseases” as set forth in the FD&C Act. FDA has determined that Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis satisfy this definition, and therefore is adding them to the list of designated tropical diseases whose product applications may result in the award of PRVs. Sponsors submitting certain applications for the treatment of Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis may be eligible to receive a PRV if such applications are approved by FDA.
This order is effective August 20, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to
Kristiana Brugger, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6262, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
Much of the global burden of disease falls on populations who lack the resources to develop, encourage development of, or purchase disease preventions or treatments. For this reason, many of the diseases afflicting these populations do not receive the same level of innovation investment as diseases afflicting wealthier or more empowered populations.
Section 524 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n), which was added by section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), is designed to address the lack of treatment development incentives for such tropical diseases. It uses a PRV incentive to encourage the development of new drugs for prevention and treatment of certain diseases that, in the aggregate, affect millions of people throughout the world. Specifically, section 524 of the FD&C Act defines the term “tropical disease product application” and sets forth criteria which, if met, enable those who submit an application for a tropical disease product to be eligible to receive a PRV upon approval of that tropical disease product application. To be eligible for a PRV, the tropical disease product application must meet all of the following criteria:
• The application must be a “human drug application,” as defined in section 735(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379g(1)).
• The application must be for the “prevention or treatment of a tropical disease,” as defined by statute.
• The application must be deemed eligible for priority review by the Secretary of HHS.
• The application must be approved after the date of enactment of FDAAA (
• The application must be for “a human drug, no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of the active ingredient) of which has been approved in any other application under section 505(b)(1) [21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)] or section 351 of the [PHS Act].”
FDA will award a PRV to the application holder upon the approval of a qualifying tropical disease product application that meets the criteria previously listed. The voucher entitles the holder to a priority review of a human drug application, submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351 of the PHS Act, of the voucher holder's choosing. Once awarded to the application holder, the PRV may be transferred to another entity, and the original holder may receive consideration (including payment) for the transfer. To redeem the voucher, a PRV holder must notify FDA of its intent to use the PRV at least 90 days prior to the submission of the application for which the PRV will be used. This notification constitutes a legally binding agreement to pay the user fee that must be applied to applications using a PRV.
Section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act lists the following diseases as tropical diseases qualifying for a PRV:
On December 12, 2008, FDA convened a public hearing, at which the public provided suggestions regarding the following topics: (1) Criteria that should be used to determine the eligibility of an infectious disease for designation as a tropical disease, (2) the process that should be used to make tropical disease designations, and (3) recommendations for specific diseases that should be designated as tropical diseases. A number of participants in the public meeting commented that, given the lack of definitive data for some diseases, as well as the lack of consensus on how these criteria should be defined, FDA should use a flexible approach in determining whether specific diseases meet the criteria.
FDA agrees with the use of a flexible approach to tropical disease designation and is proposing that a scientifically informed, qualitative assessment of disease candidates is appropriate. FDA also is establishing a public docket that will continuously remain open to receive future suggestions for tropical disease designations under section 524 of the FD&C Act. The Agency proposes to review the contents of this public docket periodically and to take action to designate additional diseases when appropriate.
As stated previously, section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to designate by order “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations and that disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” as a “tropical disease.” In the following paragraphs, FDA sets forth its interpretation of this provision and the criteria we propose to use in determining which diseases may be designated by order of the Secretary as “tropical diseases” under section 524.
In interpreting the term “developed nations,” FDA acknowledges at the outset that the standards for determining a nation's level of development, as well as the threshold for a “developed” country, are the subject of debate. Some nations may score well in some markers of development (
FDA recognizes that there is a correlation between economic strength (particularly purchasing power) and the market incentive for drug creation: People in high-income economies are more likely to be able to afford disease treatments and, thus, drug companies have an incentive to create products that will be in demand in those countries. The World Bank list of high-income economies is calculated based on gross national income per capita, and, importantly, it thus reflects wealth as a primary basis for categorization. FDA's recognition of the role of wealth is why we deemed the U.N. development index less helpful: It measures development across a broad array of categories (
The list of tropical diseases in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C includes “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations. . .designated by order of the Secretary.” As an initial matter, the Agency notes that “infectious diseases,” as such do not have markets—but drugs for the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases do. Because the statute offers vouchers for applications for drugs for either the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases, it is reasonable to assume that “no significant market” can refer to drugs for the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases. Thus, FDA will analyze the market for drugs for both the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases for a particular infectious disease.
The threshold for what constitutes a “significant market” for drugs for the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases is difficult to quantify. Because of the challenges in providing a rigid definition of this term, FDA proposes that the following factors be considered in determining whether a “significant market” exists in developed countries.
As discussed previously, market forces are important drivers of drug development. The purpose of section 524 of the FD&C Act is to provide an incentive (through a PRV) for innovation where there otherwise would be an insufficient financial or market incentive to invest in developing drugs for tropical diseases. The market for many FDA-approved products includes situations in which individuals (often reimbursed by their insurers) purchase the products for use by a specific patient. This reflects what we will refer to as the “direct” market, and the direct market for a drug in a
If the prevalence of a disease in developed countries is less than 0.1 percent of the population of those countries, it is unlikely that ordinary market forces will offer a sufficient incentive to drive the development of new preventions or treatments. Thus, it is unlikely that there will be a “significant market” for the disease's treatment in those countries. Accordingly, FDA has decided to use a disease prevalence rate of 0.1 percent of the population as a factor for aiding in the determination of whether a “significant market” may exist for a disease's treatment.
As discussed previously, the market for many FDA-approved products is the “direct” market, involving patients purchasing drugs for their own use. However, some drugs may have a sizeable “indirect” market composed of, for example, government entities or nongovernmental organizations that wish to purchase and distribute a drug for the treatment or prevention of an infectious disease, often for public health reasons, to a particular group of people. Indeed, for some diseases identified as high priorities for public health preparedness, governmental entities have initiated programs to provide support for product development and/or stockpiling (Ref. 7).
As with the term “no significant market in developed nations,” FDA has elected to analyze multiple factors—none of which, alone, invariably will be outcome-determinative—in assessing whether a given disease meets the requirement of “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” for classification as a “tropical disease” under section 524 of the FD&C Act. Those factors are the following:
A disability-adjusted life year (DALY) measurement is not a direct measure of the prevalence of the disease; rather, it is a measure of the impact of that disease on a given population. “One DALY can be thought of as one lost year of 'healthy' life” (Ref. 11). An estimate of disease-related morbidity (a term which, as used in this order, refers to the state of being diseased (see Ref. 12)) and mortality in affected countries thus can be made by assessing available information about the DALY burden of a particular disease. “DALYs for a disease or health condition are calculated as the sum of the Years of Life Lost. . .due to premature mortality in the population and the Years Lost due to Disability. . .for people living with the health condition or its consequences” (Ref. 11). DALYs are an important measurement, enabling FDA to weigh “tropical disease” eligibility for those diseases that, although they may be present to some degree in developed countries (
If a disease's prevalence is high in populations who cannot afford treatment and low in populations that can, there likely will be little market incentive for drug companies to create new treatments. In light of section 524 of the FD&C Act's intent to create treatment development incentives, as well as its clear goal of improving the health of impoverished populations, FDA will consider the demographic distribution of a disease in determining whether it should be designated as a “tropical disease” for the purposes of section 524 of the FD&C Act.
One of the clear goals of section 524 of the FD&C Act is improving the health of marginalized populations, who generally suffer poorer health outcomes than their non-marginalized neighbors, even within the same country. To “marginalize” is to place (or keep) a person or population in a powerless or unimportant position (see,
The World Health Organization (WHO), in its role as the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the U.N. system, has identified a list of diseases that it refers to as “neglected tropical diseases” (Ref. 14). According to the WHO, these diseases “are strongly associated with poverty” and tend to affect those with “little political voice”; rarely receive the attention of disease treatment innovators or the broader international community; and often flourish in tropical climates (id.). The WHO's list includes 12 of the 17 enumerated diseases in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act (see Ref. 15). Because the WHO's list of “neglected tropical diseases” includes many of the types of diseases for which section 524 was designed to incentivize treatment development, FDA believes it is reasonable to consider WHO's “neglected tropical disease” designations in determining whether a disease should be designated as a
FDA has considered a number of diseases recommended in response to the
• Chagas disease.
• Neurocysticercosis.
Chagas disease, also known as American trypanosomiasis, is a vector-borne parasitic disease caused by the protozoan
Chagas disease has a disproportionate effect on poor and marginalized populations. Developing countries in Central and South America suffer most of the global DALYs lost because of the disease (
There also is no significant market for Chagas disease treatment in developed nations. Based on estimates derived by applying published seroprevalence data to immigrant population estimates in the United States, it is estimated that there are just over 300,000 persons infected with
There are no approved vaccines or other preventative therapies for the disease, either in the United States or elsewhere. The only drugs used to treat Chagas are benznidazole and nifurtimox, which are not approved in the United States for this use. In addition to the lack of a commercial market in developed countries (presumably because of the low prevalence of disease), there does not seem to be a sizeable indirect (
Given the factors described in this document, FDA has determined that Chagas disease meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating Chagas disease as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.
Cysticercosis is a disease caused by infection with
Neurocysticercosis disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations. Indeed, patients who have infection with
FDA also has determined that neurocysticercosis products have no significant market in developed nations. Although the disease does occur in the United States, estimates of annual incidence rates in the general U.S. population are low, at approximately 0.2 cases per 100,000 population. Incidence rates are much higher among Hispanics living in the United States, who most likely acquired the tapeworm in cysticercosis-endemic areas of Central and South America (Ref. 25), with estimates ranging between 3.1 and 5.8 cases per 100,000 Hispanic population (Ref. 26). FDA also is unaware of evidence suggesting any sizeable military, government, or other indirect market for neurocysticercosis products.
In view of the disease characteristics discussed previously, FDA considers the statutory criteria for addition of neurocysticercosis to the list of tropical
The purpose of this order is to add diseases to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act. By expanding the list with this order, FDA does not mean to preclude the future addition of other diseases to this list. To facilitate the consideration of future additions to the list, FDA is establishing a public docket (see
This final order establishes a public docket through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act. This request for information is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Specifically, “[f]acts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Final rule.
This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing portability in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. Portability is a feature of the HCV program that allows an eligible family with a housing choice voucher to use that voucher to lease a unit anywhere in the United States where there is a public housing agency (PHA) operating an HCV program. The purpose of HUD's changes to the portability regulations is to enable PHAs to better serve families and expand housing opportunities by improving portability processes.
Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher and Management Operations Division, Office of Housing Choice Vouchers, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone number 202-708-0477 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The purpose of this final rule is to improve the portability process of the HCV program. Under the HCV program, the participating family is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program. As a means to enable housing choice and mobility to encourage social and economic integration, the HCV program offers voucher portability; that is, the ability of a voucher holder to use the voucher assistance outside the jurisdiction of the PHA that initially issues the family its voucher. While portability offers an important mechanism to increase housing choice, this feature has not been maximized by PHAs and participating families because the current process for allowing a family to move from one jurisdiction to another is time consuming and burdensome. HUD recognizes that for the HCV program's goals to support mobility and housing choice to be realized, the regulations governing the portability process must be clarified so that the burden on families and the PHA is reduced. This final rule completes the rulemaking process, which commenced in 2012, to revise the existing portability regulations to streamline the portability process and facilitate the ability of participating families to move to the jurisdiction of their choice.
The key regulatory changes by this final rule include:
• Removing the mandatory absorption requirement discussed in the proposed rule and clarifying the notification requirement for mandatory voucher suspension;
• Requiring an initial PHA to notify the local HUD office within 10 business days of a determination to deny a portability move based on insufficient funding;
• Providing that the voucher issued by the receiving PHA to the family may not expire before 30 calendar days has passed from the expiration date of the initial PHA's voucher;
• Requiring briefings for all participating on how portability works and the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts; and
• Allowing a family to choose the receiving PHA to administer their voucher should they choose to use portability.
The changes made by this final rule are designed to minimize burden for PHAs and participating HCV families and thereby increase the ability of participating families to live in areas of their choice or relocate to a new area for employment opportunities or to gain access to preferred schools for their children. In addition, the improved portability process contributes to helping victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking have access to the resources necessary to relocate to a safe, stable home away from an abuser. Further, moves to areas with relatively low concentrations of neighborhood poverty have shown to relay important benefits to housing choice voucher families, in particular mental and physical health for adults and long-term educational and earning gains for young children. HUD recognizes that some policies may increase burden for some PHAs; however, the added clarity to the portability process afforded by this final rule is expected to improve the portability process and reduce the burden on families and PHAs.
The streamlining changes do not add any substantial cost to the HCV program.
On March 28, 2012, at 77 FR 18731, HUD published a rule in the
Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by PHAs. PHAs receive Federal funds from HUD to administer the HCV program. Under the HCV program, housing assistance is provided on behalf of the participating family who is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of their choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. The participant is free to choose any rental housing, including single family homes, townhouses, and apartments, that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home.
A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. The PHA determines the amount that the family will contribute toward rent, which is generally 30 percent of its adjusted annual income. A key feature
The term “portability” refers to the process of leasing a dwelling unit with tenant-based housing voucher assistance outside of the jurisdiction of the PHA that initially issued the family its voucher (the initial PHA). The HCV regulations, found at 24 CFR 982.353 through 982.355, detail where a family may move and the responsibilities of the initial PHA and the receiving PHA (the PHA with jurisdiction over the area to which the family desires to move). Situations have arisen over time that caused HUD to identify several issues that may delay or impede the ability of families to relocate with their voucher.
This final rule takes into consideration public comment received on the March 28, 2012, proposed rule and: (1) More clearly delineates the roles of initial and receiving PHAs; (2) improves accountability in portability billing arrangements between PHAs; and (3) allows families to more easily search for and lease a rental unit in their desired location.
In response to public comment and following further consideration of portability issues by HUD, this final rule makes certain changes to the regulations proposed in the March 28, 2012, rule. Changes made in response to public comment, issues raised by commenters, and HUD's responses to the comments are further addressed in Section III of this preamble.
The following highlights the more substantive changes made to the proposed rule at this final rule stage:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
HUD makes technical revisions to §§ 982.301(b)(1), 982.554(c)(4), and 982.637(c)(1) to conform with the policy changes implemented elsewhere in this final rule. Finally, HUD revises §§ 982.403(c), 982.551(f), and 982.641(b)(11) to correct an incorrect citation.
The comment period for the proposed rule closed May 29, 2012. HUD received 52 comments on this proposed rule. The commenters included PHAs, organizations representing the public housing industry, tenant advocacy groups, State and local government agencies, and other interested members of the public.
The majority of comments were from PHAs and public housing representative organizations. The PHAs that commented varied in size and geography. In general, the comments from PHAs were mixed. There were several proposals that PHAs supported (
As noted earlier, HUD revised the proposed language on mandatory voucher suspensions to clarify that the suspension lasts until the family is notified in writing by the PHA whether the request for PHA-approval of the tenancy has been approved or denied. Specifying that the family must be notified before the voucher suspension ends provides clarity and avoids potential disputes between families and PHAs. See § § 982.4 and 982.303(c).
HUD agrees that more specificity is needed with respect to the time frames associated with this requirement. The final rule provides that a PHA must notify HUD in writing within 10 business days of the date on which the PHA determines it is necessary to deny moves based on insufficient funding. If HUD determines that the PHA lacks the grounds to deny moves due to insufficient funding, the PHA must immediately inform any affected family and immediately process the family's request to move.
In order to specify the procedures related to SPVs, the proposed rule set out requirements relating to portability moves of SPVs that were applicable to all SPVs; however, due to the intricacies of each SPV program, HUD determined that specific portability procedures for each SPV are better suited for guidance and not regulation.
Finally, some commenters claimed that HUD's policy to prohibit PHAs from reversing a decision to absorb a voucher may cause some PHAs to be more inclined to not absorb a voucher. HUD was unable to find evidence that the requirement will have such an effect, or that the impact on portability billings will be significant. Moreover, HUD determined that it is important to eliminate the potential negative effect such a reversal could have on the family.
HUD agrees that the language in the proposed rule was too restrictive and has changed the language in the final rule to accommodate extensions of the term of the receiving PHA voucher beyond 30 calendar days if the receiving PHA chooses to allow such extensions. See § 982.355(c)(13).
Several commenters requested clarification of the administrative fee structure. The commenters wrote the proposed rule does not address the proration issue and that it is unclear if the cap is based on the receiving PHAs' published fee or prorated fee. These commenters stated that they were also unclear which PHA is responsible for determining fees.
Other commenters suggested alternatives or changes to the proposed administrative fee requirements. Commenters suggested that HUD consider prohibiting PHAs from prorating administrative fees for their outgoing portability vouchers and simply use the 80 percent of the published administrative fee. Other commenters suggested a flat administrative fee to be paid to the receiving PHA. Commenters also suggested that HUD consider reinstatement of the “hard to house” fee for SPVs.
HUD also revises § 982.355(e)(3) to mirror, where appropriate, the language concerning ongoing administrative fees under current voucher regulations at § 982.152(b)(1). The paragraph is also revised to clarify that the receiving PHA is not precluded from billing an initial PHA for more than 100 percent of its own administrative fee if both PHAs agree to a different amount of reimbursement that is more than 100 percent of the receiving PHA's administrative fees. HUD agrees with commenters that, as stated in the proposed rule, HUD does not address whether the administrative fee is based on the initial PHA's published or prorated fee. Therefore, HUD is adding language to clarify that, if administrative fees are prorated for the HCV program, the proration will apply to the amount of the administrative fee for which the receiving PHA may bill under this section (
Several other commenters expressed opposition to the proposal, stating that the proposed provision fails to take local circumstances into consideration. Some commenters expressed concern about possible negative consequences for small PHAs. They wrote that mandatory absorption may hurt small PHAs if they have a small allocation of vouchers or some vouchers are canceled or terminated. Therefore, a small PHA may instead prefer to draw from its waiting list, instead of absorbing porting vouchers. Other commenters wrote that imposing requirements on some PHAs to absorb portable vouchers without making absorption the standard solution is problematic. Finally, commenters also expressed concern that the burden would fall disproportionately on SPVs.
After consideration of such factors, HUD decided not to adopt the mandatory absorption requirement as proposed. This final rule continues to afford HUD the ability to mandate absorptions on a case-by-case basis. Should HUD determine to impose such a requirement in the future for all PHAs that: (1) Are utilizing less than 95 percent of their available budget authority, and (2) have a leasing rate of less than 95 percent, it shall do so through a notice in the
Of those commenters that responded to the request in the proposed rule, a few supported a transfer of funds between the initial and receiving PHAs for portability vouchers, while others were against it. Some commenters wrote that tracking transfers of this type would be an added administrative burden on HUD and PHAs. Commenters noted that PHAs with a high percentage of outgoing portability vouchers would be disproportionately affected by such transfers. A high volume of voucher transfers may jeopardize these PHAs' operations, and make the PHAs' budgets more unstable and less predictable. Commenters favoring the transfers of ACC funds for portability wrote that such transfers would result in numerous efficiencies by eliminating billing arrangements among PHAs.
As for sharing the costs between PHAs, a commenter wrote that it is unfair for the initial PHA to pay no more than the family's subsidy to the receiving PHA because it does not recognize the real cost for the receiving PHA for administering the voucher, but the commenter suggested that an administrative fee should still be paid.
Other commenters, all PHAs, supported rescreening by the receiving PHA. A commenter wrote that PHAs cannot be expected to operate using multiple screening standards. A commenter also wrote that it is unfair to families that are ineligible under the receiving PHA's criteria, while those from another jurisdiction are allowed to participate in the HCV program.
HUD has also determined that an explanation of the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts should be provided to all families, not just those families living in high-poverty census tracts. This explanation of benefits should also be included in the information packet provided to families selected to participate in the HCV program.
In making this determination HUD considered the effect on both families and PHAs. While families who already live in low-poverty census tracts may be aware of the benefits of living in such areas, not all families may have such awareness, and HUD does not see any disadvantages in providing all families such information. While there may be some administrative cost to PHAs in providing such information to all families selected to participate in the program, this change will also provide some administrative relief for PHAs. With the change, PHAs will not have to determine which families live in high-poverty census tracts to determine who needs the additional briefing. In this regard, a commenter wrote that most PHAs already provide the same information regardless of where the family lives.
HUD determined that information on how portability works should be provided during the briefing and as part of the information packet to every family, not just those who are eligible to move under portability. Accordingly, HUD revised the regulation at § 982.301(a)(2) and § 982.301(b)(4). HUD is also revising some of the required content of the family briefings related to portability in this final rule. In addition to an explanation of how portability works, the briefing should also include information on how portability may affect the family's assistance through rescreening, changes in subsidy standards and payment standards, and any other elements of the portability process that may affect the family's assistance.
Accordingly, HUD is revising § 982.355(b) to clarify that the family has the option to select the receiving PHA.
As noted earlier in this preamble, HUD already imposes a firm deadline on portability billings and provides mechanisms that the receiving PHA may use in cases where the initial PHA fails to comply with the initial and subsequent billing due dates. (See Section 8 of Notice PIH 2012-42, Housing Choice Voucher Family Moves with Continued Assistance.)
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive order).
This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing portability in the HCV program. These regulatory changes streamline the portability process and enable initial and receiving PHAs to better serve families and expand housing opportunities. HUD's analysis determined that these regulatory amendments will not have an economic effect of greater than $100 million but would yield certain nontangible benefits. The findings of HUD's analysis are summarized below, and addressed in more detail in the accompanying regulatory analysis:
1.
Moves to areas with relatively low concentrations of neighborhood poverty have important benefits to housing choice voucher families. Research from HUD's Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration
2.
4.
The final rule would set the maximum amount that the initial PHA is required to pay at 100 percent of the receiving PHA's administrative fee rate. In other words, the initial PHA would reimburse the receiving PHA for the lesser of: (1) 80 percent of the initial PHA's ongoing fee or (2) the full amount of the receiving PHA's administrative fee. This change eliminates the incentive for a receiving PHA with a lower administrative fee to bill an initial PHA with a higher administrative fee in order to receive a higher administrative fee than it would normally earn from HUD. This action should reduce portability billings for those PHAs for whom 80 percent of the initial PHA's fee is more than 100 percent of their own administrative fee. For example, assume that a receiving PHA's administrative fee is $60. Prior to this rule, if a family moves to the receiving PHA's jurisdiction from an initial PHA that receives $100 in administrative fees for a housing voucher, the receiving PHA may bill the initial PHA for $80, which is $20 more than the PHA would earn if it simply absorbed the voucher. Under the final rule, the receiving PHA will receive $60 regardless of whether the receiving PHA bills the initial PHA or absorbs the family into its own program.
The full economic analysis is available for review at
The information collection requirements in the proposed rule were submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements of this rule was assigned this OMB Control Number 2577-0169.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This final rule does not impose any federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal government or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule is solely concerned with the portability feature of the voucher program. There currently are approximately 739 small PHAs (
This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Grant programs-housing and community development, Grant programs-Indians, Indians, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, HUD amends 24 CFR part 982, as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
(b) * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Issuing or denying vouchers, including PHA policy governing the voucher term and any extensions of the voucher term. If the PHA decides to allow extensions of the voucher term, the PHA administrative plan must describe how the PHA determines whether to grant extensions, and how the PHA determines the length of any extension.
(19) Restrictions, if any, on the number of moves by a participant family (see § 982.354(c));
(a) * * *
(2) An explanation of how portability works. The PHA may not discourage the family from choosing to live anywhere in the PHA jurisdiction, or outside the PHA jurisdiction under portability procedures, unless otherwise expressly authorized by statute, regulation, PIH Notice, or court order. The family must be informed of how portability may affect the family's assistance through screening, subsidy standards, payment standards, and any other elements of the portability process which may affect the family's assistance.
(3) The briefing must also explain the advantages of areas that do not have a high concentration of low-income families.
(b) * * *
(1) The term of the voucher, voucher suspensions, and PHA policy on any extensions of the term. If the PHA allows extensions, the packet must explain how the family can request an extension;
(4) Where the family may lease a unit and an explanation of how portability works, including information on how portability may affect the family's assistance through screening, subsidy standards, payment standards, and any other elements of the portability process which may affect the family's assistance.
(9) Materials (
(11) A list of landlords known to the PHA who may be willing to lease a unit to the family or other resources (
(c)
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) If the initial PHA approves, the family may lease a unit outside the PHA jurisdiction under portability procedures.
(d) * * *
(2) If a family is a participant in the initial PHA's voucher program, income eligibility is not redetermined when the family moves to the receiving PHA program under portability procedures.
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(2) Consistent with applicable civil rights laws and regulations, the PHA may establish policies that:
(i) Prohibit any move by the family during the initial lease term; and
(ii) Prohibit more than one move by the family during any one-year period.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) When the family decides to use the voucher outside of the PHA jurisdiction, the family must notify the initial PHA of its desire to relocate and must specify the location where it wants to live.
(2) The initial PHA must determine the family's eligibility to move in accordance with §§ 982.353 and 982.354.
(3) Once the receiving PHA is determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the initial PHA must contact the receiving PHA, via email or other confirmed delivery method, prior to approving the family's request to move in order to determine whether the voucher will be absorbed or billed by the receiving PHA. The receiving PHA must advise the initial PHA in writing, via email or other confirmed delivery method, of its decision.
(4) If the receiving PHA notifies the initial PHA that it will absorb the voucher, the receiving PHA cannot reverse its decision at a later date without consent of the initial PHA.
(5) If the receiving PHA will bill the initial PHA for the portability voucher and the cost of the HAP will increase due to the move, the initial PHA may deny the move if it does not have sufficient funding for continued
(6) If a billing arrangement is approved by the initial PHA or if the voucher is to be absorbed by the receiving PHA, the initial PHA must issue the family a voucher to move, if it has not already done so, and advise the family how to contact and request assistance from the receiving PHA.
(7) The initial PHA must promptly notify the receiving PHA to expect the family. The initial PHA must give the receiving PHA the form HUD-52665, the most recent form HUD 50058 (Family Report) for the family, and all related verification information.
(8) The family must promptly contact the receiving PHA in order to be informed of the receiving PHA's procedures for incoming portable families and comply with these procedures. The family's failure to comply may result in denial or termination of the receiving PHA's voucher.
(9) The receiving PHA does not redetermine eligibility for a participant family. However, for a family that was not already receiving assistance in the PHA's HCV program, the initial PHA must determine whether the family is eligible for admission to the receiving PHA's HCV program. In determining income eligibility, the receiving PHA's income limits are used by the initial PHA.
(10) When a receiving PHA assists a family under portability, administration of the voucher must be in accordance with the receiving PHA's policies. This requirement also applies to policies of Moving to Work agencies. The receiving PHA procedures and preferences for selection among eligible applicants do not apply to the family, and the receiving PHA waiting list is not used.
(11) If the receiving PHA opts to conduct a new reexamination for a current participant family, the receiving PHA may not delay issuing the family a voucher or otherwise delay approval of a unit.
(12) The receiving PHA must determine the family unit size for the family, and base its determination on the subsidy standards of the receiving PHA.
(13) The receiving PHA must issue a voucher to the family. The term of the receiving PHA voucher may not expire before 30 calendar days from the expiration date of the initial PHA voucher. If the voucher expires before the family arrives at the receiving PHA, the receiving PHA must contact the initial PHA to determine if it will extend the voucher.
(14) Once the receiving PHA issues the portable family a voucher, the receiving PHA's policies on extensions of the voucher term apply. The receiving PHA must notify the initial PHA of any extensions granted to the term of the voucher.
(15) The family must submit a request for tenancy approval to the receiving PHA during the term of the receiving PHA voucher. As required in § 982.303, if the family submits a request for tenancy approval during the term of the voucher, the PHA must suspend the term of that voucher.
(16) The receiving PHA must promptly notify the initial PHA if the family has leased an eligible unit under the program, or if the family fails to submit a request for tenancy approval for an eligible unit within the term of the voucher.
(17) At any time, either the initial PHA or the receiving PHA may make a determination to deny or terminate assistance to the family in accordance with § 982.552 and 982.553.
(d)
(2) HUD may require that the receiving PHA absorb all, or a portion of, incoming portable families. Under circumstances described in a notice published in the
(3) HUD may provide financial or nonfinancial incentives (or both) to PHAs that absorb portability vouchers.
(e)
(2) The initial PHA must promptly reimburse the receiving PHA for the full amount of the housing assistance payments made by the receiving PHA for the portable family. The amount of the housing assistance payment for a portable family in the receiving PHA program is determined in the same manner as for other families in the receiving PHA program.
(3) The initial PHA must promptly reimburse the receiving PHA for the lesser of 80 percent of the initial PHA ongoing administrative fee or 100 percent of the receiving PHA's ongoing administrative fee for each program unit under HAP contract on the first day of the month for which the receiving PHA is billing the initial PHA under this section. If administrative fees are prorated for the HCV program, the proration will apply to the amount of the administrative fee for which the receiving PHA may bill under this section (
(4) When a portable family moves out of the HCV program of a receiving PHA that has not absorbed the family, the PHA in the new jurisdiction to which the family moves becomes the receiving PHA, and the first receiving PHA is no longer required to provide assistance for the family.
(5) In administration of portability, the initial PHA and the receiving PHA must comply with financial procedures required by HUD, including the use of HUD-required billing forms. The initial and receiving PHA must also comply with billing and payment deadlines under the financial procedures.
(6) A PHA must manage the PHA HCV program in a manner that ensures that the PHA has the financial ability to provide assistance for families that move out of the PHA's program under the portability procedures, and that have not been absorbed by the receiving PHA, as well as for families that remain in the PHA's program.
(7) HUD may reduce the administrative fee to an initial or receiving PHA if the PHA does not comply with HUD portability requirements.
(f)
(2) HUD may provide additional funding (
(3) HUD may provide additional funding (
(4) HUD may require the receiving PHA to absorb portable families.
(g)
(2) Initial and receiving PHAs must administer special purpose vouchers, such as the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers, in accordance with HUD-established policy in cases where HUD has established alternative program requirements of such special purpose vouchers.
(c) * * *
(4) A PHA determination not to approve an extension of the voucher term.
(b) * * *
(4) A PHA determination not to approve an extension of the voucher term.
(c) * * *
(1)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule; correction.
On August 13, 2015, the Coast Guard published in the
This rule is effective from August 20, 2015 through August 23, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2015-0705. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Ian Fallon, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4565, email
On August 13, 2015, the Coast Guard published in the
As stated in the
Shortly after publication of the temporary final rule in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Pelham Bay Bridge, across the Hutchinson River, mile 0.5, at Bronx, New York. This deviation is necessary to replace bridge timbers, miter rails, and concrete work. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for eighteen days.
This deviation is effective from 11 p.m. on September 11, 2015 to 11 p.m. on October 4, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0764] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, contact Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email
The Pelham Bay Bridge, mile 0.5, across Hutchinson River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.793(a).
The waterway has commercial oil barge traffic of various sizes.
Amtrak requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate essential maintenance repairs.
Under this temporary deviation, the Pelham Bay Bridge will operate according to the schedule below:
a. From 11 p.m. on September 11, 2015 through 5 a.m. on September 14, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.
b. From 5 a.m. on September 14, 2015 through 11 p.m. on September 18, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 3 hour advance notice.
c. From 11 p.m. on September 25, 2015 through 5 a.m. on September 28, 2015, the bridge will not open for marine traffic.
d. From 5 a.m. on September 28, 2015 through 11 p.m. on October 4, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 3 hour advance notice.
The bridge will not be able to open in the event of an emergency. There is no alternate route for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at any time.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice 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.
Final rule; information collection approval.
The Coast Guard announces that it has received approval from the Office of Management and Budget for an information collection request associated with notice of arrival requirements in a final rule we published in the
Sections 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) are effective August 20, 2015.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Michael Lendvay, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1218, email
To view the final rule published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other documents in the docket for this rulemaking, go to
On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule that revised or amended existing notice of arrival and automatic identification system requirements. 80 FR 5282. The final rule delayed the effective date of 33 CFR 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) because these sections contain collection-of-information provisions that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. On August 5, 2015, OMB approved the collection assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0100, Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival. Accordingly, we announce that sections 33 CFR 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) are effective August 20, 2015. The approval for this collection of information expires on February 28, 2017.
We have not yet received approval from OMB regarding the 1625-0112 collection of information, Enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness via Electronic Transmission of Vessel Transit Data, which relates to automatic identification system requirements in the January 2015 final rule (80 FR 5282).
This document is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and race participants from the navigational hazards associated with a paddleboard race.
This rule is effective from 6:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on August 22, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0716]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0128. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a paddle sport regatta.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.
Between 6:45 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. on August 22, 2015, a paddleboard race will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor in Cleveland, OH, in the vicinity of Whiskey Island. It is anticipated that to 100 paddle boarders and safety vessels will participate in the event. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such an event proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include hazardous navigation situations with less maneuverable watercraft and people falling into the water.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and safety vessels during the Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race. This zone will be enforced from 6:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on August 22, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH within the following positions: 41°29′59.5″ N and 081°42′59.3″ W, then East to 41°30′4.4″ N and 081°42′ 44.5″ W, then North to 41°30′17.3″ N and 081°43′0.6″ W, then Southwest to 41°30′9.4″ N and 081°43′2.0″ W, then East to 41°29′54.9″ N and 081°43′34.4″ W, then Southeast returning to the point of origin (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Cleveland Harbor on the morning of August 22, 2015.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only five and a half hours early in the morning. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Alcoa Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) averaging time for nitrogen oxides (NO
This direct final rule is effective October 19, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 21, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0660, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On June 11, 2012, EPA approved BART NO
For the original Regional Haze SIP, IDEM submitted an engineering analysis for the rulemaking that included recommended BART limits for particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO
On March 12, 2014, the Indiana Environmental Rules Board approved these rule changes in accordance with the provisions of Title 13 of the Indiana Code. On November 20, 2013, IDEM provided a public notice and comment on the SIP revision in the Indiana Register. There were no requests for a public hearing, and no public comments were received.
EPA's approval is based on whether the rule revision meets the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 4202(l). In particular, EPA considered whether the changes made to the compliance averaging times for Boilers 2 and 3 would allow for higher overall emissions of NO
IDEM's analysis compared the two averaging times using the Warrick Plant continuous emissions monitor (CEM) data for NO
The Indiana SIP revision is therefore approvable because the revision meets the requirements under 110(l), given that the area is attaining all applicable NAAQS, and that the revision will not impact the ability to maintain the NAAQS.
EPA is approving a revision to the Alcoa BART averaging times for the Warrick Plant Boilers 2 and 3 (326 lAC 26-2-2(2)(C)(i)), from 24-hour rolling average to 24-hour daily average. EPA's review and analysis has determined the revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, as prescribed by section 110(l) of the CAA.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 19, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Montana on March 17, 2010, August 1, 2011, November 22, 2011, and September 19, 2014. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) and include minor editorial and grammatical changes, updates to citations and references to federal and state laws and regulations, revisions to open burning rules, changes to the process for appealing air quality permits, and providing a process for revocation of air quality permits when owners cannot be found by mail. Also in this action, EPA is correcting final rules pertaining to Montana's SIP. On January 29, 2010, EPA took direct final action to approve SIP revisions as submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2009 and May 4, 2009. EPA subsequently discovered an error in our January 29, 2010 direct final action related to “incorporation by reference” (IBR) materials and the associated regulatory text numbering. EPA is correcting this error with today's action. Finally, EPA is updating the Montana nonregulatory provisions table to add carbon monoxide maintenance plans for Billings, Montana, and Great Falls, Montana approved by EPA on March 30, 2015 and April 1, 2015, respectively. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on September 21, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0304. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563,
The State of Montana submitted SIP revisions containing amendments to IBR current federal regulations and other material into air quality rules of the ARM. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 30984) proposed approval of Montana's submissions with respect to the following: Grammatical changes made to ARM 17.8.102(1), and all revisions of 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) from the March 17, 2010 submittal; revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a), 17.8.610(2), 17.8.612(10) and (11), 17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8) and (9), 17.8.615(6) and (7), and 17.8.763(3) from the November 22, 2011 submission; citations and references to federal law and State rules superseding and replacing all previous versions of ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c) from the September 19, 2014 submittal; and language added to ARM 17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d) from the September 19, 2014 submittal. The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the NPR.
For reasons explained in the NPR, EPA also provided notice that language in ARM 17.8.102 with a State effective date of October 26, 2007 was in effect between January 16, 2010 and publication of our proposed notice on June 1, 2015. Finally, for reasons explained in our NPR, EPA proposed to correct erroneous amendatory instructions published in the
No comments were received on our June 1, 2015 NPR.
EPA is approving grammatical changes made to ARM 17.8.102(1), and all revisions of 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) from the March 17, 2010 submittal. We are approving the November 22, 2011 submittal's revisions
Our action provides notice that language in ARM 17.8.102 with a State effective date of October 26, 2007 was in effect between January 16, 2010 and June 1, 2015. EPA is also adding to table (e) of CAA § 52.1370, “EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions,” to reflect the final EPA approval of carbon monoxide limited maintenance plans for the Billings (80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015) and Great Falls (80 FR 17331, April 1, 2015) carbon monoxide maintenance areas. These additions were inadvertently left out of the table when these maintenance plans were approved. Finally, EPA is correcting erroneous amendatory instructions published in the
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ARM regarding citations and references to federal and State laws and regulations; open burning rules; air quality permits appeal process; and revocation of air quality permits discussed in section III,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this final action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 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, Feb. 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 19, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(c) * * *
(69) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan which were submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2009 and May 4, 2009. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana; they make minor editorial and grammatical changes, update the citations and references to Federal laws and regulations, and make other minor changes to conform to federal regulations.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) sections 17.8.102
(B) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) section 17.8.308
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the hogfish recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic for the 2015 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS estimates recreational landings from the 2014 and 2015 fishing years have exceeded the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for hogfish. Therefore, NMFS reduces the length of the 2015 recreational fishing season,
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 24, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.
Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes hogfish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The recreational ACL for hogfish is 85,355 lb (38,716 kg) and was implemented through Regulatory Amendment 13 to the FMP (78 FR 36113, June 17, 2013). In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2), if recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL, then NMFS will monitor recreational landings for a persistence in increased landings during the following fishing year. If necessary, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS (AA), will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the length of the following fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year.
During the 2014 fishing year, hogfish recreational landings exceeded the recreational ACL by 26,448 lb (11,996 kg). For the 2015 fishing year, preliminary landings data from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center indicate that the hogfish recreational ACL has been exceeded by 142,364 lb (64,575 kg). Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to reduce the length of the hogfish recreational sector (
During the closure, the bag and possession limits for hogfish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. The recreational sector for hogfish will reopen on January 1, 2016, the beginning of the 2016 recreational fishing season.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of hogfish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and public comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
This action reopens the comment period for the regulatory evaluation associated with the FAA's June 11, 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
The comment period for the NPRM published on June 11, 2013 (78 FR 34935) closed October 15, 2013, and is reopened until September 21, 2015.
You may send comments on the posted regulatory evaluation identified by docket number FAA-2013-0485 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Valentine Castaneda, ARM-104, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-7977; email
See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this action and how the FAA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.
On June 11, 2013, the FAA issued Notice No. 1209, entitled “
Dassault Aviation submitted a request to extend the comment period from September 9, 2013 to October 15, 2013 to allow adequate time to analyze and provide comments on the NPRM, draft AC 90-106A, and draft AC 20-167A, all of which are directly related to the proposed rule. On September 6, 2013, the FAA published a notice in the
The regulatory evaluation associated with the NPRM was not posted to the docket prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, to ensure that the public has the opportunity to provide comments specifically on the regulatory evaluation posted in the docket (FAA-2013-0485), the FAA is reopening the comment period for 30 days to allow for comments on the regulatory evaluation only. The FAA will not address comments on the NPRM because the comment period for the NPRM closed on October 15, 2013.
Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 12-09 is reopened until September 21, 2015.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the regulatory evaluation, explain the reasons for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committee.
We announce our intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The committee will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations. We also announce two public hearings at which interested parties may comment on the topics suggested by the Department and may suggest additional topics that should be considered for action by the negotiating committee. In addition, we announce that the Department will accept written comments on the topics suggested by the Department and suggestions for additional issues that should be considered for action by the negotiating committee.
The dates, times, and locations of the public hearings are listed under the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public (including those comments submitted by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about the public hearings, go to
For information about negotiated rulemaking in general, see
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) toll free at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations. We announce our intent to develop proposed title IV regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA.
We intend to select participants for the negotiated rulemaking committee from nominees of the organizations and groups that represent the interests significantly affected by the proposed regulations. To the extent possible, we will select from the nominees individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA.
We intend to convene a committee to develop proposed regulations for determining which acts or omissions of an institution of higher education (“institution”) a borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Federal Direct Loan) Program (“borrower defenses”) and the consequences of such borrower defenses for borrowers, institutions, and the Secretary. Specifically, we intend to address: (1) The procedures to be used for a borrower to establish a defense to repayment; (2) the criteria that the Department will use to identify acts or omissions of an institution that constitute defenses to repayment of Federal Direct Loans to the Secretary; (3) the standards and procedures that the Department will use to determine the liability of the institution participating in the Federal Direct Loan Program for amounts based on borrower defenses; and (4) the effect of borrower defenses on institutional capability assessments.
After a complete review of the public comments presented at the public hearings and in the written submissions, we will publish a document (or documents) in the
We will hold two public hearings for interested parties to discuss the rulemaking agenda. The public hearings will be held:
• September 10, 2015, at the U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Eighth Floor Conference Center, Washington, DC 20006.
• September 16, 2015, at the Courtyard San Francisco Downtown, 299 2nd Street, Rincon Hill Room, San Francisco, CA 94105.
The public hearings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., local time. Further information on the public hearing sites is available at
Individuals who would like to present comments at the public hearings must register by sending an email to
The Department will post transcriptions of the hearings to
Speakers may submit written comments at the public hearings. In addition, the Department will accept written comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal, and by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery, through September 16, 2015. (See the
We anticipate that any committee established after the public hearings will begin negotiations in January 2016, with the committee meeting for up to three sessions of approximately three days each at roughly monthly intervals. The committee will meet in the Washington, DC area. The dates and locations of these meetings will be published in a subsequent document in the
The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
20 U.S.C. 1098a.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Eight). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On August 5, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes
This Petition was filed in response to Order No. 2472, which directed the Postal Service “to file a proposed methodology for determining the costs avoided for the 5-digit pallet presort Standard Mail Carrier Route flats workshare discount, as described in the body of [Order No. 2472], within 90 days of the date of [Order No. 2472].”
The Postal Service explains that prior to the planned price adjustments in Docket No. R2015-4, the Carrier Route product only afforded customers entry discounts. Petition, Proposal Eight at 1. The Postal Service's price adjustment in Docket No. R2015-4 introduced a preparation discount on 5-Digit Carrier Route pallets. Proposal Eight seeks to modify the Standard Mail Flats Cost Model to produce estimates of mail processing cost avoidances for Carrier Route pieces on 5-Digit Carrier Route pallets.
The Petition further states that when a commercial mailer has at least 250 pounds of Carrier Route mail destinating in a 5-Digit or 5-Digit Scheme (Labeling List L001) the customer can prepare a Carrier Route pallet. Preparation of a Carrier Route pallet enables the Postal Service to cross-dock the pallet directly to the delivery unit and bypass bundle sortation operations.
The structure and methodology used in estimating cost avoidances of Standard Mail Flats provide estimates of costs avoided for pieces prepared on Carrier Route pallets.
The Postal Service states that as in the model to estimate cost avoidances for Standard Mail Flats, the proposed Carrier Route pallet cost avoidance model's mail preparation profile is taken from the Mail Characteristics Study in USPS-FY14-14 to account for Carrier Route pieces on Carrier Route pallets and Carrier Route pieces on all other containers. The Postal Service asserts that the Carrier Route data from the Mail Characteristics Study in USPS-FY14-14 is modified to exclude pieces prepared in FSS bundles.
The Postal Service's methodology used to calculate bundle flow and piece flow are unchanged from the Standard Mail Flats Cost Model.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-17 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-17 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Eight), filed August 5, 2015.
2. Comments are due no later than September 8, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 22, 2015.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Nina Yeh to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Alcoa Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) averaging time for nitrogen oxides (NO
Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0660, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final Rules section of this
Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State of Florida's March 10, 2015, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This submittal fulfills Florida's commitment to EPA to provide a regional haze SIP revision with a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) nitrogen oxides (NO
Written comments must be received on or before September 21, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Michele Notarianni, 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. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at
On December 10, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the BART and reasonable progress determinations for a number of EGUs in Florida as part of Florida's regional haze SIP.
To fulfill its commitment in accordance with the July 30, 2013 letter, the State of Florida submitted a SIP revision dated March 10, 2015, seeking to revise its regional haze SIP to include a NO
Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP revision seeks to revise the State's regional haze SIP to include a NO
The construction permit also sets the deadlines for McIntosh to submit an application to revise its title V permit to include the NO
EPA proposes to find that the March 10, 2015, SIP revision containing the NO
EPA is proposing to approve Florida's March 10, 2015, regional haze SIP revision and revise the regional haze SIP to include the NO
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 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.
This document seeks public comments on a petition for rulemaking from Access Services concerning the Department's regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to the method of determining the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user. The petition asks the Department to revise its regulation to allow for a “coordinated” or two-tier fare structure. The current regulation provides that the fare shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a similar trip on the fixed route system.
Comments must be received by September 21, 2015.
Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 493-0308, or email,
On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) received a petition for rulemaking from Access Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit provider for 44 fixed route transit providers in Los Angeles County, California. Access Services uses a “coordinated” or two-tier fare structure where it generally charges $2.75 for one-way trips up to 19.9 miles, and $3.50 for one-way trips of 20 miles or more. In some cases, these fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. The DOT's ADA regulation at 49 CFR 37.131(c) provides that the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user of the complementary paratransit service shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, on the entity's fixed route system. In recent triennial reviews of some fixed route providers in Los Angeles County, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made findings that the ADA paratransit fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. In other words, some paratransit riders are paying more for ADA paratransit fares than they should be under the Department's existing regulations.
Access Services' petition for rulemaking has been placed in the docket. Access Services asserts in its petition that its two-tier fare structure is simple for riders to understand and easy for Access Services and its providers to implement. In its petition, Access Services requests that the Department propose amending its ADA regulations to allow for a coordinated fare structure as follows:
• Alternatively, the maximum fare that may be charged by an entity which administers a coordinated paratransit plan for 20 or more fixed route members pursuant to 49 CFR 37.141 and approved pursuant to 49 CFR 37.147 shall be no more than twice the regional average fixed-route fare determined as follows:
○ The entity may calculate a regional average fixed-route fare by obtaining a statistically-valid, random sample of its recent paratransit trips, calculating the applicable fixed-route fare for those trips and averaging the results. The sample may be subdivided by distance to determine the regional average fixed-route fares for trips of a certain mileage.
The Department's regulations at 49 CFR 5.11 permit any person to petition the Secretary to amend a rule. It is solely within the discretion of the Secretary to grant or deny such a petition, and the Secretary has not yet decided whether or not to grant or deny the Access Services' petition. In order to supplement the information provided by Access Services in support of its petition for rulemaking, the Department is requesting public comments on the issue presented in the petition. The Department will use this collective information in the development of the technical review that will serve as the basis for determining whether to grant or deny the petition.
The Department is especially interested in hearing from individuals who use ADA complementary paratransit services in order to better understand how they would be impacted if the Department adopted the Access Services' language or similar language. Would a more simplified tiered fare system, set by the local transit agencies, be beneficial to individuals with disabilities using public transportation in regions with multiple fixed route providers? Would any tiered system need to be capped at a certain amount (
The Department is also interested to hear from ADA complementary paratransit providers throughout the country. How do these paratransit providers, particularly in regions with many fixed-route operators, currently determine fares in order to comply with the Department's current regulations? What procedures or best practices do they use? What challenges do ADA complementary paratransit providers face in setting fares under the current regulations? How many fixed-route providers do you coordinate with?
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact relative to the release of a parasitic wasp,
Mr. Robert Tichenor, Entomologist, Pest Permitting Branch, Regulations Permits and Manuals, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2198.
The emerald ash borer (EAB),
On February 12, 2015, we published in the
We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending March 16, 2015. We received 10 comments by that date. The comments were from a government agency, State departments of agriculture, an organization of state plant regulatory agencies, and private
In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the release of
The final EA and FONSI may be viewed on Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1). Copies of the EA and FONSI are also available for public inspection at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead to (202) 799-7039 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under
The EA and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Golden Pond, Kentucky. The Board is authorized under section 450 of the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Board is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the recreation area; and environmental education. Additional Board information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2015.
All Board meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Land Between The Lakes Administration Building, 100 Van Morgran Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Rosemary Bray, Acting Board Coordinator, by phone at 270-924-2017 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1. Discuss Environmental Education; and
2. Effectively communicate future land management plan activities.
The meeting is open to the public. Board discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Board members. Written comments are invited and should be sent to Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211; and must be received by September 4, 2015, in order for copies to be provided to the members for this meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested for a future meeting.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, is transmitting the final boundary description and map of the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River to Congress.
The boundaries and classification of the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River shall not become effective until ninety (90) days after they have been forwarded to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In accordance with Section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906 as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1274), the detailed boundary descriptions and final maps were forwarded on August 11, 2015.
Documents may be viewed at USDA Forest Service, Yates Federal Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20250; at the Supervisors Office of the Umatilla National Forest 72510 Coyote Road, Pendleton, OR 97801; at the Supervisors Office of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 1550 Dewey Ave, Suite A, Baker City, OR 97814; and at the Bureau of Land Management Public
Information may be obtained by contacting the following office: Umatilla National Forest, 72510 Coyote Road, Pendleton, OR 97801;
The Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 28, 1988 designated the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River, to be Administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. As specified by law, the boundary will not be effective until ninety (90) days after Congress receives the transmittal.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Kiesha Downs, Chief, Trade Regulations Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6700, (301) 763-7079, by fax (301) 763-8835 or by email
The Automated Export System (AES) or successor system, is the instrument used for collecting export trade information. The data collected from this source is compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and functions as the basis for the official U.S. export trade statistics. These statistics are used to determine the balance of international trade and are also designated for use as a principal economic indicator. Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, Section 301 authorizes the Census Bureau to collect, compile, publish, and require the electronic filing of export data. Section 302 of Title 13, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to publish regulations for the collection, publication, confidentiality, and disclosure of data collected pursuant to Chapter 9. Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 30, contains these regulatory provisions, and is known as the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR). These data collected are used in the development of U.S. Government policies that affect the economy. These data also enable U.S. businesses to develop practical export marketing strategies as well as provide a means for the assessment of the impact of exports on the domestic economy. These data collected from the AES record are also used for export control purposes under Title 50, U.S.C., Export Administration Act, to detect and prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties or to unauthorized destinations or end users.
The FTR was recently amended on February 9, 2015, through the issuance of a Final Rule, “Clarification on Uses of Electronic Export Information,” to provide clarity on the confidentiality provisions of the Electronic Export Information (EEI) and to facilitate the legitimate sharing of export data consistent with the goals for the International Trade Data System (ITDS). However, these changes did not impact the reporting burden imposed upon the export trade community.
Currently, the Census Bureau is drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to amend the FTR with new export reporting requirements. The proposed changes include the addition of two new data elements in the AES and clarification to existing reporting requirements. The proposed fields are not mandatory data elements and will only be required if a shipment meets a specific reporting requirement.
The proposed data elements are an Original Internal Transaction Number (ITN) field and a New or Used Electronics indicator field. The Original ITN field will be an optional field that may be utilized if the filer has to create an additional AES record for a shipment that was previously filed. Adding the Original ITN field will assist the export trade community and enforcement agencies in identifying that a filer completed the mandatory filing requirements for the original shipment. In doing so, this may decrease the issuance of unnecessary penalties for these types of shipments. Because this data element is optional and only applies to a small percentage of shipments, it will have a minimal impact on response burden.
The proposed New or Used Electronics indicator field will be used to improve information on trade flows and the disposal of used electronics. This information will be collected from the trade community for those who export electronics, in order to better understand the quantity and destinations of used electronics being exported. This field is being added to ensure compliance with Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, signed on March 19, 2015. The goal of the Executive Order is to employ environmentally sound practices with respect to Federal agency's disposal of all excess or surplus electronic products, to reduce the likelihood of negative impacts to the health and environment in developing countries. Adding the New or Used Electronics indicator will not contribute significantly to response burden because it is optional and is a check box that only applies to shipments of electronics.
The draft NPR also includes language to address the implementation of the ITDS in compliance with the Executive Order 13659,
Lastly, the draft NPR also includes language to clarify the reporting requirements for items such as Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), specific or general licenses and split shipments. Unlike other export licenses, general and specific licenses issued by OFAC do not require a specific value or quantity
While the Census Bureau is proposing to add two additional data elements, the overall time per response is expected to remain at three minutes per AES filing. Data captured based on the new export reporting requirements are essential in compiling complete and accurate export statistics, as well as strengthening export controls.
Except as noted in 15 CFR 30.2(a)(1)(iv), an electronic AES record is required for all export shipments valued more than $2,500 per Schedule B number from the United States, including Foreign Trade Zones located therein, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to foreign countries; for exports between the United States and Puerto Rico; and for exports to the U.S. Virgin Islands from the United States or Puerto Rico. Additionally, an AES record is required for the export of rough diamonds, used self-propelled vehicles and all exports requiring an export license from any other government agency or license exemption from the Department of State, regardless of value. The AES record is also required for exports with certain license exceptions from the Bureau of Industry and Security. The AES program is unique among Census Bureau statistical collections since respondents are not solicited for responses, as is the case with surveys. Filing export information via the AES is a mandatory process under Title 13, Chapter 9, U.S.C. The export trade community can access the AES via a free Internet-based system, AES
For exports to Canada, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by CBP, Canada Border Services Agency, Statistics Canada, and the U.S. Census Bureau enables the United States to substitute Canadian import statistics for U.S. export statistics. Similarly, in accordance with the MOU, Canada substitutes U.S. import statistics for Canadian exports to the United States. This exchange of data eliminates the requirement for the export trade community to file the EEI with the U.S. Government for the majority of export shipments to Canada, thus resulting in the elimination of over eight million AES records annually. Export shipments to Canada of rough diamonds, used vehicles, or those that require a license must be filed through the AES. In addition, export shipments from the United States through Canada destined to a country other than Canada require an AES record.
In most instances, a U.S. Principal Party in Interest or authorized agent must file EEI via the AES and annotate the commercial loading documents with the proof of filing citation prior to the export of a shipment. In instances where the AES filing is not required, the proper exemption legend must be noted on the commercial loading documents per 15 CFR 30.7.
The AES enables the U.S. Government to significantly improve the quality, timeliness, and coverage of export statistics. Since July 1995, the Census Bureau and the CBP have utilized the AES to improve the reporting of export trade information, customer service, increase compliance with and enforcement of export laws, and provides paperless reports of export information. The AES also enables the U.S. Government to increase its ability to prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties, to unauthorized destinations and end users through electronic filing.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (MBUSI), operator of Subzone 98A, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Vance, Alabama. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 22, 2015.
MBUSI already has authority to produce multipurpose/sport utility passenger motor vehicles. The current request would add a new finished product (passenger vehicle bodies) and foreign-status materials and components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MBUSI from customs duty payments on the foreign status materials and components used in export production. On its domestic sales, MBUSI would be able to choose
The materials and components sourced from abroad include: First-aid kits; adhesives; putties; caulks; lubricating oils; cleaning agents/polishing compounds; plastic protective sheets; paper shapes with adhesive backing; felt shapes; tufted floor coverings; adhesive cotton tape; steel tacks; aluminum fasteners (rivets, washers, nuts); wrenches (lug, socket); iron/steel rivets; windshield washer assemblies and related parts; electromechanical hydraulic units/appliances; power supplies; magnets; engine heaters; block heaters; telematics/media/GPS assemblies; microphone assemblies; speaker/amplifier assemblies; parts of speakers and microphones; radio/television transmission apparatus; cameras; radar devices; radio navigation equipment; radio remote controls; video monitors; vehicle angle modules; control modules; carrier plates; wheel speed sensors; radio interference filters; flat panel displays; checking instruments; electrical instruments; and, felt strips (HTSUS Subheading 5602.10) (duty rate ranges from free to 12%). Inputs included in textile category 223 (classified within HTSUS Subheading 5602.10) will be admitted to Subzone 98A under privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 29, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Pierre Duy at
On April 17, 2015, the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of M & G Resins, LLC, within Subzone 122S, in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; response to comments.
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of the 2014 marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs).
Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as regional compilations and individual reports at the following address:
Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402,
Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in each of the three regions.
As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2014, and the revised reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (80 FR 4881, January 29, 2015). NMFS received comments on the draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of the final 2014 reports for the 88 stocks that are currently finalized. These reports are available on NMFS' Web site (see
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2014 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Makah Tribe, seven non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Hawaii Longline Association, Sustainable Fisheries Association, and the Maine Lobstermen's Association), and five individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below;
• 08/09/09-#1151 was badly entangled but freed with her condition subsequently deteriorating. Re-sightings confirmed the whale was gear free and indicate both mom and calf healthy. This whale was categorized L2 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to disentanglement and evident healing.
• 07/19/11-#4160, Calf of #2660—Entanglement Scarred Calf with significant cuts and wounds seen off Provincetown. The whale was re-sighted healthy in 2014. The last SAR listed this whale with a serious injury value as 1.0, but that was changed to 0 in the 2014 report based on the healthy re-sight.
• 7/20/12-#3308—Entanglement scarred (but gear free) whale found in Gulf of Maine with extensive wounds whose condition subsequently declined in 2013 and 2014. Re-sights showed some health decline but overall condition was fair and injuries healing. This whale was categorized as L10 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to evident healing.
NMFS acknowledges in the SARs that observed whale entanglements represent underestimates, because the number of undetected cases is unknown. The NMFS report cited by the commenter (Saez
(1) Remove the statements in the draft SAR asserting that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation is considered “endangered” under the ESA and “strategic and depleted” under the MMPA;
(2) state instead that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation does not have a formal status under the MMPA, although the population size has been increasing for the last ten years;
(3) change the title of the draft SAR to “GRAY WHALE (
(4) re-calculate the Sakhalin feeding aggregation's PBR based on a recovery factor of 0.5 (the default factor for a stock of unknown status).
In the TF's consideration of whether gray whales in the WNP represent a population stock under the MMPA, most of the data reviewed were collected from the gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Thus the recognition of a western North Pacific stock of gray whales that includes those animals that feed off Sakhalin is consistent with the TF's advice. Similarly, the listing of western gray whales as “Endangered” under the ESA and designation as “Critically Endangered” by the IUCN were largely based on data collected from the gray whales that feed off Sakhalin. The recent data on movements of gray whales between the eastern and western North Pacific were not available when these whales were listed under the ESA and would be considered in any future reviews of these populations. Until such reviews are conducted, however, the continued recognition of the gray whales that feed off Sakhalin as “Endangered” under the ESA is consistent with the data used to inform these listings.
As outlined in the report of the IWC Scientific Committee (SC) (2015), additional analysis and modeling of gray whale range-wide population structure and status has been underway since 2014 and will be the topic of further review of a third IWC inter-sessional workshop in April 2016. This report states the following: In order to successfully complete modeling efforts required for the workshop, data need to be compiled on: (1) Updated abundance estimates and variance and covariance matrices for feeding grounds, (2) complete matching of gray whales photographed south of Sakhalin Island along the coast of Asia, (3) fishing effort along the U.S. and Canadian west coast to determine trends by fishery type (
The referenced 2002 and 2010 survey abundance estimates are not comparable in their published form, as the methodology for accurately enumerating FKW groups changed between surveys, significantly increasing the average group size of false killer whales and therefore, the resulting abundance estimate. Further, because the entire stock range of pelagic FKWs is unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, the available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size. A robust assessment of population trend would require assessment of environmental variables that influence FKW distribution and the proportion of the population represented within the survey area during each survey period. Finally, many years of unsustainable take does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the population is declining. PBR was designed to provide a benchmark, in the face of great uncertainty about marine mammal populations, below which human-caused mortalities would not reduce the population beyond its OSP, which is defined as the abundance where there is “the greatest net annual increment in population numbers or biomass resulting from additions to the population due to reproduction and/or growth less losses due to natural mortality.” The benchmark does not consider whether a population is declining, as this is very hard to prove, particularly for population abundance estimates with low precision.
We have made considerable updates of the subsistence harvest information in the draft 2015 ringed seal, ribbon seal, and bearded seal SARs, and we will update this information in the spotted seal SAR the next time it is revised.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of one permit and receipt of four permit modification requests for scientific research and enhancement.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Endangered Species Act (ESA) scientific research Permit 18251 to the Marine Science Institute. Additionally, NMFS has received four scientific research and enhancement permit modification requests relating to anadromous species listed under the ESA. The proposed research activities are intended to increase knowledge of the species and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The application for each permit is available on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS),
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be submitted to the California Central Valley Office, NMFS, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 916-930-3629 or by email to
Amanda Cranford, Sacramento, CA (ph.: 916-930-3706), Fax: 916-930-3629, email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
North American green sturgeon (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research and enhancement permit (18251) was published in the
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is requesting to modify Permit 18181. Permit 18181 was issued to CDFW on January 14, 2014 for take of CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon associated with research and rescue activities in the Upper Sacramento River and associated tributaries in Shasta and Tehama counties, the Colusa Basin Drainage Canal (CBDC), Wallace and Fremont weirs in the Yolo Bypass, and Tisdale Weir in the Sutter Bypass. CDFW is requesting to modify Permit 18181 to include additional rescue and monitoring efforts that routinely occur throughout the Central Valley. Further, after conducting capture and relocation activities within the CBDC and at Wallace Weir, the project description, sampling methodologies and take estimates can be refined to better reflect the current rescue operations. The primary purpose of the proposed monitoring will be to assess entrainment of ESA-listed salmonids and SDPS green sturgeon resulting from extreme environmental conditions and complex water operations within California's Central Valley. CDFW will assess the conditions leading to entrainment and determine whether rescue and relocation activities are warranted. The rescue and relocation efforts proposed are: (1) The CBDC Trapping and Relocation Operation, which aims to trap and relocate adult Chinook salmon and other species of management concern before they enter and become entrained within the CDBC; (2) Monitoring of Sacramento River Flood Control Project Weirs and Flood Relief Structures, bypasses are surveyed after high flow events to determine the level of entrainment and if warranted rescues will be conducted, with a specific focus on Tisdale and Fremont weirs in the Sacramento River; and (3) Upper Sacramento River Redd Dewatering Surveys and Rescue of Stranded Juvenile Winter-run Chinook Salmon, which allows CDFW biologists to predict the flow at which redds will be dewatered on a redd-by-redd basis and conduct rescues if necessary. Rescue and relocation of ESA-listed fish will be carried out using fyke traps, Alaskan-style resistance board weirs, block nets, hoop nets, fyke nets, and beach seines. Observational surveys using dual identification sonar (DIDSON) imagery may also be conducted if necessary. The majority of captured fish would be identified to species, enumerated, measured for standard length, sampled for tissues and released. Juvenile SRWR and CVSR Chinook salmon would be identified using the Length-at-Date-of-Capture Table. ESA-listed species would be processed first and released. Adult salmonids that are trapped during rescue and relocation activities will be sampled for tissues (genetics), tagged with two individually numbered Floy tags, and relocated to the nearest, accessible location on the Sacramento River. If SDPS green sturgeon are encountered during rescue activities, acoustic tags will be surgically implanted by trained staff and data will be recorded on fish size, condition, and time of release. To reduce handling mortality, investigators will conduct water to water transfers, use fish-friendly nets, avoid handling when possible, and release fish will at the nearest suitable location to reduce handling and transport times.
Permit 14808 was issued to CDFW on September 26, 2012 for take of juvenile CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, and CCV steelhead while conducting juvenile emigration monitoring at Knights Landing in the Lower Sacramento River, Yolo County, California. The permit modification is being requested in order to refine sampling methods, increase take levels and address changes to the proposed procedures. Additionally, CDFW requested that all ongoing research and monitoring be consolidated into a single section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit to improve efficiencies associated with reporting. In addition to the juvenile emigration monitoring at Knights Landing, which aims to compile information on timing, composition (species/race), and relative abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead emigrating from the Upper Sacramento River system into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CDFW is requesting that the following research and monitoring efforts be added to Permit 14808: (1) The Central Valley Steelhead Monitoring Program, that includes studies targeting CCV steelhead throughout the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins in order to examine the distribution, abundance, and population trends of CCV steelhead and provide the data necessary to help assess progress towards restoration and recovery goals; and (2) Upper Sacramento River Restoration Site Monitoring, which will establish baseline use at proposed restoration sites to help determine the success once restoration projects are implemented through juvenile presence/absence surveys at a variety of sites on the Upper Sacramento River. CDFW will conduct juvenile emigration monitoring through the use of paired 8-foot rotary screw traps (RSTs) on the Sacramento River beginning in October and continuing through June of the following year. Traps will be fished continuously and checked once every 24 hours unless conditions such as high flows or excessive debris warrant more frequent sampling. Captured salmonids will be handled (including measurements), allowed to recover in fresh aerated water and released back into the Sacramento River. A small subsample of adipose fin-clipped (hatchery-origin) Chinook salmon will be sacrificed (directed mortality) daily for coded wire tag extraction and analysis. The Steelhead Monitoring Program will utilize wire fyke traps to capture, mark, and recapture upstream migrating adult steelhead in order to estimate adult steelhead escapement from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Fyke trapping will occur annually from August through May. A DIDSON camera or device of similar capabilities will be placed at the entrance to the fyke traps to monitor salmonid movements and assist in adjusting trap placement to maximize capture rates. Traps will be fished 24 hours a day with all traps being inspected, cleaned, and emptied at least once every 24 hours to minimize the period of time steelhead are detained. All captured steelhead (hatchery and wild) will be enumerated, weighed, measured, sexed (if possible), photographed for body condition, checked for previous tags, and sampled for scales. Healthy steelhead captured in good condition will receive a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag. Hatchery-origin steelhead will receive a two inch, individually numbered, bicolor Floy tag posterior to the dorsal fin. A randomly selected subset of captured steelhead will receive an acoustic tag in addition to PIT and Floy
Permit 1415 was issued to the USFWS, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office on February 6, 2014. The overall purpose of the project is to provide monitoring data for various evaluations, including restoration actions, stream flow assessments, management actions, and life-history investigations. Species under investigation include CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon while conducting research studies in Battle Creek, Clear Creek, and the Upper Sacramento River Basin (
Permit 17299 was issued to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), Fishery Ecology Division (FED), on April 4, 2013 for research to be conducted at various sites and hatcheries within California's Central Valley. The main purpose of the research conducted by the SWFSC is to carry out comparative studies on salmonid ecology across all Central Valley habitats (streams, rivers and Delta) to increase knowledge of California's Chinook salmon and steelhead life histories. The modification request relates to the life stages sampled and the total take associated with Studies 1 and 3 authorized by Permit 17299. These studies include investigations into outmigration survival based upon telemetry technology and investigations of the physiological response (as measured by aerobic scope) to varying temperature and flow regimes. Given the current threats posed to SRWR Chinook salmon including anthropogenic alterations of natural flow regimes and climate change, these studies quantitatively measures the capacity for adaptation of SRWR Chinook salmon juveniles to these conditions. The unprecedented conditions associated with the California drought have exacerbated these challenges, such that more detailed and finer resolution studies are needed to evaluate the potential consequences of a range of water management options including management of cold water storage pools behind large dams and pulse flows. The permit modification request aims to address these needs by increasing the sample sizes and associated take, and by broadening the scope of studies to include additional life stages. Study 1 is a large scale telemetry project to assess habitat use, behavior and survival of hatchery- and natural-origin SRWR and CVSR Chinook salmon and CCV steelhead. Additional take associated with increased sample sizes will allow for better estimates of survival and identification of conditions that may be affecting juvenile salmonid emigration. Study 3 will measure the physiological capacity (aerobic scope and other cardiovascular capabilities) of hatchery-origin salmonids to deal with potential seasonal and geographic temperature challenges, by identifying their combined threshold tolerance to abiotic factors such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and flow. The SWFSC will use this data to determine sites where these factors may be limiting migration, survival and growth. This study requires that all fish tested be euthanized in order to collect the appropriate information and assess the aerobic scope. All euthanized fish will also be sampled for otoliths (age/growth), and organ tissue (isotope, biochemical and genomic expression assays), examined for parasite infections, and will contribute to tag effects/retention studies. The SWFSC proposes to broaden the scope of Study 3 through increased sample sizes and the addition of take for other life stages (eggs, fry, alevin, and parr). This additional take is in response to an urgent data gap on the temperature tolerance of these life stages. The proposed research will benefit ESA-listed fish by supporting conservation and management of anadromous salmonids and green sturgeon in California by directly addressing information needs identified by NMFS and other agencies.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to 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 requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed Employers of National Service Enrollment Form. The Employers of National Service program is administered by CNCS (in conjunction with the Peace Corps, the National Peace Corps Association, the Points of Light Foundation and the Aspen Institute), and seeks to connect employers from all sectors with AmeriCorps and Peace Corps alumni. Organizations that are looking to join the initiative will be filling out this form in order to document their participation. Information provided is purely voluntary and will not be used for any grant or funding support.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service; Attention: Erin Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations, Room 9309; 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Erin Dahlin, 202-606-6931, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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 expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Organizations from all sectors seeking to become Employers of National Service will be filling out this form, including businesses, nonprofits, institutions of higher education, school districts, state/local governments, and federal agencies. One of the form's key purposes is to document what the organization is committing to doing as an Employer of National Service and provide organizational information to CNCS, the Peace Corps, the Points of Light Foundation, the Aspen Institute and the National Peace Corps Association. The information in the form will also allow CNCS to display the organization's information accurately online as a resource for job seekers. It will also enable CNCS to speak to the diversity within the program's membership, both for internal planning and external audience use. The information will be collected electronically via our Web site.
This is a new information collection request. The items on the form are: Employer name; a short description of the employer; the sector in which the employer operates (private, nonprofit, etc.); location (specific address for headquarters and list of additional cities/states or countries, if applicable); workforce information (total employees, hires in last year, and number of national service alumni); human resources policy commitment as an Employer of National Service; contact information; a link to the Web page where alums can apply for employment; optional statement from leadership; the source from which the employer learned about the program, and any optional comments.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, ordered transfers of two properties: Camp Frank D. Merrill from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Army and the Lake Lanier Property from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Agriculture, as well as publication of the maps and legal description in the
Documents are on file at locations:
1. U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah, 100 East Oglethorpe Avenue, Savannah, Georgia 31401-3064.
2. Office of the Southern Region, USDA, 1720 Peachtree Street NW., Room 792, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-2449.
Ms. Belinda Estabrook, Realty Specialist, 912-652-5667.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291, Section 2836), ordered transfers as follows:
(1) CAMP FRANK D. MERRILL.—Not later than September 30, 2015, the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army for required Army force protection measures certain Federal land administered as part of the Chattahoochee National Forest, but permitted to the Secretary of the Army for Camp Frank D. Merrill in Dahlonega, Georgia, consisting of approximately 282 acres identified in the permit numbers 0018-01.
(2) LAKE LANIER PROPERTY.—In exchange for the land transferred under paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Army (acting through the Chief of Engineers) shall transfer to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture certain Federal land administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and consisting of approximately 10 acres adjacent to Lake Lanier at 372 Dunlap Landing Road, Gainesville, Georgia.
The legal descriptions and maps of the transferred parcels, Camp Merrill and Lake Lanier are provided below:
Being a part of USA Tracts G-274, G-380, G-641-L, G-641-L-II, G-678a, G-678b, G-1320Ah, G-1320Aj, and G-1634, and lying and being in Land Lots 310, 311, & 312 of the 6th District, 1st Section, and Land Lots 937, 938, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, & 1080 of the 11th District, 1st Section, Lumpkin County, Georgia, containing 282.21 acres more or less. Said tracts were acquired by the United States in the hereinafter listed Condemnation Actions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Depicted as USA Tract C-2368 on a plat titled “SURVEY FOR: U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Army Camp Merrill” dated July 13, 2015 by Georgia Licensed Surveyors Mark E. Chastain and Jason D. Watkins, and recorded in Plat Book ___ Page ___, of the Lumpkin County Superior Court public records, which plat is attached hereto and made part hereof, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at Corner 2 of USA Tract G-641 L-I, a 1
A Map of Camp Merrill is at Figure 1.
Being formerly a part of USACE Tract N-1410, which said tract was acquired by the United States of America by means of condemnation proceedings entitled United States of America vs. 1,114.46 acres of land, more or less, situated in Dawson and Hall Counties, State of Georgia, and Fred O. Rowe, et al., Civil Action No. 701, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, Buford Dam and Reservoir Project.
All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Land Lots 122 & 123 of the 10th District, City of Gainesville, Hall County, depicted as USA Tract C-2367 on a plat titled “SURVEY FOR: United States Forest Service” dated July 30, 2015 by Georgia Licensed Surveyor Mark E. Chastain, of Chastain & Associates, P.C. (Job #215F42), and recorded in Plat Book ___ Page ___, of the Hall County Superior Court public records, which plat is attached hereto and made part hereof, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found, designated as “123-C6”, said monument having state plane coordinates (NAD83, Georgia West Zone) of Northing 1582107.49, Easting 2392494.60; thence North 09 Degrees 50 Minutes 54 Seconds West a distance of 264.98 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found; thence North 09 Degrees 50 Minutes 54 Seconds West a distance of 263.72 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D1”; thence North 52 Degrees 17 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 571.14 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated as “123-D2”; passing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D1-A, at a distance of 285.61 feet from the
Together with a single point of access from the subject tract to and across an existing 50-year public road easement, between the Department of the Army, acting by and through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the City of Gainesville, dated April 26, 1994, to that adjoining public right-of-way known as Dunlap Landing Road, and in accordance with USACE Contract No. DACW01-2-95-0092, including any extensions or renewals of said aforementioned public road easement.
This statement is being made for the purpose of assuring a legal means of ingress and egress to and from Dunlap Landing Road in accordance with the Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction of subject tract from the Department of Army to the Department of Agriculture, pursuant to Public Law 113-291, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 3979) and those authorities under 16 U.S.C 505a-505b. This transfer is subject to existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, pipelines as well as any and all oil, gas, and mineral rights outstanding in third parties.
A Map of Lake Lanier Parcel is at Figure 2.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.
Notice.
On April 03, 2015, the Department of Navy (DoN) published a Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training (80 FR 18385, April 03, 2015). Notices extending the public comment period by 60 days and 14 days were published on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27678) and July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45647), respectively. The purpose of this notice is to announce an additional 45 day extension of the public comment period to October 01, 2015 Eastern Daylight Time (E.D.T.) [October 2, 2015,
The public comment period for the Draft EIS began on April 03, 2015, EDT [April 04, 2015, ChST] with the publication of the Notice of Availability in the
The public may provide comments through the project Web site at
The Draft EIS/OEIS was distributed to federal and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations. The Draft EIS/OEIS is available for public review at
(1) Joeten Kiyu Public Library, Saipan; (2) Northern Marianas College Olympio T. Borja Memorial Library, Saipan; (3) Tinian Public Library, Tinian; (4) Antonio C. Atalig Memorial Rota Public Library, Rota; (5) University of Guam Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Library, Guam; (6) Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library, Guam.
The DoN's proposed action is to establish live-fire Range Training Areas (RTAs) within the CNMI to address the U.S. Pacific Command Service Components' unfilled unit level and combined level training requirements in the Western Pacific. The DoN recognizes that public comments are an essential part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Accordingly, the DoN initially established a 60-day public comment period in lieu of the minimum 45-day period required by NEPA implementing regulations. Notices extending the public comment period by 60 days and 14 days were published on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27678) and July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45647), respectively. Due to Typhoon Soudelor recovery efforts, the DoN is further extending the Draft EIS public comment period by 45 days to October 1, 2015, EDT [October 2, 2015, ChST] for a total of 179 days.
CNMI Joint Military Training EIS/OEIS Project Manager by email via the project Web site (
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).
This notice announces the availability of the ROD to fund implementation of Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation Project in Idaho County, Idaho. BPA has decided to fund implementation of Alternative 2 identified in the Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0506, June 2015). Alternative 2 consists of: (1) Constructing a 6,000 foot temporary bypass channel and temporary access road/levee and, following construction of the channel, removing and decommissioning these structures; (2) regrading approximately 115 acres of floodplain by moving dredge tailings; (3) filling in approximately 10,960 feet of the current channel, reconstructing approximately 7,400 feet of new channel, and constructing more than 2,700 feet of side channels; (4) replanting the valley bottom with native and approved non-native plant species; (5) staging materials and equipment at campgrounds; and (6) monitoring project activities and effectiveness. All mitigation measures identified in the environmental impact statement (EIS) are adopted.
Copies of the ROD and EIS may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. The ROD and EIS Summary are also available on our Web site,
Brenda Aguirre, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; fax number 503-230-5699; or email
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice.
The Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of the availability of the EV Everywhere Logo Design Competition, to encourage artists and designers to create a graphic representation of the DOE's efforts to increase the use of plug-in electric vehicles. The Logo Contest includes a $5,000 cash prize.
The submission period for entries begins at August 13, 2015 and must be received electronically by September 25, 2015 by 11:59 p.m. EST. The winning contestant will be announced October 26, 2015. All dates are subject to change. The winning contestant will be notified in advance of the public announcement.
Interested persons can find full details about the competition rules and register to participate online at
•
•
(1)
EV Everywhere supports DOE's larger goal of reducing the use of petroleum in transportation to increase energy and environmental security. In addition to public outreach and education, it also includes efforts to reduce the cost and improve the convenience of PEVs through research and development as well as increase community readiness for the use of PEVs.
(2)
(3)
(a) Must register to participate in the competition under the link designated for that purpose by DOE on
(b) Must comply with all the requirements under this notice and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358);
(c) In the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, must be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States before the submission period ends;
(d) In the case of a private entity shall be incorporated in and maintain a principal place of business in the United States;
(e) May not be a Federal employee acting within the scope of your employment;
(f) May not be an entity with an outstanding, unresolved financial obligation to, or that is currently suspended or debarred by, the federal government; and
(g) If chosen as the winner of the prize, provide to DOE the necessary personal or business information to allow DOE to award the cash prize.
If you are under 18 years of age, you must have the permission of a parent or legal guardian to participate. If you are a Federal grantee, you may not use Federal funds to develop applications for this competition unless such use is consistent with the purpose of your grant award. If you are a Federal contractor, you may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop or fund efforts in support of applications for this competition. You may use Federal facilities or consult with Federal employees during the competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all contestants participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
(4)
Things to keep in mind as you design your “EV Everywhere” Logo:
(a) The logo should translate the core elements of the EV Everywhere brand, including the benefits of PEVs, the viability of PEVs for the average driver, and EV Everywhere as the source for objective, data-driven, reliable information on PEVs. DOE's
(b) In addition, the logo can evoke through imagery ideas of: Electricity, the “fun” factor of PEVs, PEVs' cost savings, environmental sustainability, and energy security;
(c) The use of the words “EV Everywhere” is recommended, but not required;
(d) The use of the words “U.S. Department of Energy” is required;
(e) The logo should use the following colors alone or in combination:
a. As primary, dark blue (Pantone 7484; CMYK C45 M27 Y17 K51; RGB R94 G106 B113; HEX 5E6A71) and/or dark green (Pantone 356; CMYK C95 M8 Y93 K27; RGB R0 G121 B52; HEX 007934)
b. As highlights, light blue (Pantone 2995; CMYK C87 M1 Y0 K0; RGB R0 G169 B224; HEX 1F82BB), light green (Pantone 368; CMYK C63 M0 Y97 K0; RGB R105 G190 B40; HEX 69BE28), yellow (Pantone 116; CMYK C0 M12 Y100 K0; RGB R254 G203 B0; HEX FECB00), red (Pantone 158; CMYK C0 M64 Y95 K0; RGB R227 G114 B34; HEX E37222), and light gray (Pantone 428; CMYK C12 M6 Y5 K12; RGB R195 G200 B200; HEX C3C8C8);
(f) If the logo includes text, the text should be in Gotham font, or if not available, Calibri;
(g) The logo should be unique enough that it could be easily recognized by the general public in the future;
(h) Because it will be used on a vehicle magnetic logo the size of a small bumper sticker, the logo needs to be readable and/or understandable from the back of a moving vehicle.
(i) The logo should not focus solely on light-duty PEVs; and
(j) The logo should not conflict or be too similar to existing DOE/EERE logos (available on the
When uploading your “EV Everywhere” Logo design, in the “Submission Text” field, please include a brief description about your logo entry and thought process behind the design, including any personal experience the designer has with PEVs.
(5)
(6)
Judges will use the following weighted criteria to judge the submitted designs:
(a) Effectiveness of communicating the EV Everywhere mission and brand (500/1000 points). This includes the idea of plug-in electric vehicles, their benefits, their viability for the average driver, and the DOE as a source of unbiased, data-driven information. This may be done through a realistic or abstract design;
(b) Creativity and originality (300/1000 points). Is the visual quality of the design at once informative and representative of imagery connected to EV Everywhere; and
(c) Design can be easily replicated, especially as a magnetic decal (200/1000 points). Can this design be replicated successfully, without excessive cost, for many media formats.
The judging panel will evaluate the submissions and choose the final winning design from all submissions. In the event that no entries fully meet the above criteria to the panel's satisfaction, the Department of Energy is under no obligation to select a winner. All decisions by DOE are final and binding with respect to the contest. For questions or further information, please see the contact information listed in the
(7)
(8)
(9)
(a) By submitting a design to this competition, you represent and warrant that you are the sole author and copyright owner of the submitted design; that the submission is your original work, and as the contestant, you have sufficient rights to use and authorize others, including DOE, to use the submission, as specified throughout the Official Rules, that the submission does not violate or infringe upon the copyright or upon any other third party rights of other parties, including but not limited to privacy, publicity, or intellectual property rights, or material that constitutes copyright or license infringement. Your design may not contain any material that is inappropriate, indecent, obscene, hateful, defamatory, or in any way disparaging. Your design cannot have been submitted previously in another promotion or contest of any kind.
(b) You understand and agree that if your entry is selected as the winning design, it may be modified or altered by DOE, in its sole discretion, as deemed appropriate or necessary to execute, produce, or distribute the winning design in its final logo format.
(c) The winning contestant will, in consideration of the prize to be awarded, grant to DOE an irrevocable, royalty-free, exclusive worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, copy, display, create derivative works, and publicly post, link to, and share, the winning design or parts thereof, for the purpose of the design competition and for any official EV Everywhere or DOE purpose.
(10)
(11)
(a) Any and all information provided by or obtained from the Federal Government is without any warranty or representation whatsoever, including but not limited to its suitability for any particular purpose.
(b) Upon registration, each contestant agrees to assume any and all risks of injury or loss in connection with or in any way arising from participation in this contest. Upon registration, except in the case of willful misconduct, all contestants agree to and, thereby, do waive and release any and all claims or causes of action against the Federal Government and its officers, employees and agents for any and all injury and damage of any nature whatsoever (whether existing or thereafter arising, whether direct, indirect, or consequential and whether foreseeable or not), arising from their participation in the contest, whether the claim or cause of action arises under contract or tort.
(c) Upon registration, you agree to and, thereby, shall indemnify and hold harmless the Federal government and its officers, employees and agents for any and all injury and damage of any nature whatsoever (whether existing or thereafter arising, whether direct, indirect, or consequential and whether foreseeable or not), arising from or related to competition activities.
(d) Contestants are required to demonstrate financial responsibility by certifying that they have $500 to cover claims in the amount of $500 or less, made by: (A) A third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in the Logo competition; and (B) the Federal Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.
(12)
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879, December 17, 1987), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for the Zealand Falls Hydroelectric Project, located on the on Whitewall Brook, in the Town of Bethlehem, Grafton County, New Hampshire and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project occupies 0.66 acres of federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information, contact John Baummer at (202) 502-6837.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on August 5, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in in Docket No. CP15-541-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.203, 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon by removal its two inactive supply laterals and associated appurtenances located in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Specifically, Tennessee request to abandon: (1) Line No. 521A-100 consisting of approximately 1,330 feet of 10-inch-diameter pipe and associated appurtenances and (2) Line No. 520A-300 consisting of approximately 36,739 feet of 10-inch-diameter pipeline and associated appurtenances all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may be viewed on the Web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Ben Carranza, Manager, Regulatory, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at (713) 420-5535, by facsimile at (713) 420-1605, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and protest to the request, pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205). If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for exemption from licensing for the Brooklyn Dam Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the Upper Ammonoosuc River, in the town of Northumberland, Coos County, New Hampshire, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that issuing an exemption for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
For further information, contact John Ramer at (202) 502-8969 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Please include the project number (P-2165-067) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff will attend the following meeting related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)—PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Joint and Common Market Initiative (Docket No. AD14-3-000): MISO/PJM Joint Stakeholder Meeting—August 20, 2015.
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: PJM Conference & Training Center, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon, PA 19403.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Valerie Teeter, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8538 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Lake Charles Liquefaction Project, proposed by Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline), Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, and Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC in the above-referenced dockets. Trunkline requests authorization to construct, install, and operate new natural gas pipeline facilities; modify certain existing pipeline facilities; and abandon one compressor unit in the states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana (collectively referred to as the Non-Liquefaction Facilities). Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC and Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC (collectively referred to as Lake Charles LNG) request authorization to site, construct, and operate new liquefaction facilities adjacent to an existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and to construct and operate certain facility modifications at the existing LNG terminal. The new liquefaction facilities would have a design production capacity of 16.45 million metric tons of LNG per annum, which would provide an LNG export capacity equivalent to about 2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.
Lake Charles LNG also requests authorization to abandon certain terminal facilities previously certificated under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 7; and convert such certificated facilities so that the entirety of the company's facilities and operations are authorized solely under NGA section 3.
The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the Lake Charles Liquefaction Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Transportation participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the final EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by a proposal and participate in the National Environmental Policy Act analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input on the conclusions and recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision or determinations for the project.
The Lake Charles Liquefaction Project includes:
• Three liquefaction trains, each with a production capacity sufficient to produce 5.48 million metric tons per annum of LNG for export (each train would contain metering and gas treatment facilities, liquefaction and refrigerant units, safety and control systems, and associated infrastructure);
• modifications and upgrades at the existing Trunkline LNG terminal;
• about 0.5 mile of 48-inch-diameter feed gas line to supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility from existing gas transmission pipelines;
• approximately 17.9 miles of 24- and 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
• a new compressor station with a manufacturer's rating of 103,175 horsepower (hp), which equates to a site-specific rating of 98,685 hp (based on relative humidity and elevation);
• abandonment of a 3,000-hp compressor unit, installation of a unit with a manufacturer's rating of 15,900 hp and site-specific rating of 15,002-hp unit, and piping modifications at one existing compressor station;
• modification of station piping at three other existing compressor stations;
• five new meter stations and modifications and upgrades of five existing meter stations;
• modification of certain existing pipeline facilities; and
• construction of miscellaneous auxiliary and appurtenant facilities.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the final EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners; other interested individuals and non-governmental organizations; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a compact disk version. In addition, the final EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
On July 9, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the
On July 20, 2015, the Board adopted a final rule establishing a capital surcharge for the largest, most interconnected banks. In that final rule, the Board amended the July 9 proposal to conform the definition of short-term wholesale funding with the definition in the final rule. To allow interested persons to comment on the entire notice, the Board is extending the comment period of the July 9 proposal, to include the July 20 amendments to the proposed short-term wholesale funding collection, until October 19, 2015.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2015. The comment period for the proposed revisions and extension of the FR Y-15 published July 9, 2015 (80 FR 39433) is extended from September 8, 2015 to October 19, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by FR Y-15, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer, Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, Nuha Elmaghrabi, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
In connection with the GSIB final rule, the Board is amending the July proposal to align the definition of proposed short-term wholesale funding with the definition in the final GSIB surcharge rule. The amendments to proposed Schedule G include (1) moving three line items to different tiers, (2) adding an item to capture firm short positions, (3) adding two automatically-calculated items, (4) adding one item derived from the FR Y-9C, (5) deleting two items, and (6) collecting customer short positions as part of the secured funding totals. The Board also extended the comment period on the proposed revisions to the FR Y-15 until October 19, 2015 to allow interested persons to comment on the entire notice, including the July 20, 2015, amendments to the proposed short-term wholesale funding collection.
The Board estimates that these minimal differences will not affect the burden estimates provided in the July 9 proposal. The comment period for the proposed changes to the FR Y-15 proposal would also be extended to October 19, 2015, to allow commenters the opportunity to comment on the full proposal, including changes to the short-term wholesale funding measure adopted in this final rule. The Federal Reserve proposes the following revisions to the FR Y-15, which would be effective December 31, 2015:
Consistent with the calculation of short-term wholesale funding in the final rule, the Federal Reserve proposes to move unsecured wholesale funding obtained outside of the financial sector (item 2(b)) and retail brokered deposits and sweeps (item 2(c)) so that they are subcomponents of item 1, and to move unsecured wholesale funding obtained within the financial sector (item 4(a)) so that it is subcomponent of item 3.
The final rule excludes firm short positions involving Level 1 and Level 2A securities from the short-term wholesale funding definition, and assigns a maximum weight of 25 percent to firm short positions involving Level 2B securities or securities that do not
As a consequence of the aforementioned changes, the Federal Reserve also proposes adding total first tier short-term wholesale funding (new item 1(e)) to capture the total of items 1(a) through 1(d), and deleting total other short-term wholesale funding (item 4(c)) which is no longer needed.
The final rule measures short-term wholesale funding as a percent of risk weighted assets. To capture this value, the Federal Reserve proposes adding average risk-weighted assets (new item 7) and short-term wholesale funding metric (new item 8) to the schedule.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Inbox Group, LLC (“Inbox Group”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Inbox Group made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site,
Inbox Group is a marketing agency that provides email, social media, and mobile marketing programs and services. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, Inbox Group set forth on its Web site,
The Commission's complaint alleges that Inbox Group falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, Inbox Group was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits Inbox Group from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.
Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Inbox Group to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Inbox Group submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which * * * is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Golf Connect, LLC (“Golf Connect”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Golf Connect made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy frameworks agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) and the U.S. and Switzerland (collectively, “Safe Harbor Frameworks”). The Safe Harbor Frameworks allow U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU and Switzerland consistent with EU and Swiss law. To join the Safe Harbor Frameworks, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission and Switzerland as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site,
Golf Connect provides a communication platform and software and technology services to the golf industry. According to the Commission's complaint, Golf Connect has set forth on its Web site,
The Commission's complaint alleges that Golf Connect falsely represented that it was a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks when, in fact, from April 2014 until April 2015, Golf Connect was not a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks. The company's predecessor in interest had submitted its self-certification to the Safe Harbor Frameworks, but that self-certification had lapsed. Commerce subsequently updated the company's status to “not current” on its public Web site.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits Golf Connect from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor
Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Golf Connect to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Golf Connect submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR § 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (“Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site,
Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure is a race car driving school that offers consumers an opportunity to ride in and drive genuine stock cars with professional drivers, and was founded by NASCAR champion Dale Jarrett. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure set forth on its Web site,
The Commission's complaint alleges that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.
Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the FTC Performance Review Board.
Vicki Barber, Chief Human Capital Officer, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2700.
Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to the Chairwoman.
The following individuals have been designated to serve on the Commission's
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line (“California Skate-Line”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that California Skate-Line made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site,
California Skate-Line sells skating-related lessons and clothing, hosts events, and sponsors live performances. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, California Skate-Line set forth on its Web site,
The Commission's complaint alleges that California Skate-Line falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, California Skate-Line was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits California Skate-Line from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.
Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires California Skate-Line to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that California Skate-Line submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting notice.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the GSA has prepared and filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), from May 2007, analyzing the environmental impacts of site acquisition and development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Records Complex (CRC), in Winchester County, Virginia.
Ms. Courtenay Hoernemann, Project Environmental Planner, 20 N 8th Street, Philadelphia PA 19107 at 215-446-4710.
Send written comments by email to
The alternatives fully evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS include the No Action Alternative, the Arcadia Route 50 property, and Whitehall Commerce Center.
The Supplemental Draft EIS incorporates by reference and builds upon the analyses presented in the 2007 Final EIS, and documents the Section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR part 800). The Supplemental Draft EIS addresses changes to the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns and assesses any new circumstances or information relevant to potential environmental impacts.
The Supplemental Draft EIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies. The Supplemental Draft EIS is available for review on the project Web site
• Handley Library, 100 West Piccadilly Street, P.O. Box 58, Winchester, VA 22604
• Bowman Library, 871 Tasker Road, P.O. Box 1300, Stephens City, VA 22655
• Smith Library, Shenandoah University, 718 Wade Miller Drive, Winchester, VA 22601
Federal, state, and local agencies, and other interested parties, are invited and encouraged to be present or represented at the public meeting on Thursday, September 10, 2015. All formal comments will become part of the public record and substantive comments will be responded to in the Final Supplemental EIS.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 19, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP is a vital resource helping the Agency achieve its mission to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable. HCUP is a family of health care databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and sponsored by AHRQ. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. The HCUP databases are annual files that contain anonymous information from hospital discharge records for inpatient care and certain components of outpatient care, such as emergency care and ambulatory surgeries. The project currently releases seven types of databases created for research use on a broad range of health issues, including cost and quality of health services, medical practice patterns, access to health care programs, and outcomes of treatments at the national, State, and local market levels. HCUP also produces a large number of software tools to enhance the use of administrative health care data for research and public health use. Software tools use information available from a variety of sources to create new data elements, often through sophisticated algorithms, for use with the HCUP databases.
HCUP's objectives are to:
• Create and enhance a powerful source of national, state, and all-payer health care data.
• Produce a broad set of software tools and products to facilitate the use of HCUP and other administrative data.
• Enrich a collaborative partnership with statewide data organizations (that voluntarily participate in the project) aimed at increasing the quality and use of health care data.
• Conduct and translate research to inform decision making and improve health care delivery.
This project is being conducted by AHRQ through its primary contractor and subcontractor, Truven Health Analytics and Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the outcomes, cost, cost-effectiveness, and use of health care services and access to such services. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3).
The HCUP releases seven types of databases for public research use:
(1) The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) is the largest all-payer inpatient care database in the United States, yielding national estimates of hospital inpatient stays. The NIS approximates 20 percent of the discharges from all U.S. community hospitals and contains data from approximately 8 million hospital stays each year. NIS data releases are available for purchase from the HCUP Central Distributor for data years beginning in 1988.
(2) The Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) is the only all-payer inpatient care database for children in the United States. The KID was specifically designed to permit researchers to study a broad range of conditions and procedures related to child health issues. The KID contains a sample of 2 to 3 million discharges for children age 20 and younger from more than 3,500 U.S. community hospitals. KID data releases are available every third year starting in 1997.
(3) The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) is the largest all-payer Emergency Department (ED) database in the United States. It is constructed to capture information both on ED visits that do not result in an admission and on ED visits that result in an admission to the same hospital. The NEDS contains more than 25 million unweighted records for ED visits at about 1,000 U.S. community hospitals and approximates a 20-percent stratified sample of U.S. hospital-based EDs. NEDS data releases are available beginning with data year 2006.
(4) The State Inpatient Databases (SID) contain the universe of inpatient discharge abstracts from data organizations in 46 States and the District of Columbia that currently participate in the SID. Together, the SID encompasse approximately 96 percent of all U.S. community hospital discharges. Most States that participate in the SID make their data available for purchase through the HCUP Central Distributor. Files are available beginning with data year 1990.
(5) The State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) contain encounter-level data from ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services from hospital-owned facilities. In addition, some States provide data for ambulatory surgery and outpatient services from nonhospital-owned facilities. Currently, 34 States participate in the SASD. Files are available beginning with data year 1997.
(6) The State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) contain data from hospital-owned EDs for visits that do not result in a hospitalization. Currently, 32 States participate in the SEDD. Files are available beginning with data year 1999.
(7) A new database called the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) is planned for release in late
To support AHRQ's mission to improve health care through health services research, HCUP databases and software tools are disseminated to users outside of the Agency through the HCUP Central Distributor at
This information collection request is for the activities associated with the HCUP database application process not the collection of health care data for HCUP databases. The activities associated with this application include:
(1) HCUP Application. All persons requesting access to the HCUP databases must complete an application at
(2) HCUP Data Use Agreement Training. All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must complete an online training course. The purpose of the training is to emphasize the importance of data protection, reduce the risk of inadvertent violations, and describe the individual's responsibility when using HCUP data. The training course can be accessed and completed online at
(3) HCUP Data Use Agreement (DUA). All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must sign a data use agreement. An example DUA for the Nationwide databases is available at
HCUP databases are released to researchers outside of AHRQ after the completion of required training and submission of an application that includes a signed HCUP DUA. In addition, before restricted access public release state-level databases are released, AHRQ must review and approve the applicant's statement of intended use to ensure that the planned use is consistent with HCUP policies and with the HCUP Data Use Agreement. Fees are set for databases released through the HCUP Central Distributor depending on the type of database. The fee for sale of state-level data is determined by each participating Statewide Data Organization and reimbursed to those organizations. Information collected in the HCUP Application process will be used for two purposes only:
1. Business Transaction: In order to deliver the HCUP databases and software, contact information is necessary for shipping the data on disk (or any other media used in the future).
2. Enforcement of the HCUP DUA: The HCUP DUA contains several restrictions on use of the data. Most of these restrictions have been put in place to safeguard the privacy of individuals and establishments represented in the data. For example, data users can only use the data for research, analysis, and aggregate statistical reporting and are prohibited from attempting to identify any persons in the data. Contact information on HCUP DUAsis retained in the event that a violation of the DUA takes place.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden associated with the applicants' time to order any of the HCUP databases. An estimated 1,300 persons will order HCUP data annually. Each of these persons will complete an application (10 minutes), the DUA training (15 minutes) and a DUA (5 minutes). The total burden is estimated to be 650 hours annually.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the applicants' time to order HCUP data. The total cost burden is estimated to be $24,772 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 7, 2015.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc., a component entity of The Schumacher Group of Delaware, Inc., PSO, PSO number P0115, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc. was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 7, 2015.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 2, 2015.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ,
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from Close Care Gap, PSO, a component entity of iCareQuality, Inc., PSO number P0145, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Close Care Gap, PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 2, 2015.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.
NCHS Headquarters, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
This meeting is open to the public; however, visitors must be processed in accordance with established federal policies and procedures. For foreign nationals or non-U.S. citizens, pre-approval is required (please contact Gwen Mustaf, 301-458-4500,
This committee is charged with providing advice and making recommendations to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NCHS, regarding the scientific and technical program goals and objectives, strategies, and priorities of NCHS.
The agenda will include:
Requests to make oral presentations should be submitted in writing to the contact person listed below. All requests must contain the name, address, telephone number, and organizational affiliation of the presenter.
Written comments should not exceed five single-spaced typed pages in length and must be received by September 11, 2015.
The agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Virginia S. Cain, Ph.D., Director of Extramural Research, NCHS/CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 7208, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4500, fax (301) 458-4024.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.
In FR Doc. 2015-19729, appearing on page 48325, in the
On page 48326, in the first column, the numbered list is corrected to read as follows:
1. DUREZOL (difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion) 0.05%,
2. Phenylephrine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution,
3. ZYLET (loteprednol etabonate and tobramycin ophthalmic suspension),
4. BETHKIS (tobramycin Inhalation Solution),
5. INTELENCE (etravirine),
6. PREZISTA (darunavir),
7. VIRAMUNE XR (nevirapine),
8. EPIDUO (adapalene and benzoyl peroxide),
9. EXJADE (deferasirox),
10. DOTAREM (gadoterate meglumine),
11. FYCOMPA (perampanel),
12. RECOTHROM (thrombin, topical [recombinant]),
13. PREVNAR 13 (Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine [Diphtheria CRM
14. PLEXIMMUNE,
15. ELANA SURGICAL KIT (HUD),
16. BERLIN HEART EXCOR PEDIATRIC VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE (VAD),
17. ENTERRA THERAPY SYSTEM, and
18. CONTEGRA Pulmonary Valved Conduit.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, or the Agency) is announcing the establishment of a public docket to receive comments from interested parties on enhancing the utility and usability of the Inactive Ingredient Database (IID) (also known as the Inactive Ingredient Guide). These comments will help FDA identify best practices to assist Agency staff in designing the IID and maintaining the information contained therein. We intend to identify and further develop these best practices in a technical guide or draft guidance to be issued at a later date.
Submit either electronic or written comments by October 19, 2015.
Submit electronic comments to
Elizabeth Giaquinto, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1670, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7930.
The IID provides information on inactive ingredients in FDA-approved drug products. An inactive ingredient, or excipient, is any component of a drug product other than an active ingredient (21 CFR 210.3(b)(8)). Generally, the IID identifies excipients that appear in approved drug products for a particular dosage form and route of administration.
In September 2011, FDA created the IID Working Group to develop a set of questions and answers to facilitate use of the IID. During the development of questions and answers, FDA has worked with the International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC Americas).
To help FDA identify and ultimately establish best practices and issue a technical guide or draft guidance, FDA is requesting public comments regarding the enhancement of the IID.
FDA is requesting comments and supporting information, including proposed questions and proposed answers, on the following topics related to the IID:
1. How can we improve nomenclature in the IID (
2. How should we identify excipient amounts listed in the IID?
3. How should we reflect updates to the current IID to ensure completeness and accuracy?
4. Should we restructure the IID, and if so, how?
5. Are there additional suggestions or comments for IID improvement?
FDA will consider all comments submitted. FDA generally will not respond directly to the person or organization submitting the comment.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) permanently debarring Lisa Coroniti from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Coroniti was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product. Ms. Coroniti was given notice of the proposed permanent debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Ms. Coroniti failed to request a hearing.
This order is effective August 20, 2015.
Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Kenny Shade, Division of Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs (ELEM-4144), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Drive, Element Bldg., Rm. 4144, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4640.
Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B)) requires debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act.
On April 8, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered judgment against Ms. Coroniti for one count of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, in violation of sections 301(a) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(2)).
FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: Ms. Coroniti was a sales representative for Gallant Pharma International Inc. (Gallant Pharma) between June 2011 and August 2013, and was responsible for selling injectable cosmetic drugs and devices, and intravenous chemotherapy drugs, to doctors and hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Some of the drugs Ms. Coroniti facilitated the sale of were misbranded within the meaning of the FD&C Act.
Ms. Coroniti admitted that she sold drugs which were not approved by the FDA for use on patients in the United States. She further admitted that the drugs she sold on behalf of Gallant Pharma were misbranded in that they did not bear adequate directions for use and were not subject to an exemption from that requirement, and they were accompanied by non-FDA approved packaging and inserts.
Between June 2011 and August 2013, Ms. Coroniti admitted to selling misbranded drugs to 15 distinct doctors and medical practices in Pennsylvania and generated more than $1.1 million in illegal proceeds from these sales. She admitted that, as of April 26, 2013, she became willfully blind to the illegality of Gallant Pharma's business. Nonetheless, she continued her sales activity with Gallant Pharma until her arrest in August 2013.
Between April 26, 2013, and August 7, 2013, Ms. Coroniti personally sold more than $367,000 in misbranded drugs and devices to doctors and medical practices in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area. On or about July 30, 2013, Ms. Coroniti sold five vials of misbranded BOTOX to a doctor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in exchange for $1,900.00, thereby causing a misbranded drug to be introduced into interstate commerce. She further admitted that the loss amount attributable to her personal sales was between $200,000 and $400,000.
As a result of her conviction, on March 25, 2015, FDA sent Ms. Coroniti a notice by certified mail proposing to permanently debar her from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on the finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Ms. Coroniti was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct related to the regulation of a drug product. FDA determined that Ms. Coroniti's felony conviction was related to the regulation of drug products because the conduct underlying her conviction, including intentionally introducing into interstate commerce misbranded drug products, undermined FDA's regulatory oversight over drug products marketed in the United States. The proposal also offered Ms. Coroniti an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. The proposal was received on May 1, 2015. Ms. Coroniti failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and has waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Lisa Marie Coroniti has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product. Section 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)) requires that Ms.Coroniti's debarment be permanent.
As a result of the foregoing findings, Lisa Marie Coroniti is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
Any application by Ms. Coroniti for special termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(4)) should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2099 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is announcing plans for a jointly sponsored public meeting to obtain public input on possible approaches for collecting additional on-farm antimicrobial drug use and resistance data. Such data are important for assessing the impact of measures being implemented to foster the judicious use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals.
Oral presentations can be made by members of the public during the open public comment period of the public meeting. These presentations will be scheduled between approximately 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. on September 30, 2015. Those persons desiring to make an oral presentation should notify the contact person listed in this notice by September 16, 2015, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of information they wish to present. In an effort to accommodate all who desire to speak, time allotted for each presentation may be limited. The contact person will inform each speaker prior to the meeting of the time they are scheduled to speak.
Antimicrobial drugs have been widely used in human and veterinary medicine for more than 50 years, with tremendous benefits to both human and animal health. The development of resistance to this important class of drugs, and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious threat to public and animal health. Because antimicrobial drug use can contribute to the emergence of drug-resistant organisms, these important drugs must be used judiciously in both animal and human medicine to slow the development of resistance.
In December 2013, FDA published Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213 (
On March 27, 2015, the White House released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-resistant Bacteria (“National Action Plan”) (
In April 2015, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published an Info Sheet entitled “Proposed Initiatives From the USDA Antimicrobial Resistance Action Plan” (
Gathering information on the way medically important antimicrobials are used in food-producing animals is essential to measuring the impact of the FDA's GFI #213. FDA is collaborating with USDA and CDC to develop a plan for collecting additional on-farm data on antimicrobial use and resistance. Such data are intended to supplement existing information, including data on the quantity of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals (reported under section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008) and data on antimicrobial resistance (
A data collection plan is needed to obtain additional information necessary to: (1) Assess the rate of adoption of changes outlined in the FDA's GFI #213; (2) help gauge the success of antibiotic stewardship efforts and guide their continued evolution and optimization; and (3) assess associations between antibiotic use practices and resistance. FDA is continuing to work with the USDA and CDC in developing this plan, and is holding this public meeting in order to obtain input from the public. This meeting is the first opportunity for public input as part of our ongoing effort to develop and implement plans for collecting additional on-farm antimicrobial drug use and resistance data.
The public meeting will provide an opportunity for public comment on possible approaches for collecting additional antimicrobial drug use data. The final agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the Agency's Web site at
FDA will prepare a meeting transcript and make it available on the Agency's Web site (see section II) after the meeting. FDA anticipates that the transcript will be available approximately 60 business days after the meeting. A copy of the transcript will be available for public examination at the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
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 Kalyani Bhatt 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).
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 19, 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 FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under 42 U.S.C. 243, we are required to cooperate with and aid State and local authorities in the enforcement of their health regulations and are authorized to assist States in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases. Under this authority, we participate with State regulatory agencies, some foreign nations, and the molluscan shellfish industry in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).
NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety of molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol of shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of shellfish processors. Each participating State and foreign nation monitors its molluscan shellfish processors and issues certificates for those that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of its certified shellfish processors to FDA on Form FDA 3038, “Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.” We use this information to publish the “Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List,” a monthly comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish processors certified under the cooperative program. If we did not collect the information necessary to compile this list, participating States would not be able to identify and keep out shellfish processed by uncertified processors in other States and foreign nations. Consequently, NSSP would not be able to control the distribution of uncertified and possibly unsafe shellfish in interstate commerce, and its effectiveness would be nullified.
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We estimate that 40 respondents will submit 2,280 Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificates annually, for a total burden of 228 hours (2,280 submissions × 0.10 hours = 228 hours). This estimate is based on our experience with this information collection and the number of certificates received in the past 3 years, which has remained constant.
Under the provisions of section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Paris Watson, Senior Advisor, NIH Office of Disease Prevention, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 2B03, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call (301) 496-1508 or email your request, including your address to
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,040.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health.
This meeting is open to the public but is being held by teleconference only. No physical meeting location is provided for any interested individuals to listen to and/or participate in the meeting. Any individual interested in listening to the meeting discussions must call: 877-917-9486 and use Passcode: 8027865 for access to the meeting. Individuals needing special assistance should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement electronically to the Contact Person at
Information will also available on the committee's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The
The STOP Act also requires the Secretary to develop “a set of measures to be used in preparing the report on best practices” and to consider categories including but not limited to the following:
Category #1: Sixteen
Category #2: Enforcement and educational programs to promote compliance with these laws/regulations;
Category #3: Programs targeted to youths, parents, and caregivers to deter underage drinking and the number of individuals served by these programs;
Category #4: The amount that each state invests, per youth capita, on the prevention of underage drinking broken into five categories: (a) Compliance check programs in retail outlets; (b) Checkpoints and saturation patrols that include the goal of reducing and deterring underage drinking; (c) Community-based, school-based, and higher-education-based programs to prevent underage drinking; (d) Underage drinking prevention programs that target youth within the juvenile justice and child welfare systems; and (e) Any other state efforts or programs that target underage drinking.
Congress' purpose in mandating the collection of data on state policies and programs through the
Because of the broad scope of data required by the STOP Act, SAMHSA relies on existing data sources where possible to minimize the survey burden on the states. SAMHSA uses data on state underage drinking policies from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), an authoritative compendium of state alcohol-related laws. The APIS data is augmented by SAMHSA with original legal research on state laws and policies addressing underage drinking to include all of the STOP Act's requested laws and regulations (Category #1 of the four categories included in the STOP Act, as described above, page 2).
The STOP Act mandates that the
SAMHSA has determined that data on Categories #2, #3, and #4 mandated in the STOP Act (as listed on page 2) (enforcement and educational programs; programs targeting youth, parents, and caregivers; and state expenditures) as well as states' best practices standards, collaborations with tribal governments, and state-level interagency collaborations
The
(1) Enforcement programs to promote compliance with underage drinking laws and regulations (as described in Category #2 above, page 2);
(2) Programs targeted to youth, parents, and caregivers to deter underage drinking (as described in Category #3 above, page 2);
(3) State interagency collaboration to implement prevention programs, state best-practice standards, and collaborations with tribal governments (as described above, page 4);
(4) The amount that each state invests on the prevention of underage drinking in the categories specified in the STOP Act (see description of Category #4, above, page 2) and descriptions of any dedicated fees, taxes, or fines used to raise these funds.
The number of questions in each section is as follows:
It is anticipated that respondents will actually respond to only a subset of this total. This is because the survey is designed with “skip logic,” which means that many questions will only be directed to a subset of respondents who report the existence of particular programs or activities.
This latest version of the survey has been revised slightly. There are no new questions, nor were any deleted. All revisions are for the purpose of clarifying the existing questions. The total number of questions remains the same, so no additional time burden should be placed on the respondents. All questions continue to ask only for readily available data.
The changes can be summarized as follows:
Some global changes have been made; for example, the current HHS and SAMHSA style guides are applied so that “state” and “federal” are not capitalized. In addition, some instruction sentences are put in bold font, in response to frequent questions
In addition, the following specific changes are recommended as clarifications or improvements of existing questions:
Part 1, Enforcement:
A question requesting the total number of licensees in the state has been moved up to become the second question. It was previously located in the set of questions about state compliance checks, but was skipped if the respondent answered that the state does do not do compliance checks. The number of licensees is a general piece of information that could be very useful in analyzing survey response data, and therefore should be collected from all states, regardless of whether they conduct compliance checks.
The wording of the question asking for the number of random compliance checks conducted by the state has been changed, and a definition of random checks is included. The current wording is confusing,
Part 2A, Programs:
Two changes have been made to shorten the length of program descriptions, in which states describe their underage drinking prevention programs. The program descriptions are the lengthiest portion of the survey response and are significant contributors to the length of the
(a) The instructions in the section have been modified to state: “Please briefly describe the program, including primary purpose, population served, and methods used.”
(b) The number of programs reported on has been reduced from 15 to 10. In the 2014 survey, 43 states (84%) reported 10 or fewer programs. The burden on respondents from those eight states that report more than 10 programs could be reduced by limiting the responses to 10 programs.
Part 2D, Expenditures:
In response to the question about expenditures on school-based prevention programs, some respondents have reported
To ensure that the
Based on these investigations, SAMHSA collects the required data using an online survey data collection platform (SurveyMonkey). Links to the four sections of the survey are distributed to states via email. The
The estimated annual response burden to collect this information is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by September 21, 2015 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
General notice.
This document announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to conduct the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test, a National Customs Automation Program
The test will begin no earlier than September 21, 2015 and will run for approximately two years. CBP is accepting applications for participation in this planned test until CBP has received applications from nine parties that meet all test participant requirements. Comments concerning this notice and all aspects of the announced test may be submitted at any time during the test period.
Applications to participate in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test must be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at
Vincent C. Huang, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, via email at
The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established in Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, Dec. 8, 1993) (Customs Modernization Act) (19 U.S.C. 1411-14). Through NCAP, the initial thrust of customs modernization was on trade compliance and the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing which is intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for CBP and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions. CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionality designed to replace a specific legacy ACS or paper function. Each release begins with a test and ends with mandatory use of the new ACE feature, thus retiring the legacy ACS or paper function. Each release builds on previous releases and sets the foundation for subsequent releases.
The Customs Modernization Act provides the Commissioner of CBP with the authority to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the NCAP. The test described in this notice is authorized pursuant to the Customs Modernization Act and section 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)) which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures. As provided in 19 CFR 101.9(b), for purposes of conducting an NCAP test, the Commissioner of CBP may impose requirements different from those specified in the CBP regulations.
This test is also in furtherance of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) key initiatives, set forth in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, Oct. 13, 2006) (SAFE Port Act) (19 U.S.C. 1411(d)) and Executive Order 13659 of February 19, 2014,
Executive Order 13659 requires that by December 2016, ACE, as the ITDS single window, have the operational capabilities to serve as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export, and to transition from paper-based requirements and procedures to faster and more cost-effective electronic submissions to, and communications with, U.S. government agencies.
Under the CBP regulations (title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)), certain information must be submitted to CBP for vessels with export cargo leaving the United States for any foreign area, whether directly or by way of other domestic ports. Section 4.61 (19 CFR 4.61) requires the vessel master or other proper officer to execute a Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement on CBP Form 1300 filed with CBP pertaining to the outbound vessel. Section 4.63 (19 CFR 4.63) requires the vessel master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, to file a vessel cargo manifest on paper CBP Form 1302-A, Cargo Declaration Outward With Commercial Forms, with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document, with CBP at each port from which clearance is being sought.
As indicated in the previous section, the vessel commander or agent must file copies of the vessel cargo manifest on CBP Form 1302-A. CBP Form 1302-A consists of the following data elements:
The vessel cargo manifest may be filed in complete form or incomplete form (pro forma). The complete manifest must be filed with CBP before the vessel will be cleared to depart to a foreign country listed in 19 CFR 4.75(c). Otherwise, for shipments to a foreign country, an incomplete manifest may be filed with CBP at the departure port when accompanied by the proper bond. As provided in 19 CFR 4.84(c)(2), for shipments from any State or the District of Columbia to Puerto Rico, a complete manifest or proper bond shall be filed with CBP within one business day of arrival in Puerto Rico. As provided in 19 CFR 4.84(c)(1), for shipments from any State or the District of Columbia to noncontiguous territories of the United States other than Puerto Rico, or from Puerto Rico to any State or the District of Columbia to any other noncontiguous territory, a complete manifest or proper bond must be filed with CBP before departure.
Under the terms of the bond, the complete manifest must be filed with CBP by the master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, within the appropriate time period. For shipments to foreign countries, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 4 business days post-departure. For shipments from the United States to Puerto Rico, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 7 business days after arrival in Puerto Rico. For shipments between the United States or Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 7 business days after departure.
As mentioned in the previous section, under 19 CFR 4.76, certain carriers are approved to submit outbound vessel manifest information electronically in AES in lieu of submitting a paper CBP Form 1302-A. In most cases, these carriers must submit the complete manifest data within 10 calendar days after departure of the vessel from each port. However, if the destination of the vessel is a foreign port listed in 19 CFR 4.75(c), the carrier must transmit complete manifest information before vessel departure. Also, the time requirements for electronic transmission of complete manifest information for carriers destined to Puerto Rico and U.S. possessions are the same as the requirements found in 19 CFR 4.84 and described above.
Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), requires CBP to promulgate regulations providing for the mandatory transmission of electronic cargo information by way of a CBP-approved electronic data interchange (EDI) system before the cargo is brought into or departs the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail, or truck). The required cargo information is that which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified for purposes of ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. Section 192.14 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 192.14) implements the requirements of the Trade Act with regard to cargo departing the United States.
While the vessel cargo manifest described in the previous section must be submitted by the vessel commander or agent, that is, by the vessel carrier, 19 CFR 192.14 specifies that any required EEI must be filed by the USPPI. The USPPI or its authorized agent must transmit any required EEI using a CBP-approved EDI system, and verify system acceptance of this EEI no later than 24 hours prior to departure from the U.S. port where the vessel cargo is to be laden. The vessel carrier may not load cargo without first receiving from the USPPI or its authorized agent either the related EEI filing citation, covering all cargo for which the EEI is required, or exemption legends, covering cargo for which EEI need not be filed. The outbound vessel carrier then must annotate the vessel cargo manifest, waybill, or other export documentation with the applicable AES proof of filing, post departure, downtime, exclusion or exemption citations, conforming to the approved data formats found in the Bureau of the Census Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) (15 CFR part 30).
The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test will test the functionality regarding the filing of export manifest data for vessel cargo electronically to ACE in furtherance of the ITDS initiatives described above. CBP has re-engineered AES to move it to an ACE system platform. The re-engineering and incorporation of AES into ACE will result in the creation of a single automated export processing platform for certain export manifest, commodity, licensing, export control, and export targeting transactions. This will reduce costs for CBP, partner government agencies, and the trade community and improve facilitation of export shipments through the supply chain.
The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test will also test the feasibility of requiring the manifest information to be filed electronically in ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the vessel. (Under the current regulatory requirements, in most cases the complete manifest is not required to be submitted until after the departure of the vessel). As described in the
Participants in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test agree to provide export manifest data to CBP electronically at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. If the vessel carrier files this ACE Export Manifest data, the filing is in lieu of the paper filing of CBP Form 1302-A and copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest. If a freight forwarder or non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) files the ACE Export Manifest data, the carrier is still required to file one of the following: the paper CBP Form 1302-A with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document; the 19 CFR 4.76 electronic equivalent, if the vessel carrier is approved for this procedure; or the ACE Export Manifest data, if the vessel carrier is a test participant.
The ACE Export Manifest data submission will be used to target high-risk vessel cargo. The data should be available to test participants early in the planning stages of an export vessel cargo transaction. It is anticipated that data provided no later than 24 hours prior to loading will permit adequate time for proper risk assessment and identification of shipments to be inspected early enough in the supply chain to enhance security while minimizing disruption to the flow of goods.
Any vessel cargo identified as potentially high-risk will receive a hold until required additional information related to the shipment is submitted to clarify non-descriptive, inaccurate, or insufficient information, a physical inspection is performed, or some other appropriate action is taken, as specified by CBP. Once the cargo is cleared for loading, a release message will be generated and transmitted to the filer.
The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test data elements are similar, but not identical to the data elements required on CBP Form 1302-A. The data elements are mandatory unless otherwise indicated. Data elements that are indicated as “conditional” must be transmitted to CBP only if the particular information pertains to the cargo. The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo data elements are to be submitted at the lowest bill level. The data elements consist of:
There are currently no additional data elements identified for other participating U.S. Government Agencies (PGAs) for the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test. However, CBP may enhance the test in the future with additional data or processing capabilities to assist with facilitation of vessel shipment movements and to be consistent with Executive Order 13659. Any such enhancement will be announced in the
CBP is limiting this test to nine stakeholders in the vessel cargo environment. Specifically, CBP is seeking participation from:
• At least three, but no more than six, vessel carriers; and
• At least three, but no more than six, freight forwarders or NVOCCs.
There are no restrictions with regard to organization size, location, or commodity type. However, participation is limited to those parties able to electronically transmit export manifest data in the identified acceptable format. Prospective ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants must have the technical capability to electronically submit data to CBP and receive response message sets via Cargo-IMP, AIR CAMIR, XML, or Unified XML, and must successfully complete certification testing with their client representative. (Unified XML may not be immediately available at the start of the test. However, parties wishing to utilize Unified XML may be accepted, pending its development and implementation). Once parties have applied to participate, they must complete a test phase to determine if the data transmission is in the required readable format. Applicants will be notified once they have successfully completed testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. In selecting participants, CBP will take into consideration the order in which the applications are received.
Test participants agree to submit export manifest data electronically to CBP via an approved EDI at least 24 hours prior to the loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. In addition, test participants agree to establish operational security protocols that correspond to CBP hold messages that mandate the participant to take responsive action and respond to CBP confirming that the requested action was taken to mitigate any threat identified, respond promptly with complete and accurate information when contacted by CBP with questions regarding the data submitted, and comply with any “Do Not Load” instructions.
Finally, test participants agree to participate in any teleconferences or meetings established by CBP, when necessary, to ensure any challenges, or operational or technical issues regarding the test are properly communicated and addressed.
Participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test does not impose any legally binding obligations on either CBP or the participant, and CBP generally does not intend to enforce or levy punitive measures if test participants are non-compliant with these conditions of participation during the test.
Those interested in participating in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test should submit an email to CBP Export Manifest at
ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants are responsible for all costs incurred as a result of their participation in the test and such costs will vary, depending on their pre-existing infrastructures. Costs may be offset by a significant reduction in expenses associated with copying, storing, and courier services for presenting the paper manifest to CBP.
While the benefits to ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants will vary, several advantages of joining may include:
• Reduction in costs associated with generating copies, transportation, and storage of paper manifest documentation;
• Increases in security by leveraging CBP threat model and other data to employ a risk-based approach to improve vessel cargo security and to ensure compliance with U.S. export laws, rules and regulations through targeted screening;
• Gains in efficiencies by automating the identification of high-risk cargo for enhanced screening and earlier identification of low-risk shipments;
• The ability to provide input into CBP efforts to establish, test, and refine the interface between government and industry communication systems for the implementation of the electronic export manifest; and
• Facilitation of corporate preparedness for future mandatory implementation of electronic export manifest submission requirements.
For purposes of this test, the requirement to file a paper CBP Form 1302-A, as provided in 19 CFR 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-89, will be waived for vessel carrier test participants that submit the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo data elements electronically as described above. For purposes of this test, the requirement to file copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document, as provided in 19 CFR 4.63(a)(1), will also be waived for vessel carrier test participants. If a freight forwarder or NVOCC submits the electronic ACE Export Manifest data, the vessel carrier is still required to file one of the following: The paper CBP Form 1302-A with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document; the 19 CFR 4.76 electronic equivalent, if the carrier is approved for the electronic filing; or the electronic ACE Export Manifest data, if the vessel carrier is a test participant. The vessel carrier maintains responsibility for submitting the manifest data to CBP to cover all cargo on the vessel, even if the freight forwarder or NVOCC has also submitted manifest data.
Participation in the test does not alter the participant's obligations to comply with any other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including 19 CFR 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-89, and participants will still be subject to applicable penalties for non-compliance. In addition, submission of data under the test does not exempt the participant from any CBP or other U.S. Government agency program requirements or any statutory sanctions in the event that a violation of U.S. export laws or prohibited articles are discovered within a shipment/container presented for export destined from the United States on a vessel owned and/or operated by the participant.
The test will be activated on a case-by-case basis with each participant and may be limited to a single or small number of ports until any operational, training, or technical issues on either the trade or government side are established and/or resolved. The test will run for approximately two years from September 21, 2015. While the test is ongoing, CBP will evaluate the results and determine whether the test will be extended, expanded to include additional participants, or otherwise modified. CBP will announce any such modifications by notice in the
All data submitted and entered into ACE is subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) and is considered confidential, except to the extent as otherwise provided by law. However, participation in this or any ACE test is not confidential and upon a written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.
If a test participant fails to abide by the rules, procedures, or terms and conditions of this and all other applicable
If CBP determines that a suspension is warranted, CBP will notify the participant of this decision, the facts or conduct warranting suspension, and the date when the suspension will be effective. In the case of willful misconduct, or where public health interests or safety are concerned, the suspension may be effective immediately. This decision may be appealed in writing to the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, within 15 days of notification. The appeal should address the facts or conduct charges contained in the notice and state how the participant has or will achieve compliance. CBP will notify the participant within 30 days of receipt of an appeal whether the appeal is granted. If the participant has already been suspended, CBP will notify the participant when their participation in the test will be reinstated.
As noted above, CBP will be accepting no more than nine participants in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test. This means that fewer than ten persons will be subject to any information collections under this test. Accordingly, collections of information within this notice are exempted from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502 and 3507).
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; new information collection request: 1670-NEW.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Protective Security Coordination Division (PSCD), Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP), will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 19, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP/PSCD/OBP, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0612, Washington, DC 20528-0612. Emailed requests should go to
•
•
The Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless form will be provided to participants of OBP trainings. The participants will be emergency response personnel training with DHS OBP personnel. The collection of this information is necessary in the case that an individual who acts as a volunteer role player in support of official OBP training sustains an injury or death during the performance of his or her supporting role. If legal action is taken, this information can serve as a “hold harmless” statement/agreement by the Government. The purpose of the Gratuitous Services Agreement is to establish that no monies, favors or other compensation will be given or received by either parties involved.
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, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will meet on Thursday, September 17, 2015, at the Albuquerque District Office, 100 Sun Avenue Northeast, Pan American Building, Suite 330, Albuquerque, New Mexico, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the BLM Albuquerque District Office, 100 Sun Avenue Northeast, Pan American Building, Suite 330, Albuquerque, NM 87109.
Carlos Coontz, 575-838-1263, BLM Socorro Field Office, 901 South Highway 85, Socorro, NM 87101. 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
The 10-member Albuquerque District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico's Albuquerque District.
Planned agenda items include updates on: Council term length, membership, and designation; the Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan; the Socorro Resource Management Plan five year evaluation; Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument; Datil Well Recreation Area; the Arizona Interconnection Project access roads permitting; and wilderness study areas. There will also be a discussion on the RAC's goals, field trip priorities, training, and future organizational preferences.
A half-hour comment period during which the public may address the RAC will begin at 11 a.m. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
On August 17, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in the lawsuit entitled
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Defendants Arkema Inc.; Bayer Cropscience, LP; FMC Corporation; Honeywell International, Inc; Lebanon Seaboard Corporation; Montrose Chemical Corporation of California; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Olin Corpration; Rhone-Poulenc; Rohm and Haas Company; Shell Oil Company; Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Union Carbide Corporation; Wilmington Securities, Inc.; and 21st Century Fox America, Inc., will: (1) Pay past response costs of $945,117.64 to the United States, (2) agree to pay future response costs to the United States, and (3) implement injunctive relief to perform the remedy set forth in the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 (“OU-1”) of the Central Chemical Site (“Site”) in Hagerstown Maryland. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States' claim for cost recovery under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, and the United States' and the State of Maryland's claims for injunctive relief under Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, and Maryland Environment Code § 7-222, with respect to OU-1 of the Site. The Site is a former agricultural pesticide and fertilizer blending facility; OU-1 of the Site addresses contaminated soils, and principal threat wastes at the Site, including a former waste lagoon.
Under the proposed Consent Decree, the United States and the State of Maryland covenant not to sue or take administrative action against Defendants pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA and Section 7003 of RCRA, for past and future costs paid, and injunctive relief performed, pursuant to the proposed Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $69.50 (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 $25.00.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 31, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 31, 2015.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA grants a permanent variance to Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture from the provisions of OSHA standards that regulate work in compressed-air environments at 29 CFR 1926.803.
The permanent variance specified by this notice becomes effective on August 20, 2015, and shall remain in effect until the completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel Project, but no later than December 31, 2016.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
Copies of this
On April 3, 2014, Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture, (“IHP JV” or “the applicant”), 2600 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20003, submitted an application for a permanent variance and interim order under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (“Variances and other relief under section 6(d)”) from several provisions of the OSHA standard that regulates work in compressed air at 29 CFR 1926.803. IHP JV also requested an interim order pending OSHA's decision on the application for a variance (Exhibit OSHA-2014-0011-0001, Request for Variance). Specifically, the applicant seeks a variance from the provisions of the standard that: (1) Prohibit compressed-air worker exposure to pressures exceeding 50 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) except in an emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5));
According to its application, IHP JV is currently the general contractor for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority's (“DC Water”) project to construct the Anacostia River Tunnel. The Anacostia River Tunnel project design requires the ability to safely perform hyperbaric interventions in compressed air at pressures higher than allowed in the existing OSHA standard 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5) which states: “No employee shall be subjected to pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. except in emergency” (see footnote 1).
The applicant is a contractor that works on complex tunnel projects using recently developed equipment and procedures for soft-ground tunneling. The applicant's workers engage in the construction of subaqueous tunnels below the water table through soft soils consisting of clay, silt, and sand using advanced shielded mechanical excavation techniques in conjunction with an Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine (EPBTBM).
IHP JV employs specially trained personnel for the construction of the tunnel, and states that this construction project uses shielded mechanical-excavation techniques. IHP JV asserts that its workers perform hyperbaric interventions at pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the excavation chamber of the EPBTBM. The hyperbaric interventions consist of conducting inspections and maintenance work on the cutter-head structure and cutting tools of the EPBTBM.
OSHA considered IHP JV's application for a permanent variance and interim order. On February 11, 2015, OSHA published a preliminary
IHP JV asserts that innovations in tunnel excavation, specifically with EPBTBMs, have, in most cases, eliminated the need to pressurize the entire tunnel. These advances in technology modified substantially the methods used by the construction industry to excavate subaqueous tunnels compared to the caisson work regulated by the current OSHA compressed-air standard for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803. Such advances reduce the number of workers exposed, and the total duration of exposure, to hyperbaric pressure during tunnel construction.
Using shielded mechanical-excavation techniques, in conjunction with precast concrete tunnel liners and backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide methods to achieve the face pressures required to maintain a stabilized tunnel
In addition to innovations in tunnel-excavation methods, research conducted after OSHA published its compressed-air standard for construction in 1971, resulted in advances in hyperbaric medicine. In this regard, the applicant asserts that the use of decompression protocols incorporating oxygen is more efficient, effective, and safer for tunnel workers than compliance with the existing OSHA standard (29 CFR 1926, subpart S, Appendix A decompression tables). According to the applicant, contractors routinely and safely expose employees performing interventions in the working chamber of EPBTBMs to hyperbaric pressures up to 75 p.s.i.g., which is 50% higher than maximum pressure specified by the existing OSHA standard (see 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)). The applicant asserts that these hyperbaric exposures are possible because of advances in hyperbaric technology, a better understanding of hyperbaric medicine, and the development of a project-specific HOM (Hyperbaric Operations Manual) that requires specialized medical support and hyperbaric supervision to provide assistance to a team of specially trained man-lock attendants and hyperbaric workers.
The applicant contends that the alternative safety measures included in its application provide its workers with a place of employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain under the existing provisions of OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction. The applicant certifies that it provided employee representatives of affected workers with a copy of the variance application.
The applicant states that it may perform hyperbaric interventions at pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the working chamber of the EPBTBM; this pressure exceeds the pressure limit of 50 p.s.i.g. specified for nonemergency purposes by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5). The EPBTBM has twin man locks, with each man lock having two compartments. This configuration allows workers to access the man locks for compression and decompression, and medical personnel to access the man locks if required in an emergency.
EPBTBMs are capable of maintaining pressure at the tunnel face, and stabilizing existing geological conditions, through the controlled use of propel cylinders, a mechanically driven cutter head, bulkheads within the shield, ground-treatment foam, and a screw conveyor that moves excavated material from the working chamber. As noted earlier, the forward-most portion of the EPBTBM is the working chamber, and this chamber is the only pressurized segment of the EPBTBM. Within the shield, the working chamber consists of two sections: The staging chamber and the forward working chamber. The staging chamber is the section of the working chamber between the man-lock door and the entry door to the forward working chamber. The forward working chamber is immediately behind the cutter head and tunnel face.
The applicant will pressurize the working chamber to the level required to maintain a stable tunnel face. Pressure in the staging chamber ranges from atmospheric (no increased pressure), to a maximum pressure equal to the pressure in the working chamber. The applicant asserts that most of the hyperbaric interventions will be at or near atmospheric pressure. However, the applicant maintains that they may have to perform interventions at pressures up to 52 p.s.i.g.
During interventions, workers enter the working chamber through one of the twin man locks that open into the staging chamber. To reach the forward part of the working chamber, workers pass through a door in a bulkhead that separates the staging chamber from the forward working chamber. The maximum crew size allowed in the forward working chamber is three. At certain hyperbaric pressures (
The applicant developed a project-specific HOM for the Anacostia River Tunnel project (Exhibit OSHA-2014-0011-0003, IHP JV Project-Specific HOM) that describes in detail the hyperbaric procedures and required medical examinations used during the tunnel-construction project. The HOM is project-specific, and discusses standard operating procedures and emergency and contingency procedures. The procedures include using experienced and knowledgeable man-lock attendants who have the training and experience necessary to recognize and treat decompression illnesses and injuries. The attendants are under the direct supervision of the hyperbaric supervisor and attending physician. In addition, procedures include medical screening and review of prospective compressed-air workers (CAWs). The purpose of this screening procedure is to vet prospective CAWs with medical conditions (
OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction requires decompression in accordance with the decompression tables in Appendix A of 29 CFR part 1926, subpart S (see 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)). As an alternative to the OSHA decompression tables, the applicant proposes to use newer decompression schedules that supplement breathing air used during decompression with pure oxygen. The applicant asserts that these decompression protocols are safer for tunnel workers than the decompression
Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure time
In addition, the HOM requires a physician certified in hyperbaric medicine to manage the medical condition of CAWs during hyperbaric exposures and decompression. A trained and experienced man-lock attendant also will be present during hyperbaric exposures and decompression. This man-lock attendant will operate the hyperbaric system to ensure compliance with the specified decompression table. A hyperbaric supervisor (competent person), trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety, will directly oversee all hyperbaric interventions, and ensure that staff follow the procedures delineated in the HOM or by the attending physician.
The applicant asserts that at higher hyperbaric pressures, decompression times exceed 75 minutes. The HOM establishes protocols and procedures that provide the basis for alternate means of protection for CAWs under these conditions. Accordingly, based on these protocols and procedures, the applicant requests to use the 1992 French Decompression Tables for hyperbaric interventions up to 52 p.s.i.g. for the Anacostia River Tunnel project. The applicant is committed to follow the decompression procedures described in the project-specific HOM during these interventions.
According to the applicant, breathing air under hyperbaric conditions increases the amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in a CAW's tissues. The greater the hyperbaric pressure under these conditions, and the more time spent under the increased pressure, the greater the amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in the tissues. When the pressure decreases during decompression, tissues release the dissolved nitrogen gas into the blood system, which then carries the nitrogen gas to the lungs for elimination through exhalation. Releasing hyperbaric pressure too rapidly during decompression can increase the size of the bubbles formed by nitrogen gas in the blood system, resulting in DCI, commonly referred to as “the bends.” This description of the etiology of DCI is consistent with current scientific theory and research on the issue (see footnote 12 in this notice discussing a 1985 NIOSH report on DCI).
The 1992 French Decompression Tables proposed for use by the applicant provide for stops during worker decompression (
1. A hyperbaric supervisor (a competent person experienced and trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety) directly supervises all hyperbaric interventions and ensures that the man-lock attendant, who is a competent person in the manual control of hyperbaric systems, follows the schedule specified in the decompression tables, including stops; and
2. The use of the 1992 French Decompression Tables for staged decompression offers an equal or better level of management and control over the decompression process than an automatic controller and results in lower occurrences of DCI.
Accordingly, the applicant is applying for a permanent variance from the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii), which requires automatic controls to regulate decompression. As noted above, the applicant is committed to conduct the staged decompression according to the 1992 French Decompression Tables under the direct control of the trained man-lock attendant and under the oversight of the hyperbaric supervisor.
The OSHA compressed-air standard for construction requires employers to use a special decompression chamber when total decompression time exceeds 75 minutes (see 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). Use of the special decompression chamber enables CAWs to move about and flex their joints to prevent neuromuscular problems during decompression.
As an alternative to using a special decompression chamber, the applicant notes that since only the working chamber of the EPBTBM is under pressure, and only a few workers out of the entire crew are exposed to hyperbaric pressure, the man locks (which, as noted earlier, connect directly to the working chamber) and the staging chamber are of sufficient size to accommodate the exposed workers. In addition, available space in the EPBTBM does not allow for an additional special decompression lock. Again, the applicant uses the man locks, each of which adequately accommodates a three-member crew, for this purpose when decompression lasts up to 75 minutes. When decompression exceeds 75 minutes, crews can open the door connecting the two compartments in each man lock during decompression stops or exit the man lock and move into the staging chamber where additional space is available. This
OSHA notes that on May 23, 2014, it granted a sub-aqueous tunnel construction permanent variance to Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (79 FR 29809) from the same provisions of the standard that regulate work in compressed air (at 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii)) that are the subject of the present application. On March 27, 2015, OSHA also granted another sub-aqueous tunnel construction permanent variance to Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture (80 FR 16440) from the same provisions of the standard that are the subject of the present application. Generally, the alternate conditions in this notice are based on and very similar to the alternate conditions of the previous permanent variances.
As stated earlier in this notice, IHP JV applied for a permanent variance and interim order for its Anacostia River Tunnel project only. The Anacostia River Tunnel project is located entirely in the District of Columbia and thus under Federal OSHA's exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, any variance OSHA grants IHP JV will have effect only in the District of Columbia.
Twenty-eight state safety and health plans have been approved by OSHA under section 18 of the (OSH) Act.
Additionally, in considering IHP JV's application for a permanent variance and interim order, OSHA noted that four State Plans have previously granted sub-aqueous tunnel construction variances and imposed different or additional requirements and conditions (California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). California also promulgated new standards
This section describes the alternative means of compliance with 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) and provides additional detail regarding the conditions that form the basis of IHP JV's permanent variance.
The scope of the permanent variance limits coverage to the work situations specified under this condition. Clearly defining the scope of the permanent variance provides IHP JV, IHP JV's employees, other stakeholders, the public, and OSHA with necessary information regarding the work situations in which the permanent variance applies.
According to 29 CFR 1905.11, an employer (or class or group of employers
This condition specifies the circumstances under which the permanent variance is in effect, notably only for hyperbaric work performed during interventions. The condition places clear limits on the circumstances under which the applicant can expose its employees to hyperbaric pressure.
This condition defines a number of abbreviations used in the permanent variance. OSHA believes that defining these abbreviations serves to clarify and standardize their usage, thereby enhancing the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the permanent variance.
The condition defines a series of terms, mostly technical terms, used in the permanent variance to standardize and clarify their meaning. Defining these terms serves to enhance the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the permanent variance.
This condition requires the applicant to develop and submit to OSHA an HOM specific to the Anacostia River Tunnel project at least six months before using the EPBTBM for tunneling operations. Additionally, the condition includes a series of related hazard prevention and control requirements and methods (
Review of the HOM enables OSHA to: (1) Determine that the safety and health instructions and measures it specifies are appropriate and do adequately protect the safety and health of the CAWs and that it conforms to the conditions of the variance; and (2) request the applicant to revise or modify the HOM if it finds that the hyperbaric safety and health procedures are not suitable for the specific project and do not adequately protect the safety and health of the CAWs. Once approved, the project-specific HOM becomes part of the variance, thus enabling OSHA to enforce its safety and health procedures and measures.
This condition requires the applicant to develop and implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication ensures that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, prior to the start of each shift. The condition also requires the applicant to ensure that reliable means of emergency communications are available and maintained for affected
This condition requires the applicant to develop and implement an effective qualification and training program for affected workers. The condition specifies the factors that an affected worker must know to perform safely during hyperbaric operations, including how to enter, work in, and exit from hyperbaric conditions under both normal and emergency conditions. Having well-trained and qualified workers performing hyperbaric intervention work ensures that they recognize, and respond appropriately to, hyperbaric safety and health hazards. These qualification and training requirements enable affected workers to cope effectively with emergencies, as well as the discomfort and physiological effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby preventing injury, illness, and fatalities among workers.
As part of the qualification and training program, paragraph (G)(2)(e) of this condition also requires the applicant to provide affected workers with information they can use to contact the appropriate healthcare professionals if they believe that they are developing hyperbaric-related health effects. This requirement provides for early intervention and treatment of DCI and other health effects resulting from hyperbaric exposure, thereby reducing the potential severity of these effects.
This condition requires the applicant to develop, implement, and operate a program of frequent and regular inspections of the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems, and associated work areas. This condition helps to ensure the safe operation and physical integrity of the equipment and work areas necessary to conduct hyperbaric operations. The condition also enhances worker safety by reducing the risk of hyperbaric-related emergencies.
Paragraph (H)(3) of this condition requires the applicant to document tests, inspections, corrective actions, and repairs involving the EPBTBM, and maintain these documents at the job site for the duration of the job. This requirement provides the applicant with information needed to schedule tests and inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the equipment and systems, and to determine that the actions taken to correct defects in hyperbaric equipment and systems were appropriate, prior to returning them to service.
This condition requires the applicant to consult with its designated medical advisor regarding special compression or decompression procedures appropriate for any unacclimated CAW. This provision ensures that the applicant consults with the medical advisor, and involves the medical advisor in the evaluation, development, and implementation of compression or decompression protocols appropriate for any CAW requiring acclimation to the hyperbaric conditions encountered during EPBTBM operations. Accordingly, CAWs requiring acclimation have an opportunity to acclimate prior to exposure to these hyperbaric conditions. OSHA believes this condition will prevent or reduce adverse reactions among CAWs to the effects of compression or decompression associated with the intervention work they perform in the EPBTBM.
This condition requires the applicant to maintain records of specific factors associated with each hyperbaric intervention. The information gathered and recorded under this provision, in concert with the information provided under Condition K (using OSHA 301 Incident Report form to investigate and record hyperbaric recordable injuries as defined by 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12), enables the applicant and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the permanent variance in preventing decompression illness (DCI) and other hyperbaric-related effects.
Under this condition, the applicant must, within specified periods: (1) Notify OSHA of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality that occur as a result of hyperbaric exposures during EPBTBM operations; (2) provide OSHA with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA 301 form) of these events; (3) include on the 301 form information on the hyperbaric conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented by the applicant; and (4) its certification that it informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation.
This condition also requires the applicant to: Notify the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office within 15 working days should the applicant need to revise its HOM to accommodate changes in its compressed-air operations that affect its ability to comply with the conditions of the permanent variance; and provide OSHA's OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office, at the end of the project, with a report evaluating the effectiveness of the decompression tables.
These notification requirements enable the applicant, its employees, and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the permanent variance in providing the requisite level of safety to the applicant's workers and, based on this determination, whether to revise or revoke the conditions of the permanent variance. Timely notification permits OSHA to take whatever action may be necessary and appropriate to prevent further injuries and illnesses. Providing notification to employees informs them of the precautions taken by the applicant to prevent similar incidents in the future.
This condition also requires the applicant to notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address or location for its main office, or transfers the operations covered by the permanent variance to a successor company. In addition, the condition specifies that OSHA must approve the transfer of the permanent variance to a successor company. These requirements allow OSHA to communicate effectively with the applicant regarding the status of the permanent variance, and expedite the Agency's administration and enforcement of the permanent variance. Stipulating that an applicant must have OSHA's approval to transfer a variance to a successor company provides assurance that the successor company has knowledge of, and will comply with, the conditions specified by the permanent variance, thereby ensuring the safety of workers involved in
OSHA received one public comment on the proposed variance application. Mr. Barry Cole (safety specialist) representing Cole-Preferred Safety Consulting, Inc., supported granting the permanent variance (Exhibit OSHA-2014-0011-0008). In his comment, Mr. Cole made two suggestions. First, he proposed that OSHA should allow the applicant substantially more room to work beyond the anticipated hyperbaric pressure of 52 p.s.i.g., by changing the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of the variance from 52 p.s.i.g. to “the level necessary to maintain safety on the face, and/up to the design/rating limits of the machinery described.” Second, he recommended that OSHA should issue a letter of interpretation (LOI) that allows all tunnel construction companies working under hyperbaric conditions “to be allowed to use the stepped method of depressurization, as per engineering/medical data and schedules (such as but not limited to the French scale), as it is the best/safest practice, and the original standard should have included it, even if the preference was for some reason to use auto/straight line [decompression]. Either may be allowed, under my proposed letter of interpretation.”
The remainder of this section describes OSHA's response to Mr. Cole's comments.
First, OSHA finds that the recommendation to increase the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of the variance from 52 p.s.i.g. to the level necessary to maintain safety at the face of the EPBTBM (up to 75 p.s.i.g.), is well beyond the scope of the requested variance. Therefore, OSHA will not modify the permanent variance.
Initially, IHP JV sought a permanent variance for work in hyperbaric environments up to 50 p.s.i.g., as indicated in its Anacostia River Tunnel project-specific HOM. The HOM stated that in the unlikely event that working pressures exceeding the anticipated maximum of 50 p.s.i.g. are required during interventions, an amendment will be prepared and added to the HOM. Following discussions with the applicant, and in response to the applicant's request, OSHA is granting an increase in the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of the variance from 50 p.s.i.g. to 52 p.s.i.g. This increase will: (1) Provide greater flexibility and timeliness for responding to unanticipated conditions such as the need for increased face pressure (exceeding 50 p.s.i.g.) in the excavation chamber of the EPBTBM during interventions; and (2) maintain consistency with the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of 52 p.s.i.g. included in the variance OSHA granted to Traylor Skanska Jay Dee Joint Venture (80 FR 16440) for completing the Blue Plains Tunnel, another phase of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority's (“DC Water”) Clean Rivers project. Subsequently, IHP JV submitted a revised Anacostia River Tunnel project-specific HOM (Rev. 1; see Ex. OSHA-2014-0011-0009) for work in hyperbaric environments up to 52 p.s.i.g.
Second, OSHA finds that the recommendation to publish a LOI on stepped decompression using the French or other tables is well beyond the scope of this variance. Therefore, OSHA will not undertake issuing an LOI that allows tunnel construction companies working under hyperbaric conditions to operate under the conditions of previously granted variances. Moreover, the grant of this variance is conditioned on OSHA's approval of the applicant's HOM, and such a procedure would not be possible under a LOI.
Further, broader, industry-wide issues such as the setting of hyperbaric exposure and decompression limits for all tunneling work would be more appropriately resolved through the rulemaking process. In recognition of this, on December 6, 2012, OSHA published a
If SIP-IV is completed (including the planned update of the decompression tables in Appendix A (1926.803 (f)(1)), OSHA will modify IHP JV's and similar variances granted to other employers to include the applicable SIP-IV provisions as appropriate.
As noted earlier, on February 11, 2015, OSHA published a preliminary
During the period starting with the February 11, 2015, publication of the preliminary
A. Prohibit employers using compressed air under hyperbaric conditions from subjecting workers to pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g., except in emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5));
B. Require the use of decompression values specified by the decompression tables in Appendix A of the compressed-air standard (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and
C. Require the use of automated operational controls and a special decompression chamber (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii), respectively).
After reviewing the proposed alternative measures, OSHA determined that:
A. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, effective alternative measures to the prohibition of using compressed air under hyperbaric conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. The alternative measures include use of engineering and administrative controls of the hazards associated with work performed in compressed-air conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. while engaged in the construction of a subaqueous tunnel using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation techniques in conjunction with an EPBTBM. Prior to conducting interventions in the EPBTBM's pressurized working chamber, the applicant halts tunnel excavation and prepares the machine and crew to conduct the interventions. Interventions involve inspection, maintenance, or repair of the mechanical-excavation
B. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, safe hyperbaric work procedures, emergency and contingency procedures, and medical examinations for the project's CAWs. The applicant compiled these standard operating procedures into a project-specific HOM. The HOM discusses the procedures and personnel qualifications for performing work safely during the compression and decompression phases of interventions. The HOM also specifies the decompression tables the applicant proposes to use. Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure times during the interventions, the tables provide for decompression using air, pure oxygen, or a combination of air and oxygen. The decompression tables also include delays or stops for various time intervals at different pressure levels during the transition to atmospheric pressure (
C. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, a training program to instruct affected workers in the hazards associated with conducting hyperbaric operations.
D. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, an effective alternative to the use of automatic controllers that continuously decrease pressure to achieve decompression in accordance with the tables specified by the standard. The alternative includes using the 1992 French Decompression Tables for guiding staged decompression to achieve lower occurrences of DCI, using a trained and competent attendant for implementing appropriate hyperbaric entry and exit procedures, and providing a competent hyperbaric supervisor, and attending physician certified in hyperbaric medicine, to oversee all hyperbaric operations.
E. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, an effective alternative to the use of the special decompression chamber required by the standard. EPBTBM technology permits the tunnel's work areas to be at atmospheric pressure, with only the face of the EPBTBM (
OSHA conducted a review of the scientific literature regarding decompression to determine whether the alternative decompression method (
The review conducted by OSHA found several research studies supporting the determination that the 1992 French Decompression Tables result in a lower rate of DCI than the decompression tables specified by the standard. For example, H. L. Anderson studied the occurrence of DCI at maximum hyperbaric pressures ranging from 4 p.s.i.g. to 43 p.s.i.g. during construction of the Great Belt Tunnel in Denmark (1992-1996);
Based on a review of available evidence, the experience of State Plans that either granted variances (Nevada, Oregon, and Washington)
Under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(d)), and based on the record discussed above, the Agency finds that when the employer complies
As of the effective date of this final order, OSHA is revoking the interim order granted to the employer on February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7636).
OSHA issues this final order authorizing Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture, (“IHP JV” or “the applicant”), to comply with the following conditions instead of complying with the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii). This final order applies to Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture at the Anacostia River Tunnel project in Washington, DC. These conditions are:
The permanent variance applies only to work:
1. That occurs in conjunction with construction of the Anacostia River Tunnel project, a subaqueous tunnel constructed using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation techniques and involving operation of an EPBTBM;
2. Performed under compressed-air and hyperbaric conditions up to 52 p.s.i.g. at the Anacostia River Tunnel project;
3. In the EPBTBM's forward section (the working chamber) and associated hyperbaric chambers used to pressurize and decompress employees entering and exiting the working chamber;
4. Except for the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii), IHP JV must comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1926; and
5. This order will remain in effect until one of the following conditions occurs: (1) Completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel project, but no later than December 31, 2016; or (2) OSHA modifies or revokes this final order in accordance with 29 CFR 1905.13.
The permanent variance applies only when IHP JV stops the tunnel-boring work, pressurizes the working chamber, and the CAWs either enter the working chamber to perform interventions (
Abbreviations used throughout this permanent variance include the following:
The following definitions apply to this permanent variance. These definitions supplement the definitions in IHP JV's project-specific HOM.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Note: Health effects associated with hyperbaric intervention but not considered symptoms of DCI can include: barotrauma (direct damage to air-containing cavities in the body such as ears, sinuses and lungs); nitrogen narcosis (reversible alteration in consciousness that may occur in hyperbaric environments and is caused by the anesthetic effect of certain gases at high pressure); and oxygen toxicity (a central nervous system condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
1. IHP JV must develop and implement a project-specific HOM, and submit the HOM to OSHA for approval at least six months before using the EPBTBM. IHP JV must receive a written acknowledgement from OSHA regarding the acceptability of the HOM.
2. IHP JV must implement the safety and health instructions included in the manufacturer's operations manuals for the EPBTBM, and the safety and health instructions provided by the manufacturer for the operation of decompression equipment.
3. IHP JV must use air as the only breathing gas in the working chamber.
4. IHP JV must use the 1992 French Decompression Tables for air, air-oxygen, and oxygen decompression specified in the HOM, specifically, the tables titled, “French Regulation Air Standard Tables.”
5. IHP JV must equip man locks used by its employees with an oxygen-delivery system as specified by the HOM. IHP JV must not store oxygen or other compressed gases used in conjunction with hyperbaric work in the tunnel.
6. Workers performing hot work under hyperbaric conditions must use flame-retardant personal protective equipment and clothing.
7. In hyperbaric work areas, IHP JV must maintain an adequate fire-suppression system approved for hyperbaric work areas.
8. IHP JV must develop and implement one or more JHAs for work in the hyperbaric work areas, and review, periodically, and as necessary (
9. IHP JV must develop a set of checklists to guide compressed-air work and ensure that employees follow the procedures required by this permanent variance (including all procedures required by the HOM, which this permanent variance incorporates by reference). The checklists must include all steps and equipment functions that the risk assessment indicates are essential to prevent injury or illness during compressed-air work.
10. IHP JV must ensure that the safety and health provisions of the HOM adequately protect the workers of all contractors and subcontractors involved in hyperbaric operations.
1. Prior to beginning a shift, IHP JV must implement a system that informs workers exposed to hyperbaric conditions of any hazardous occurrences or conditions that might affect their safety, including hyperbaric incidents, gas releases, equipment failures, earth or rock slides, cave-ins, flooding, fires, or explosions.
2. IHP JV must provide a power-assisted means of communication among affected workers and support personnel in hyperbaric conditions where unassisted voice communication is inadequate.
(a) IHP JV must use an independent power supply for powered communication systems, and these systems must operate such that use or disruption of any one phone or signal location will not disrupt the operation of the system from any other location.
(b) IHP JV must test communication systems at the start of each shift and as necessary thereafter to ensure proper operation.
IHP JV must:
1. Ensure that each affected worker receives effective training on how to safely enter, work in, exit from, and undertake emergency evacuation or rescue from, hyperbaric conditions, and document this training.
2. Provide effective instruction, before beginning hyperbaric operations, to each worker who performs work, or controls the exposure of others, in hyperbaric conditions, and document this instruction. The instruction must include topics such as:
(a) The physics and physiology of hyperbaric work;
(b) Recognition of pressure-related injuries;
(c) Information on the causes and recognition of the signs and symptoms associated with decompression illness, and other hyperbaric intervention-related health effects (
(d) How to avoid discomfort during compression and decompression; and
(e) Information the workers can use to contact the appropriate healthcare professionals should the workers have concerns that they may be experiencing adverse health effects from hyperbaric exposure.
3. Repeat the instruction specified in paragraph (2) of this condition periodically, and as necessary (
4. When conducting training for its hyperbaric workers, make this training available to OSHA personnel and notify the OTPCA at OSHA's national office and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office before the training takes place.
1. IHP JV must initiate and maintain a program of frequent and regular inspections of the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems (such as temperature control, illumination, ventilation, and fire-prevention and fire-suppression systems), and hyperbaric work areas, as required under 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) by:
(a) Developing a set of checklists to be used by a competent person in conducting weekly inspections of hyperbaric equipment and work areas; and
(b) Ensuring that a competent person conducts daily visual checks and weekly inspections of the EPBTBM.
2. If the competent person determines that the equipment constitutes a safety hazard, IHP JV must remove the equipment from service until it corrects the hazardous condition and has the correction approved by a qualified person.
3. IHP JV must maintain records of all tests and inspections of the EPBTBM, as well as associated corrective actions and repairs, at the job site for the duration of the job.
IHP JV must consult with its attending physician concerning the need for special compression or decompression exposures appropriate for CAWs not acclimated to hyperbaric exposure.
IHP JV must maintain a record of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality (as defined by 29 CFR part 1904 Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), resulting from exposure of an employee to hyperbaric conditions by completing the OSHA 301 Incident Report form and OSHA 300 Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses.
Note: Examples of important information to include on the OSHA 301 Incident Report form (along with the corresponding question on the form) must address the following: the task performed (Question (Q) 14); an estimate of the CAW's workload (Q 14); the composition of the gas mixture (
In addition to completing the OSHA 301 Incident Report form and OSHA 300 Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses, IHP JV must maintain records of:
1. The date, times (
2. The name of each individual worker exposed to hyperbaric pressure and the decompression protocols and results for each worker.
3. The total number of interventions and the amount of hyperbaric work time at each pressure.
4. The post-intervention physical assessment of each individual CAW for signs and symptoms of decompression illness, barotrauma, nitrogen narcosis, oxygen toxicity or other health effects associated with work in compressed air or mixed gasses for each hyperbaric intervention.
1. To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, IHP JV must:
(a) Notify the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality (by submitting the completed OSHA 301 Incident Report form
(b) Provide certification within 15 days of the incident that the employer informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation (including the root-cause determination and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented).
(c) Notify the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office within 15 working days in writing of any change in the compressed-air operations that affects IHP JV's ability to comply with the conditions specified herein.
(d) Upon completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel project, evaluate the effectiveness of the decompression tables used throughout the project, and provide a written report of this evaluation to the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office.
The evaluation report is to contain summaries of: (1) The number, dates, durations, and pressures of the hyperbaric interventions completed; (2) decompression protocols implemented (including composition of gas mixtures (air and/or oxygen), and the results achieved; (3) the total number of interventions and the number of hyperbaric incidents (decompression illnesses and/or health effects associated with hyperbaric interventions as recorded on OSHA 301 and 300 forms, and relevant medical diagnoses and treating physicians' opinions); and (4) root-causes, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented.
(e) To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, inform the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office as soon as possible after it has knowledge that it will:
(i) Cease to do business;
(ii) Change the location and address of the main office for managing the tunneling operations specified by the project-specific HOM; or
(iii) Transfer the operations specified herein to a successor company.
(f) Notify all affected employees of this permanent variance by the same means required to inform them of its application for a variance.
2. OSHA must approve the transfer of this permanent variance to a successor company.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, September 30, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 6H41, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-769-8915, passcode 1573979, both days, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters.
Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via at
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request approval of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we are providing an opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden or any other aspect of this collection of information requirements by October 19, 2015.
Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
The Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Reporting Module is a component of the NSF Project Reports System that is designed to gather information about students
NSF is committed to providing program stakeholders with formation regarding the expenditure of taxpayer funds on these types of activities, which provide authentic research experiences and related training for postsecondary students in STEM fields.
NSF has not consulted with other agencies but has gathered information from its grantee community through attendance at PI conferences. A request for public comments will be solicited through announcement of data collection in the
All NSF Principal Investigators are required to use the project reporting functionality in Research.gov to report on progress, accomplishments, participants, and activities annually and at the conclusion of their project. Information from annual and final reports provides yearly updates on project inputs, activities, and outcomes for agency reporting purposes. If project participants include undergraduate students supported by the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites Program or by an REU Supplement, then the Principal Investigator and his or her students are required to complete the REU Reporting Module.
Due to a scheduling error, NRC notice document 2014-20138, 80 FR 48920, published August 14, 2015, four days earlier than the agency intended. Due to this error the
Comments must be filed by September 14, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 13, 2015.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed amendment would allow a temporary extension of selected Technical Specification required Completion Times (CTs) to support repair activities associated with the Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS). In addition, the amendment request contains Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
Submit comments by September 21, 2015. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by October 19, 2015. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
G. Edward Miller, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2481, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0192 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0192 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The proposed amendment would allow a one-time extension of selected Technical Specification required CTs to support repair activities associated with the NSWS.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The `B' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain fully operable during the 14 day CT. The alignment of the `A' Train NSWS will remain consistent with the NSWS normal and [engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS)] alignment. Although not fully operable the `A' Train NSWS and its supported equipment will be capable of performing their functions during the 14 day CT.
The `A' NSWS and supported equipment function as accident mitigators. Removing `A' Train [standby nuclear service water pond (SNSWP)] supply piping from service for a limited period of time does not affect any accident initiator and therefore cannot change the probability of an accident. The proposed changes and the `A' Train NSWS repair evolution have been evaluated to assess their impact on the systems affected and ensure design basis safety functions are preserved.
The risk analysis for the proposed NSW system alignment during the 14 day CT shows no delta risk for any [engineered safety feature (ESF)] actuation event that does not involve an earthquake. The most significant risk contributor is a seismic event with a magnitude great enough to cause the failure of Cowan's Ford dam and subsequent loss of Lake Norman or [low level intake] during the 14 day CT. The estimated Incremental Conditional Core Damage Probability (ICCDP) due to the seismic event is much less than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
In addition, as previously stated, a Seismic Fragility Assessment of the McGuire Low Level Intake [(LLI)] Water Pipeline in December of 2011 indicates that the dam and water supply would withstand a [safe shutdown earthquake (SSE)]. Therefore for the short duration of this proposed alignment the increase in risk is deemed to be negligible.
Risk associated with tornado/high winds was assessed. The months of November through February have been the seasonal low for tornado frequency. This evolution is currently scheduled for the fall November 2015 time frame. The risk contribution from tornado and high wind events is negligible during the proposed NSWS configuration described in this LAR and therefore, the calculated Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or the Large Early Release Fraction (LERF) contribution due to high wind and tornado events is negligible with respect to overall risk. The activities covered by this LAR also include a defense-in-depth action to cease activities and close the personnel access openings in the event of a tornado warning. Weather patterns will be monitored and this activity will be modified if tornado/high wind conditions become imminent.
The overall increase in risk for the 14 day CT is solely due to the seismic event which results in a loss of Lake Norman or LLI. However, this risk is reduced by the defense in depth strategy described in the LAR that provides a contingency for the loss of a `B' Train NSWS pump after the loss of the Lake Norman water supply. This defense in depth contingency effectively offsets the unavailability of the `A' Train NSWS SNSWP supply.
In addition, pre-aligning the `B' Train NSWS to the SNSWP water supply in advance of the proposed activities prevents the introduction of potential equipment failures during an ESFAS demanded transfer. This action also eliminates the time it would take operators to perform the transfer following a seismic event.
The quantified impact of defense in depth measures and compensatory actions on CDF/LERF cannot be precisely determined, yet it is agreed that the implementation of these actions would only serve to improve these risk parameters.
Not included in the overall risk evaluation is the additional margin identified by the Fragility Assessment discussed previously that concluded that the Lake Norman Dam and LLI would survive a SSE.
As stated in NRC Generic Letter 80-30, “Clarification of the Term `Operable' as it Applies to Single Failure Criterion for Safety Systems Required by TS,” there is no requirement to assume a single failure while operating under a Technical Specification (TS) required action. Therefore, there will be no effect on the analysis of any accident or the progression of the accident since the operable NSW `B' train is capable of serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient or accident.
In light of the above discussion, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is the one time extension of the required CTs from 72 hours for the ECCS, CSS, NSWS, AFW, CCW and the EDG systems and from 168 hours for the CRAVS and ABFVES systems to 336 hours. The requested change does not involve the addition or removal of any plant system, structure, or component.
The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from that previously evaluated.
McGuire intends to isolate and repair the `A' Train NSWS supply from the SNSWP. This activity will require that `A' Train NSW be aligned to Lake Norman until the system is ready for post maintenance testing. This action maintains the NSW 'A' Train's normal and automatic alignment to Lake Norman but will result in the inability to manually align the `A' Train NSWS to the SNSWP subsequent to a seismic event that results in damage to the supply piping from Lake Norman or the highly improbable loss of Lake Norman.
Although considered inoperable, the `A' Train NSWS and supported systems will be
No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of the requested changes creating the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant and containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
Although not a fission product barrier, the Auxiliary Building Ventilation Boundary plays a role in minimizing the dose consequences from ECCS system leakage into the Auxiliary Building during a design basis accident. The Auxiliary Building Ventilation System in conjunction with ECCS equipment air handling units that automatically start on an ECCS demand draw potentially contaminated air from the ECCS equipment rooms and into the ABFVES. As stated in this LAR, the Auxiliary Building Ventilation Boundary will be breached when the `A' Train NSWS piping is opened for access in the Auxiliary Building. The Validation: Personnel access opening will be controlled by using procedures developed or revised for this purpose to maintain positive control of the auxiliary building pressure boundary and prevent any unmonitored release.
Dedicated personnel with procedure guidance will be provided to close the pathway from the auxiliary building on the affected `A' Train NSWS piping from the SNSWP in the event of any of the following:
• An Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) actuation
• Entry into RP/0/A/5700/006 Natural Disasters
• Entry into RP/0/A/5700/007 Earthquake
The pathway will be closed upon notification of an abnormal event as described above. TS 3.7.11 includes a note in the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) section: “The Auxiliary Building pressure boundary may be opened intermittently under administrative controls.” Based on these measures the performance of this barrier will not be affected by the proposed LAR.
Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change in the design or operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount of time the `A' NSW system is allowed to be inoperable to correct the degraded condition on the `A' NSWS supply piping from the SNSWP. As stated previously, the `A' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain in its Normal and ESFAS alignment during the extended CT and be functionally capable for all postulated events except a seismic event that results in loss of the Lake Norman water supply.
Defense-in-depth measures involving use of the Main Supply Crossover piping to supply suction to affected unit's `A' Train NSWS pump from the `B' train SNSWP suction piping and the ability to implement the FLEX strategy on both units provide additional safety margin for this event. Use of the Main Supply Crossover line is only needed in the unlikely event that one unit's `B' Train NSWS pump fails after loss of `A' Train NSWS due to an earthquake.
The estimated ICCDP during the 14 day CT extension is much less than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards Consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated June 30, 2015.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a modification to a Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 2 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On August 13, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to a Modification to the existing Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 2 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Modification and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1.
The Modification would extend the prices and other terms of the original agreement to February 17, 2016.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than August 21, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2014-71 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than August 21, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a Type 2 rate adjustment and the filing of a related negotiated service agreement with Hongkong post. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On August 13, 2015, the Postal Service filed a notice, pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.40
The Postal Service's filing consists of the Notice, two attachments, and redacted and unredacted versions of an Excel file with supporting financial workpapers. Notice at 1-2. Attachment 1 is an application for non-public treatment of material filed under seal with the Commission.
The Postal Service states that the intended effective date of the Agreement is October 1, 2015; asserts that it is providing at least the 45 days advance notice required under 39 CFR 3010.41; and identifies the parties to the Agreement as the United States Postal Service and Hongkong Post, the postal operator for Hong Kong.
The Commission, in conformance with rule 3010.44, establishes Docket No. R2015-5 to consider issues raised in the Notice. The Commission invites comments from interested persons on whether the Agreement is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3622 and the requirements of 39 CFR part 3010. Comments are due no later than September 14, 2015. The public portions of this filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. R2015-5 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than September 14, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 14, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
The Presidio Trust.
Notice of public meeting of Presidio Institute Advisory Council.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Institute Advisory Council (Council) will be held from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2015. The meeting is open to the public, and oral public comment will be received at the meeting. The Council was formed to advise the Executive Director of the Presidio Trust (Trust) on matters pertaining to the rehabilitation and reuse of Fort Winfield Scott as a new national center focused on service and leadership development.
The Trust's Executive Director, in consultation with the Chair of the Board of Directors, has determined that the Council is in the public interest and supports the Trust in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix.
The Council advises on the establishment of a new national center (Presidio Institute) focused on service and leadership development, with specific emphasis on: (a) Assessing the role and key opportunities of a national center dedicated to service and leadership at Fort Scott in the Presidio of San Francisco; (b) providing recommendations related to the Presidio Institute's programmatic goals, target audiences, content, implementation and evaluation; (c) providing guidance on a phased development approach that leverages a combination of funding sources including philanthropy; and (d) making recommendations on how to structure the Presidio Institute's business model to best achieve the Presidio Institute's mission and ensure long-term financial self-sufficiency.
Additional information is available online at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 7039 (BX Last Sale Data Feeds) with language regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus (“NLS Plus”), a comprehensive data feed offered by NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposal is to amend BX Rule 7039 by adding new section (b) regarding NLS Plus.
This proposal is based on the recent approval order regarding the codification of NLS Plus in NASDAQ Rule 7039,
NLS Plus allows data distributors to access the three last sale products offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's three U.S. equity markets.
NLS Plus, which is proposed to be codified in BX Rule 7039(b) in the same form as in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d), allows data distributors to access last sale products offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's three equity exchanges. Thus, NLS Plus includes all transactions from all of NASDAQ OMX's equity markets, as well as FINRA/NASDAQ TRF data that is included in the current NLS product. In addition, NLS Plus features total cross-market volume information at the issue level, thereby providing redistribution of consolidated volume information from SIPs for Tape A, B, and C securities. Thus, NLS Plus covers all securities listed on NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (now under the Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE”) umbrella), as well as U.S. “regional” exchanges such as NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS (also
NLS Plus has been offered since 2010 via NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.
The Exchange proposes to add NLS Plus to BX Rule 7039, which currently describes the BX Last Sale data feed offering, to fully reflect NLS Plus. NLS Plus as proposed to be codified in BX Rule 7039(b) is exactly the same as NLS Plus in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d).
Similar to NLS, NLS Plus offers data for all U.S. equities via two separate data channels: the first data channel reflects NASDAQ, BX, and PSX trades with real-time consolidated volume for NASDAQ-listed securities; and the second data channel reflects trades with delayed consolidated volume for NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca and BATS-listed securities.
In addition to last sale information, NLS Plus also disseminates the following data elements: Trade Price, Trade Size, Sale Condition Modifiers, Cumulative Consolidated Market Volume, End of Day Trade Summary, Adjusted Closing Price, IPO Information, and Bloomberg ID (together the “data elements”). NLS Plus also features and disseminates the following messages: Market Wide Circuit Breaker, Reg SHO Short Sale Price Test Restricted Indicator, Trading Action, Symbol Directory, Adjusted Closing Price, and End of Day Trade Summary (together the “messages”).
Consolidated volume reflects the consolidated volume at the time that the NLS Plus trade message is generated, and includes the volume for the issue symbol as reported on the consolidated market data feed. The consolidated volume is based on the real-time trades reported via the UTP Trade Data Feed (“UTDF”) and delayed trades reported via CTA. NASDAQ OMX calculates the real-time trading volume for its trading venues, and then adds the real-time trading volume for the other (non-NASDAQ OMX) trading venues as reported via the UTDF data feed. For non-NASDAQ-listed issues, the consolidated volume is based on trades reported via SIAC's Consolidated Tape System (“CTS”) for the issue symbol. The Exchange calculates the real-time trading volume for its trading venues, and then adds the 15-minute delayed trading volume for the other (non-NASDAQ OMX) trading venues as reported via the CTS data feed.
NLS Plus may be received by itself or in combination with NASDAQ Basic.
The Exchange believes that market data distributors may use the NLS Plus data feed to feed stock tickers, portfolio trackers, trade alert programs, time and sale graphs, and other display systems.
The Exchange proposes one housekeeping change. The Exchange adds the phrase “BX Last Sale” in BX Rule 7039(a) to make it clear that section (a) refers to BX Last Sale (whereas proposed section (b) refers to NLS Plus). This change is non-substantive.
With respect to latency, the path for distribution of NLS Plus is not faster than the path for distribution that would be used by a market data vendor to distribute an independently created NLS Plus-like product. As such, the NLS Plus data feed is a data product that a competing market data vendor could create and sell without being in a disadvantaged position relative to the Exchange. In recognition that the Exchange is the source of its own market data and with NASDAQ and PSX being equity markets owned by NASDAQ OMX, the Exchange represents that the source of the market data it would use to create proposed NLS Plus is available to other vendors. In fact, the overwhelming majority of
In order to create NLS Plus, the system creating and supporting NLS Plus receives the individual data feeds from each of the NASDAQ OMX equity markets and, in turn, aggregates and summarizes that data to create NLS Plus and then distribute it to end users. This is the same process that a competing market data vendor would undergo should it want to create a market data product similar to NLS Plus to distribute to its end users. A competing market data vendor could receive the individual data feeds from each of the NASDAQ OMX equity markets at the same time the system creating and supporting NLS Plus would for it to create NLS Plus. Therefore, a competing market data vendor could, as discussed, obtain the underlying data elements from the NASDAQ OMX equity markets on the same latency basis as the system that would be performing the aggregation and consolidation of proposed NLS Plus, and provide a similar product to its customers with the same latency they could achieve by purchasing NLS Plus from the Exchange. As such, the Exchange would not have any unfair advantage over competing market data vendors with respect to NLS Plus. Moreover, in terms of NLS itself, the Exchange would access the underlying feed from the same point as would a market data vendor; as discussed, the Exchange would not have a speed advantage. Likewise, NLS Plus would not have any speed advantage vis-à-vis competing market data vendors with respect to access to end user customers.
With regard to cost, the Exchange will file a separate proposal with the Commission regarding fees that will be similar in nature to NASDAQ Rule 7039(d). The proposal would be designed to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating a similar product as NLS Plus. The Exchange expects that the pricing will reflect the incremental cost of the aggregation and consolidation function for NLS Plus, and would not be lower than the cost to a vendor creating a competing product, including the cost of receiving the underlying data feeds. The pricing the Exchange would charge clients for NLS Plus would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that vendors could readily offer a product similar to NLS Plus on a competitive basis at a similar cost.
As described in more detail below, the Exchange believes that the NLS Plus data offering benefits the public and investors and that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The proposal is to add section (b) to BX Rule 7039 regarding the NLS Plus data offering. The Exchange believes that the proposal facilitates transactions in securities, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by making permanent the availability of an additional means by which investors may access information about securities transactions, thereby providing investors with additional options for accessing information that may help to inform their trading decisions. Given that Section 11A the Act
The Exchange notes that the Commission has determined that the inclusion of NLS Plus in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d), upon which proposed BX Rule 7039(b) is modelled, was consistent with the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers (“BDs”) increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the NLS Plus market data product is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by deregulating the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
The Exchange will file a separate proposal regarding NLS Plus fees.
The Court in
Moreover, data products such as NLS Plus are a means by which exchanges compete to attract order flow. To the extent that exchanges are successful in such competition, they earn trading revenues and also enhance the value of their data products by increasing the amount of data they are able to provide. Conversely, to the extent that exchanges are unsuccessful, the inputs needed to add value to data products are diminished. Accordingly, the need to compete for order flow places substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees for both executions and data reasonable.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. As is true of all NASDAQ's non-core data products, NASDAQ's ability to offer and price NLS Plus is constrained by: (1) Competition between exchanges and other trading platforms that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (2) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed consolidated data; and (3) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary last sale data.
In addition, as described in detail above, NLS Plus competes directly with a myriad of similar products and potential products of market data vendors. NASDAQ OMX Information LLC was constructed specifically to establish a level playing field with market data vendors and to preserve fair competition between them. Therefore, NASDAQ OMX Information LLC receives NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale from each NASDAQ-operated exchange in the same manner, at the same speed, and reflecting the same fees as for all market data vendors. Therefore, NASDAQ Information LLC has no competitive advantage with respect to these last sale products and NASDAQ commits to maintaining this level playing field in the future. In other words, NASDAQ will continue to disseminate separately the underlying last sale products to avoid creating a latency differential between NASDAQ OMX Information LLC and other market data vendors, and to avoid creating a pricing advantage for NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.
NLS Plus joins the existing market for proprietary last sale data products that is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Similarly, with respect to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF data that is a component of NLS and NLS Plus, allowing exchanges to operate TRFs has permitted them to earn revenues by providing technology and data in support of the non-exchange segment of the market. This revenue opportunity has also resulted in fierce competition between the two current TRF operators, with both TRFs charging extremely low trade reporting fees and rebating the majority of the revenues they receive from core market data to the parties reporting trades.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its data products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or their customers in making trading decisions.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in content and content distribution industries such as software, where developing new software typically requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is
An exchange's BD customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because executions of the BD's trading activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
Similarly, in the case of products such as NLS Plus that are distributed through market data vendors, the vendors provide price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract “eyeballs” that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail BDs, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. Exchanges, TRFs, and other producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully. Moreover, the Exchange believes that products such as NLS Plus can enhance order flow to the Exchange by providing more widespread distribution of information about transactions in real time, thereby encouraging wider participation in the market by investors with access to the internet or television. Conversely, the value of such products to distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls, because the products contain less content.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. The Exchange pays rebates for orders that access liquidity, charges relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively low prices for orders providing liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying rebates to attract liquidity, and setting relatively higher prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an “excessive” price for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Indeed, in the case of NLS Plus, the data provided through that product appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered by the SIPs for a fee, (ii) free SIP data products with a 15-minute time delay, and (iii) individual exchange data products, and finds a close substitute in last-sale products of competing venues.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over 40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.
In the case of TRFs, the rapid entry of several exchanges into this space in 2006-2007 following the development and Commission approval of the TRF structure demonstrates the contestability of this aspect of the market.
Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users. Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or 20-minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of proprietary products.
In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.”
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-BX-2015-047 and should be submitted on or before September 10, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation date of the rule change to allow market orders to sell in no-bid series to be entered into the electronic book from a PAR workstation. There is no proposed change to the rule language. The text of the proposed rule change is 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.
On October 22, 2014, rule change SR-CBOE-2014-067
The Exchange does not believe the modifications to the System will be completed prior to the current September deadline; therefore, the Exchange seeks to delay the implementation date deadline for the portion of SR-CBOE-2014-067 related to allowing market orders to sell in no-bid series that were routed to a PAR workstation to be entered into the electronic order book. The Exchange will announce the implementation date in a Regulatory Circular to be published at least 60 days prior to the
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes delaying the implementation deadline to allow the Exchange the necessary time to finish the modifications to the System, which will provide the functionality to route market orders to sell in no-bid series from a PAR workstation to an electronic order book, helps protect investors by ensuring the PAR workstation functions as intended.
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 change will impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition because this filing simply seeks to delay the implementation deadline of SR-CBOE-2014-067.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq is proposing changes to the national best bid or best offer (“NBBO”) program (“NBBO Program”) in Nasdaq Rule 7014, as well as proposed changes to amend Nasdaq Rule 7018, governing fees and credits assessed for execution and routing of securities.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Nasdaq proposes to amend a qualification to receive a certain credit for execution and routing of orders in Nasdaq Rule 7018. Specifically, the proposed rule change applies to qualification to receive a credit in Rule 7018(a)(1), (2) and (3) and, respectively, the securities listed on Nasdaq (“Tape C”), the securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (“Tape A”) and on exchanges other than Nasdaq and NYSE (“Tape B”) (collectively, the “Tapes”).
Currently, a $0.0029 per share executed credit is provided to member firms that add Customer,
The Exchange also proposes to amend the NBBO Program under Nasdaq Rule 7014(g). The NBBO Program provides a per share executed rebate
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Nasdaq believes that the proposed changes to Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(1), (2) and (3) to amend a qualification to receive the $0.0029 per share executed credit applied to securities of all three Tapes provided to member firms that add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM market maker and/or broker-dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.15% (decreasing from current 1.25%)
The Exchange believes the proposed changes that harmonize the criteria required to qualify for a rebate under the NBBO Program are reasonable because they will continue to provide incentives to market participants to improve the NBBO and increase their participation on the Exchange. In particular, increasing the Consolidated Volume required to qualify for a $0.0002 per share executed rebate under Rule 7014(g)(1) from 0.475% to 0.5% represents a modest increase to the requirement in return for the rebate, which the Exchange believes will continue to provide incentive to market participants with attainable criteria. Moreover, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to apply a higher Consolidated Volume requirement to receive a rebate in Tape B and C securities notwithstanding that the amount of the rebate is lower than that of Tape A because the market in terms of setting the NBBO in Tape B and C securities is sufficiently robust to support higher requirements. As such, the Exchange believes that requiring member firms to provide more market-improving Consolidated Volume in return for the rebate is reasonable. The Exchange also believes that extending the NOM-based means by which a member firm may qualify for a rebate under Rule 7014(g)(2) to the $0.0004 rebate in Tape A securities under the program is reasonable because it will provide market participants another means by which they may qualify for a rebate, which is [sic] currently available as an option to qualify for the $0.0002 rebate.
Additionally, Nasdaq believes the proposed changes to Rule 7014(g) are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all members that qualify under the conditions described above are eligible to receive the rebate under the NBBO Program. The NBBO Program is intended to encourage members to add liquidity at prices that benefit all Nasdaq market participants and the Nasdaq market itself, and enhance price discovery. Also, the Exchange believes that increasing the level of Consolidated Volume required to receive a rebate in Tape B and C securities under the NBBO Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is the same level of Consolidated Volume currently required to qualify for a $0.0004 per share executed rebate in Tape A securities. As such, all market participants will receive a rebate if they meet the same Consolidated Volume requirement. The Exchange believes that making the NOM-based qualifying criteria of Rule 7014(g)(2) available to member firms in Tape A securities is an [sic] equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all member firms will have the option to qualify under this criteria. In sum, the Exchange believes that these proposed rule changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they apply uniform criteria to all member firms in return for a rebate from the Exchange, the rate at which is set by the Exchange based on the Tape of the security in which it seeks to incentivize market participants to improve the NBBO.
Finally, Nasdaq 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, Nasdaq must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it is designed, in part, to increase rebates for members that enhance the quality of Nasdaq's market.
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Nasdaq believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited or even non-existent. In this instance, the changes to Nasdaq Rules 7014 and 7018 do not impose a burden on competition because the NBBO Program, as amended, still offers economically advantageous credits and is reflective of the need for exchanges to offer and to let the financial incentives to attract order flow evolve, and the change to one of the qualifications to receive a credit in Nasdaq Rule 7018(a)(1), (2) and (3) does not impose a burden on competition because Nasdaq's execution services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. While the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will result in any burden on competition, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants it is likely that Nasdaq will lose market share as a result.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 360 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10017.
Jaea F. Hahn, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6870, or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund will be a continuously offered non-diversified, closed-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware statutory trust. The Adviser, a New York limited liability company, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and serves as investment adviser to the Fund.
2. The Fund will continuously offer its shares pursuant to its currently effective registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”).
3. The Fund currently intends to offer a Class of shares at net asset value per share (“NAV”) which will not be subject to any sales load or distribution and/or service fees. The Fund proposes to offer an additional Class of shares that will adopt a distribution and service plan in compliance with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 under the Act as if such rules applied to closed-end management investment companies (“Distribution and Service Plan”) and which may be subject to a sales load, a distribution fee (“Distribution Fee”), and/or a service fee (“Service Fee”).
4. In order to provide a limited degree of liquidity to shareholders, the Fund may from time to time offer to repurchase shares at their then-current NAV in accordance with rule 13e-4 under the 1934 Act pursuant to written
5. Applicants represent that any asset-based Distribution and Service Fees will comply with the provisions of rule 2830(d) of the Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD Conduct Rule 2830”).
6. The Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various Classes based on net assets of the Fund attributable to each such Class, except that the NAV and expenses of each Class will reflect the expenses associated with the Distribution and Service Plan of that Class (if any), and any other incremental expenses of that Class (including transfer agency fees, if any). Expenses of the Fund allocated to a particular Class of the Fund's shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding share of that Class. Applicants state that the Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an open-end investment company.
7. In the event the Fund imposes a CDSC, applicants will comply with the provisions of rule 6c-10 under the Act, as if that rule applied to closed-end management investment companies. With respect to any waiver of, scheduled variation in, or elimination of the CDSC, the Fund will comply with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act as if the Fund were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple Classes of the Fund may be prohibited by section 18(c).
2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple Classes of the Fund may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each Class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that Class.
3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Fund to issue multiple Classes.
4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed system would permit the Fund to facilitate the distribution of Classes through diverse distribution channels and would provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder options. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state the Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets the standards of Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act.
5. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets the standards of section 6(c) of the Act. Rule 6c-10 under the Act permits open-end investment companies to impose CDSCs, subject to certain conditions. Applicants state that the Fund does not anticipate imposing CDSCs and would only do so in compliance with rule 6c-10 under the Act as if that rule were applied to closed-end investment companies. The Fund also will make all required disclosures in accordance with the requirements of Form N-1A concerning CDSCs. Applicants further state that, in the event the Fund imposes CDSCs, the Fund will apply the CDSCs (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the CDSCs) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the Act.
6. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in which such registered company is a joint or a joint and several participant unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
7. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit the
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Applicants will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3 and 22d-1 under the Act, as amended from time to time or replaced, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with the NASD Conduct Rule 2830, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 6, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the rates that Lead Market Makers and Market Makers are charged for Manual Executions, and to establish tiers for the Firm and Broker Dealer Monthly Firm Cap. The Exchange proposes to implement fee changes effective on August 6, 2015.
First, the Exchange is proposing to increase the rates that Lead Market Makers and Market Makers are charged for Manual Executions. Currently, Lead Market Makers are assessed a fee of $0.09 per contract, and Market Makers a fee of $0.16 per contract, for Manual Executions. The Exchange proposes to raise each fee $0.09 per contract, to $0.18 for Lead Market Makers, and $0.25 for Market Makers. With this proposed change, the fee for Market Makers would be the same as the fee charged to Firm and Broker Dealer executions. The Lead Market Maker rate would be increased by the same amount, while maintaining a lower rate for Lead Market Makers because Lead Market Makers pay a monthly Rights Fee and have greater quoting obligations.
Second, the Exchange is proposing to establish tiers for the Firm and Broker Dealer Monthly Firm Cap that are tied to Customer and Professional Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues
The Exchange proposes to introduce tiered caps, with $100,000 being the maximum Monthly Firm Cap, which would decrease based on the Firm or Broker Dealer achieving Tier 2 or higher on the Customer and Professional Customer Posting Tiers (“Tiered Firm Caps”). Specifically, the higher Customer and Professional Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tier that a Firm or Broker Dealer achieves, the lower the Tiered Firm Cap, with the Cap getting progressively lower upon achieving higher tiers.
The proposed Tiered Firm Caps and the corresponding Customer and Professional Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers are set forth in the table below:
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that increasing the fees for Lead Market Maker and Market Maker Manual executions is
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to institute Tiered Firm Caps is reasonable equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as the Tiered Firm Caps would not be meaningful to Customers or Professional Customers that are not charged any transaction charges [sic] Manual Executions. The proposed Tiered Firm Caps are also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory towards Market Makers, as Market Makers have alternative avenues to reduce transaction fees not available to Firms and Broker Dealers.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-71. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend pricing in section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend pricing in section B, entitled “Customer Rebate Program,” of the Pricing Schedule. In particular, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Indicate that Category A rebates for certain Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Options will increase specifically for Tiers 3, 4, and 5; (ii) establish new Category B for rebates for certain electronic Customer PIXL Orders; (iii) rename Category B to Category C regarding certain electronic Complex and Complex PIXL Orders; and (iv) update and clarify the explanatory notes applicable to Categories A, B, and C to match the proposed changes. The Exchange proposes these amendments in order to more clearly delineate how rebates apply to different types of Customer orders: Customer Simple Orders (Category A), Customer PIXL Orders (Category B), and Customer Complex Orders and Customer Complex PIXL Orders (Category C).
Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of five Tiers of Customer Rebates on two categories, A and B, of transactions. A Phlx member qualifies for a certain rebate Tier based on the percentage of total national customer volume in Multiply Listed equity and ETF options classes, excluding SPY
The Exchange now has rebate categories Category A and Category B to cover all rebates pursuant to the
Currently, a Category A rebate is paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot Options and Customer Simple Orders in non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols.
Currently, a Category B rebate is paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Options and non-Penny Pilot Options in section II symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order will not be paid a rebate under any circumstances. The Category B rebate will not be paid when an electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, including a Customer Complex PIXL Order, executes against another electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order. Rebates on Customer PIXL Orders are capped at 4,000 contracts per order leg for Complex PIXL Orders. Moreover, the Exchange will pay a $0.02 per contract Category A rebate and a $0.03 per contract Category B rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebate to a Specialist
Now, the rebates in all Tiers (Category A and Category B) are as follows:
Several notes now explain the rebate schedule. Currently, there is an explanatory note regarding Category A,
As proposed, the rebates in all Tiers (Category A, Category B, and Category C) are as follows:
The Exchange proposes in Category A to change the Tier 3 Customer Rebate from $0.12 to $0.15.
The Exchange proposes new Category B regarding Customer PIXL orders that are not complex orders (these are covered in Category C). The proposed Tiers in Category B are exactly like the current Tiers in Category A. Thus, the proposed Category B Tiers include Tier 1 at $0.00, Tier 2 at $0.10, Tier 3 at $0.12, Tier 4 at $0.16, and Tier 5 at $0.17. In addition, as noted the Exchange is re-numbering the last two sentences of the explanatory note now applicable to Category A so that it becomes the new note applicable to Category B. This new note will state that a rebate will be paid on Customer PIXL Orders in Section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. In the instance where member organizations qualify for Tier 4 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program, Customer PIXL Orders that execute against a PIXL Initiating Order will be paid a rebate of $0.14 per contract. Rebates on Customer PIXL Orders will be capped at 4,000 contracts per order for Simple PIXL Orders. The addition of Category B establishes three different Categories for three different types of orders. This allows the Exchange to more clearly delineate how rebates apply to three types of orders: Customer Simple Orders that will be dealt with in Category A, Customer PIXL Orders that will be dealt with in Category B, and Customer Complex Orders and Customer Complex PIXL Orders that will be dealt with in Category C. Moreover, the Tiers in Category B, as also the explanatory note, are not new but rather are simply taken directly from current Category A. And, as discussed below, the current explanatory note regarding Category B, which now discusses Complex Orders, is moved to Category C.
Proposed Category C is simply current Category B that is re-named Category C. There are no changes as Category B becomes Category C. Thus, the Category C proposed Tiers include Tier 1 at $0.00, Tier 2 at $0.17, Tier 3 at $0.17, Tier 4 at $0.22, and Tier 5 at $0.22. As discussed, all of the Tiers in Category C apply to Customer Complex Orders and Customer Complex PIXL Orders only. In addition, the current Category B explanatory note is re-named to Category C so that as proposed it reads as follows: Rebate will be paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols. Rebate will be paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order will not be paid a rebate under any circumstances. The Category C Rebate will not be paid when an electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, including Customer Complex PIXL Order, executes against another electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order. Rebates on Customer PIXL Orders will be capped at 4,000 contracts per order leg for Complex PIXL Orders.
Finally, the asterisked explanatory note, which currently applies to Categories A and B but does not apply to category C as it currently does not exist, will be amended to properly reflect all three Categories. This note discusses certain rebates in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and Tier 3 rebate to a Specialist or Market Maker or its member or member organization affiliate under Common Ownership. The portion of the note that now applies to Category A only will be expanded to Category A and B; and the portion of the note that now applies to Category B will apply to new Category C. Thus, the asterisked note would read as follows: The Exchange will pay a $0.02 per contract Category A and B rebate and a $0.03 per contract Category C rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebate to a Specialist or Market Maker or its member or member organization affiliate under Common Ownership provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap, as defined in section II. The Exchange believes that, similarly to the other proposed changes, this adds clarity to the proposed new three-Category rebate structure where each Category applies to a different type of Customer Order.
The Exchange believes that by making the proposed changes, clarifying the rebate structure, and increasing certain rebates, the Exchange will continue to encourage market participants to direct a greater number of Customer orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Pricing Schedule is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that its proposal in Category A to change the Tier 3 Customer Rebate from $0.12 to $0.15, the Tier 4 Customer Rebate from $0.16 to $0.20, and the Tier 5 Customer Rebate from $0.17 to $0.21 is reasonable. These proposed changes will allow the Exchange to continue to attract Customer liquidity to the Exchange. Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed increased Category A rebates will continue to encourage members to send Customer liquidity to Phlx despite moving to Category B the cap on PIXL Complex Order rebates at the proposed 4,000 contracts per order leg. The Exchange believes that the proposed increase of three or four cents is reasonable. Additionally, the CBOE has similar [sic] rebates.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Category A is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these proposed amendments to Category A apply uniformly to all market participants to whom Category A applies. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed modest Tiers increases (to $0.15, $0.20, and $0.21) retain the existing structure of increasingly higher rebates in increasingly higher Tiers to encourage members to send greater liquidity while giving members an opportunity to receive higher Customer rebates.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to establish new Category B is reasonable. The Exchange proposes new Category B regarding Customer PIXL orders that are not complex orders (these are covered in Category C), and the proposed Tiers in Category B are exactly like the current Category A Tiers. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to re-number the last two sentences of the explanatory note now applicable to Category A, which discusses Customer PIXL Orders, so that it becomes the new note applicable to Category B, which deals with Customer PIXL Orders. The Exchange believes that its proposal to add new Category B, which is applicable to Complex PIXL orders only, adds clarity to the rebate structure. The addition of Category B establishes three different Categories for three different types of orders. This allows the Exchange to more clearly delineate how rebates apply to three types of orders: Customer Simple Orders that will be dealt with in Category A, Customer PIXL Orders that will be dealt with in Category B, and Customer Complex Orders and Customer Complex PIXL Orders that will be dealt with in Category C. Moreover, the Tiers in Category B, as also the explanatory note, are not new but rather are simply taken directly from current Category A. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to move the current explanatory note regarding Category B, which discusses Complex Orders, to Category C, which discusses Customer Complex Orders and Customer Complex PIXL Orders.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Category B is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these proposed amendments to Category B apply uniformly to all market participants to whom Category B applies.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to re-name Category B as Category C, which as proposed deals with Customer Complex Orders and Customer Complex PIXL Orders, and to ensure that the explanatory note to Category B is properly applicable to Category C, is reasonable under the three-Category structure according to Customer order type. These proposed changes will allow the Exchange to continue to attract Customer liquidity to the Exchange. Customer orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which liquidity benefits other market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to move the cap on PIXL Complex Order rebates at the proposed 4,000 contracts per order leg from Category B to Category C, which applies to Complex Orders.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Category C is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these proposed amendments to Category C apply uniformly to all market participants to whom Category C applies.
The Exchange also believes that amending the asterisked explanatory note, which currently applies to Categories A and B, to reflect all three Categories is reasonable under the three-Category system as discussed. The portion of the note that now applies to Category A only will be expanded to Category A and B; and the portion of the note that now applies to Category B will apply to new Category C. The Exchange believes that, similarly to the other proposed changes, this adds clarity to the proposed new three-Category rebate structure (Customer Simple Orders in Category A, Customer PIXL Orders in Category B, and Customer Complex Orders and Customer Complex PIXL Orders in Category C). In addition, The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to give Specialists and Market Maker or its member of member organization affiliate under Common Ownership to earn an additional rebate under certain circumstances. An increase in the activity of these market participants may facilitate tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Moreover, Specialists and Market Makers have obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants.
The Exchange believes that these last-discussed amendments are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply uniformly to all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the rebate structure in the Pricing Structure enables the Exchange to continue to incentivize members to send order flow to the Exchange to the benefit market participants.
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 Customer Rebate Program amendments in section B of the Pricing Schedule, for example, do not create an undue burden on competition and, like all of the amendments proposed by the Exchange, will apply uniformly to all market participants. Moreover, the section B amendments will enable the Exchange to continue to attract liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Specialists and Market Makers. The Exchange's proposal will allow it to continue to incentivize market participants to bring liquidity to the Exchange, as described herein.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
The Exchange believes that its changes are pro-competitive. The proposed rebate changes, which are part of the Exchange's overall fee structure, are designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup costs while continuing to attract liquidity and offer connectivity at competitive rates to Exchange members and member organizations.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-Phlx-2015-68 and should be submitted on or before September 10, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to align certain rules with similar rules of BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., (“BYX”), and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”). These changes are described in detail below and include amending: (i) Rule 11.6, Definitions; (ii) Rule 11.8, Order Types; (iii) Rule 11.9, Priority of Orders; (iv) Rule 11.10, Order Execution; and (v) Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading Centers. The Exchange does not propose to implement new or unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the Commission or is not available on BZX, BYX, or EDGX. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is based on BZX, BYX, and EDGX rules and is different only to the extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's current rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On June 5, 2014, Chair Mary Jo White asked all national securities exchanges to conduct a comprehensive review of each order type offered to members and how it operates.
The proposed amendments are also intended to better align certain Exchange rules and system functionality with that currently offered by BZX, BYX, and EDGX in order to provide a consistent rule set across the exchanges. In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, EDGA received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, with BATS Global Markets, Inc., the parent of BZX and BYX (together with BZX, EDGA and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).
Unless otherwise noted, the proposed rule text is based on BZX, BYX, or EDGX rules and is different only to the extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's current rules.
Rule 11.6, Definitions, sets forth in one rule current defined terms and order instructions that are utilized in Chapter XI. Rule 11.6 also includes additional defined terms and instructions to aid in describing System
First, the Exchange proposes to add specificity to the Exchange's rule based on BZX and BYX Rule 11.9(c)(10) to make clear that although an order with a Discretionary Range instruction may be accompanied by a Displayed
Second, the Exchange also proposes to amend its current Rule by adding language to 11.6(d) discussing how an order with a Discretionary Range instruction would interact with an order with a Post Only instruction. Specifically, when an order with a Post Only instruction that is entered at the displayed or non-displayed ranked price of an order with a Discretionary Range instruction that does not remove liquidity on entry pursuant to Rule 11.6(n)(4),
Assume that the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) is $10.00 by $10.05, and the Exchange's BBO is $9.99 by $10.06. Assume that the Exchange receives a non-routable order to buy 100 shares at $10.00 per share designated with discretion to pay up to an additional $0.05 per share. Assume further that an order would not remove any liquidity upon entry pursuant to the Exchange's economic best interest functionality.
• Assume that the next order received by the Exchange is an order with a Post Only instruction to sell 100 shares of the security priced at $10.03 per share. The order with a Post Only instruction would not remove any liquidity upon entry, and would post to the EDGA Book at $10.03. This would, in turn, trigger the discretion of the resting buy order with a Discretionary Range instruction and an execution would occur at $10.03. The order with a Post Only instruction to sell would be treated as the adder of liquidity and the buy order with discretion would be treated as the remover of liquidity.
• Assume the same facts as above, but that the incoming order with a Post Only instruction is priced at $10.00 instead of $10.03. As is true in the example above, the order with a Post Only instruction would not remove any liquidity upon entry. Rather than cancelling the incoming order with a Post Only instruction to sell back to the User, particularly when the resting order with a Discretionary Range instruction is willing to buy the security for up to $10.05 per share, the Exchange proposes to execute at $10.00 the order with a Post Only instruction against the resting buy order with a Discretionary Range instruction. As is also true in the example above, the order with a Post Only instruction to sell would be treated as the liquidity adder and the buy order with discretion would be treated as the liquidity remover. As set forth in more detail below, if the incoming order was not an order with a Post Only instruction to sell, the incoming order could be executed at the ranked price of the order with a Discretionary Range instruction without restriction and would therefore be treated as the liquidity remover.
Third, the Exchange proposes to modify the description of the process by which it handles incoming orders that interact with Discretionary Orders. The Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 11.6(d) its proposed handling of a contra-side order that executes against a resting Discretionary Order at its displayed or non-displayed ranked price or that contains a time-in-force of IOC or FOK and a price in the discretionary range by stating that such an incoming order will remove liquidity against the Discretionary Order. The Exchange also proposes to specify in Rule 11.6(d) its handling of orders that are intended to post to the EDGA Book at a price within the discretionary range of an order with a Discretionary Range instruction. This includes, but is not limited to, an order with a Post Only instruction. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 11.6(d) that any contra-side order with a time-in-force other than IOC or FOK and a price within the discretionary range but not at the
Assume that the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.05, and the Exchange's BBO is $9.99 by $10.06. Assume that the Exchange receives an order to buy 100 shares of a security at $10.00 per share designated with discretion to pay up to an additional $0.05 per share.
• Assume that the next order received by the Exchange is an order with a Book Only instruction
• Assume the same facts as above, but that the incoming order with a Book Only instruction is priced at $10.00 instead of $10.03. The order with a Book Only instruction would remove liquidity upon entry at $10.00 per share pursuant to the Exchange's order execution rule.
Finally, because orders with a Discretionary Range instruction have both a price at which they will be ranked and an additional discretionary price, the Exchange proposes to expressly state how the Exchange handles a routable order with a Discretionary Range instruction by stating that such an order will be routed away from the Exchange at its full discretionary price. As an example, assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.05 and the Exchange's BBO is $9.99 by $10.06. If the Exchange receives a routable order with a Discretionary Range instruction to buy at $10.00 with discretion to pay up to an additional $0.05 per share, the Exchange would route the order as a limit order to buy at $10.05. Any unexecuted portion of the order would be posted to the EDGA Book with a ranked price of $10.00 and discretion to pay up to $10.05.
The Exchange notes that it has historically treated orders with a Discretionary Range instruction as relatively passive orders and as orders that, once posted to the EDGA Book, would in all cases be treated as the liquidity provider. The changes proposed above will change the handling of orders with a Discretionary Range instruction such that such orders are more aggressive and, thus, such orders will execute on the Exchange in additional circumstances than they do currently without regard to such orders' status as resting orders. In turn, orders with a Discretionary Range instruction resting on the EDGA Book may be treated as liquidity removers under certain circumstances, as outlined above.
The Exchange currently offers re-pricing instructions which, in all cases, result in the ranking and/or display of an order at a price other than its limit price in order to comply with applicable securities laws and Exchange Rules. Specifically, the Exchange currently offers re-pricing instructions to ensure compliance with Regulation NMS and Regulation SHO. The re-pricing instructions currently offered by the Exchange re-price and display an order upon entry and in certain cases again re-price and re-display an order at a more aggressive price based on changes in the NBBO. Rule 11.6(l) sets forth the re-pricing instructions currently available to Users with regard to Regulation NMS compliance—Price Adjust, and Display-Price Sliding, as well as a separate re-pricing process with regard to Regulation SHO compliance. As described below, the Exchange now proposes to amend its re-pricing instructions to align and streamline Exchange rules with those of BZX, BYX, and EDGX. As above, the Exchange notes that the proposed changes are intended to clarify and enhance Exchange Rules or to align such Rules with the other BGM Affiliated Exchanges but will not modify the current operation of the System because of the Exchange's current fee structure and because all orders with a Post Only instruction currently will remove liquidity from the Exchange if they interact with contra-side liquidity.
The Exchange proposes to amend its re-pricing instructions to comply with Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS as follows: (i) Amend the Price Adjust instruction under Rule 11.6(l)(1)(A) to: (A) Divide the rule into subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii); (B) clarify the order must be a Locking Quotation
Under the Price Adjust instruction, where a buy (sell) order would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation if displayed by the System on the EDGA Book at the time of entry, the order will be displayed and ranked
The Exchange proposes to restructure the provisions of the current rule by separating rule text and adopting additional subparagraph references, subparagraph (ii) and (iii).
The Exchange also proposes to add new subparagraph (iv) to Rule 11.6(l)(1)(A) which would cover where an order with a Price Adjust instruction and a Post Only instruction would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of the Exchange. The proposed amendments to Rule 11.6(l)(1)(A) are based on BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(2)(D) and are identical to EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(1)(A)(iv). To the extent the amended text of Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(1)(A) differs from BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(2)(D), such differences are necessary to conform the rule with existing rule text.
As noted above, an order subject to the Price Adjust instruction will only be re-priced where it would be a Locking Quotation of Crossing Quotation of an external market, and not the Exchange. In such case, any display-eligible order with a Price Adjust instruction and a Post Only instruction that would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of the Exchange upon entry will be executed as set forth in Rule 11.6(n)(4)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Displayed Price Sliding instruction under Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B) to: (A) change the name from “Displayed Price Sliding” to “Display-Price Sliding”; and (B) replace the text of Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B) with text that is identical to BZX Rule 11.19(g)(1), BYX Rule 11.9(g)(1), and EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B). The Exchange does not propose to modify the operation of Display-Price Sliding. It simply seeks to replace the rule text with of Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B) with text that is substantially similar to BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(1) and identical to EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B). The Display-Price Sliding instruction operates in an identical manner as the Display-Price Sliding instruction on EDGX and the display price sliding process on BZX and BYX. To the extent the amended text of Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B) differs from BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(1), such differences are necessary to conform the rule to existing rule text. The Exchange does not propose to modify the operation of the re-pricing of orders with a Non-Displayed instruction. Replacing the rule text would enable the Exchange to include substantially similar or identical rule text describing processes that operate in the same manner across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, thus avoiding potential confusion.
In sum, Display-Price Sliding is an order instruction requiring that where an order would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of an external market if displayed by the System on the EDGA Book at the time of entry, such order will be ranked at the Locking Price and displayed by the System at one Minimum Price Variation lower (higher) than the Locking Price for orders to buy (sell). A User may elect for the Display-Price Sliding instruction to only apply where their display-eligible order would be a Locking Quotation of an external market upon entry (“Lock Only”). In such cases, the User's display-eligible order will be cancelled if the order would be a Crossing Quotation of an external market upon entry.
For example, assume the Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy at $10.10 and a posted and displayed offer to sell $10.13. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.12. If the Exchange receives an order with a Book Only instruction to buy at $10.12, the Exchange will rank the order to buy at $10.12 and display the order at $10.11 because displaying the bid at $10.12 would cause it to be a Locking Quotation of an external market's Protected Offer to sell for $10.12. If the NBO then moved to $10.13, the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy and display it at its ranked price (and limit price) of $10.12.
As an example of the Lock-Only option for Display-Price Sliding, assume the Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy at $10.10 and a posted and displayed offer to sell at $10.14. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.12. If the Exchange receives an order with a Book Only instruction to buy 100 shares at $10.13 and the User has elected the Lock-Only option for Display-Price Sliding, the Exchange will cancel the order back to the User. To reiterate a basic example of Display-Price Sliding, if instead the User applied Display-Price Sliding (and not the Lock-Only option for Display-Price Sliding), the Exchange would rank the order to buy at $10.12 and display the order at $10.11 because displaying the bid at $10.13 would cause it to be a Crossing Quotation of an external market's Protected Offer to sell for $10.12. If the NBO then moved to $10.13, the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy and display it at $10.12.
An order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction retains its original limit price irrespective of the prices at which such order is ranked and displayed. An order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction is displayed at the most aggressive price possible and receives a new time stamp should the NBBO change such that the order would no longer be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of an external market. All orders that are re-ranked and re-displayed pursuant to the Display-Price Sliding instruction retain their priority as compared to other
The ranked and displayed prices of an order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction may be adjusted once or multiple times depending upon the instructions of a User and changes to the prevailing NBBO. Multiple re-pricing is optional and must be explicitly selected by a User before it will be applied. The Exchange's default Display-Price Sliding instruction will only adjust the ranked and displayed prices of an order upon entry and then the displayed price one time following a change to the prevailing NBBO, provided however, that if such an order's displayed price becomes a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation then the Exchange will adjust the ranked price of such order and it will not be further re-ranked or re-displayed at any other price. Orders subject to the optional multiple price sliding process will be further re-ranked and re-displayed as permissible based on changes to the prevailing NBBO.
As an example of the multiple re-pricing option for Display-Price Sliding, assume the Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy at $10.10 and a posted and displayed offer to sell at $10.14. Assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.12. If the Exchange receives an order with a Book Only instruction to buy at $10.13, the Exchange would rank the order to buy at $10.12 and display the order at $10.11 because displaying the bid at $10.13 would cause it to be a Crossing Quotation of an external market's Protected Offer to sell for $10.12. If the NBO then moved to $10.13, the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy, rank it at $10.13 and display it at $10.12. Where the User did not elect the multiple re-pricing option for Display-Price Sliding, the Exchange would not further adjust the ranked or displayed price following this un-slide. However, under the multiple re-pricing option, if the NBO then moved to $10.14, the Exchange would un-slide the bid to buy and display it at its full limit price of $10.13.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B)(iv), any display-eligible order with a Post Only instruction that would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of the Exchange upon entry will be executed as set forth in Rule 11.6(n)(4) or cancelled. Consistent with the principle of not re-pricing orders to avoid executions, in the event the NBBO changes such that an order with a Post Only instruction subject to Display-Price Sliding instruction would be ranked at a price at which it could remove displayed liquidity from the EDGA Book, the order will be executed as set forth in Rule 11.6(n)(4) or cancelled.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B)(v), an order with a Post Only instruction will be permitted to post and be displayed opposite the ranked price of orders subject to Display-Price Sliding instruction. In the event an order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction is ranked on the EDGA Book with a price equal to an opposite side order displayed by the Exchange, it will be subject to processing as set forth in Rule 11.10(a)(4), which is described in greater detail below.
For example, assume the Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy at $10.10 and a posted and displayed offer to sell at $10.12. Assume the NBBO (including Protected Quotations of other external markets) is also $10.10 by $10.12. If the Exchange receives an order with a Post Only instruction to buy at $10.12 per share, unless executed pursuant to Rule 11.6(n)(4),
If the Exchange did not have a displayed offer to sell at $10.12 in the example above, but instead the best offer on the EDGA Book was $10.13, the Exchange would apply Display-Price Sliding to the incoming order to buy by ranking such order at $10.12 and displaying the order at $10.11. The EDGA Book would now be displayed as $10.11 by $10.13. Assume, however, that after price sliding the incoming order to buy from $10.12 to a display price of $10.11, the Exchange received an order with a Post Only instruction to sell at $10.12, thus joining the NBO. The order with a Post Only instruction would be permitted to post and be displayed opposite the ranked price of orders subject to display-price sliding. Accordingly, the Exchange would allow such incoming order with a Post Only instruction to sell at $10.12 to post and display on the EDGA Book, as described above, with an opposite side order subject to Display-Price Sliding displayed at $10.11. Assume that the next Protected Offer displayed by all external markets other than the Exchange moved to $10.13. In this situation the Exchange would un-slide but then cancel the bid at $10.12 because, as proposed, in the event the NBBO changes such that an order with a Post Only instruction subject to Display-Price Sliding would un-slide and would be ranked at a price at which it could remove displayed liquidity from the EDGA Book (
Under Rule 11.6(l)(2), an order to sell with a Short Sale instruction that, at the time of entry, could not be executed or displayed in compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO will be re-priced by the System at the Permitted Price.
Rule 11.6(l)(2) states that: (i) When a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is in effect, the System will execute a sell order with a Displayed and Short Sale instruction at the price of the NBB if, at the time of initial display of the sell order with a Short Sale instruction, the order was at a price above the then current NBB; (ii) orders with a Short Exempt instruction will not be subject to re-pricing under amended Rule 11.6(l)(2); and (iii) the re-pricing instructions to comply with Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS will continue to be ignored for an order to sell with a Short Sale instruction when a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is in effect and the re-pricing instructions to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO under this Rule will apply.
The Exchange proposes to make the below changes to align the description of the Exchange's short sale re-pricing process under Rule 11.6(l)(2) with BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(5) and EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(2). Specifically, the Exchange proposed to amend Rule 11.6(l)(2)(A) to remove the last sentence which states that, “[a]n order to sell with a Short Sale instruction that is re-priced pursuant to this paragraph will be ranked at the Permitted Price.” No such phrase is included in the BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(5)(A) or EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(2). The Exchange also believes this sentence is superfluous, as the description of the short sale re-pricing process currently references to which prices such orders are to be re-priced and the price of such orders is the equivalent to the price at which the order is to be ranked on the EDGA Book for purposes of Exchange Rule 11.9. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.6(l)(2)(D) to align with BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(6) and EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(2)(D) to state that where an order is subject to either a Display-Price Sliding instruction or a Price Adjust instruction and also contains a Short Sale instruction when a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is in effect, the re-pricing instructions to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO will apply. The Exchange does not propose this change to alter the meaning of Rule 11.6(l)(2)(D), but rather, to align the language with BZX and BYX Rule 11.9(g) and EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(2)(D) in order to provide consistent rules across the Exchange and BZX.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.6(l)(3) to align with BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(4) and to be identical to EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(3). To the extent the amended text of Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3) differs from BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(4), such differences are necessary to conform the rule to existing rule text. The Exchange does not propose to modify the operation of the re-pricing of orders with a Non-Displayed instruction. It simply seeks to replace the rule text with of Rule 11.6(l)(3) with text that is substantially similar to BZX and BYX Rules 11.9(g)(4) and identical to EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(3). The re-re-pricing of orders with a Non-Displayed instruction operates in an identical manner as the repricing of non-displayed orders on BZX, BYX, and EDGX. Replacing the rule text would enable the Exchange to include substantially similar or identical rule text describing processes that operate in the same manner across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
In sum, Rule 11.6(l)(2) would state that in order to avoid potentially trading through Protected Quotations of external markets, any order with a Non-Displayed instruction that is subject to the Display-Price Sliding or Price Adjust instruction would be ranked at the Locking Price on entry. In the event the NBBO changes such that an order with a Non-Displayed instruction subject to the Display-Price Sliding or Price Adjust instruction would cross a Protected Quotation of an external market, the order will receive a new time stamp, and will be ranked by the System at the Locking Price. In the event an order with a Non-Displayed instruction has been re-priced by the System, such order with a Non-Displayed instruction is not re-priced by the System unless it again would cross a Protected Quotation of an external market. This functionality is equivalent to the handling of displayable orders pursuant to the Display-Price Sliding instruction except that such orders will not have a displayed price.
Aggressive is an order instruction that directs the System to route the order if an away Trading Center crosses the limit price of the order resting on the EDGA Book. Based on BZX Rule 11.13(a)(4)(A), the Exchange proposes to also amend Rule 11.6(n)(1) to state that any routable order with a Non-Displayed instruction that is resting on the EDGA Book and is crossed by an away Trading Center will be automatically routed to the Trading Center displaying the Crossing Quotation. To the extent the amended text of Exchange Rule 11.6(n)(1) differs from BZX Rule 11.13(a)(4)(A), such differences are necessary to conform the rule with existing rule text. Lastly, the proposed rule text is identical to EDGX Rule 11.6(l)(1).
Super Aggressive is an order instruction that directs the System to route an order when an away Trading Center locks or crosses the limit price of the order resting on the EDGA Book. A User may designate an order as Super Aggressive solely to routable orders posted to the EDGA Book with remaining size of an Odd Lot. Based on BZX Rule 11.13(b)(4)(C),
The Exchange proposes to apply this logic in order to facilitate executions that would otherwise not occur due to the Post Only instruction requirement to not remove liquidity. Because a Super Aggressive Re-Route eligible order is willing to route to an away Trading Center and remove liquidity (
Assume that the Exchange receives an order to buy 300 shares of a security at $10.10 per share designated with a Super Aggressive instruction. Assume further that the NBBO is $10.09 by $10.10 when the order is received, and the Exchange's lowest offer is priced at $10.11. The Exchange will route the order away from the Exchange as a bid to buy 300 shares at $10.10. Assume that the order obtains one 100 share execution through the routing process and then returns to the Exchange. The Exchange will post the order as a bid to buy 200 shares at $10.10. If the Exchange subsequently receives an order with a Post Only instruction to sell priced at $10.09 per share, such order will execute against the posted order to buy with an execution price of $10.10. The posted buy order will be treated as the liquidity provider and the incoming order with a Post Only instruction to sell will be treated as the liquidity remover, based on Exchange Rule 11.6(n)(4) that executes orders with a Post Only instruction upon entry if such execution is in their economic interest.
However, assuming the same facts as above, if the incoming order with a Post Only instruction to sell is priced at $10.10 and thus does not remove liquidity pursuant to the economic best interest functionality, the posted order with a Super Aggressive instruction will execute against such order at $10.10. In this scenario, the posted order to buy will be treated as the liquidity remover and the incoming order with a Post Only instruction to sell will be treated as the liquidity provider.
Finally, assume that the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.11 and that the Exchange has a displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security at $10.10 and a displayed offer to sell 100 shares of a security at $10.11. Assume that the displayed bid has not been designated with the Super Aggressive instruction. Assume next that the Exchange receives a second displayable bid to buy 100 shares of the same security at $10.10 that has been designated as routable and subject to the Super Aggressive instruction. Because there is no liquidity to which the Exchange can route the order, the second order will post to the EDGA Book as a bid to buy at $10.10 behind the original displayed bid to buy at $10.10. If the Exchange then received an order with a Post Only instruction to sell 100 shares at $10.10 then no execution would occur because the incoming order with a Post Only instruction cannot remove liquidity at $10.10 based on the economic best interest analysis, the first order with priority to buy at $10.10 was not designated with the Super Aggressive instruction and the second booked order to buy at $10.10 is not permitted to bypass the first order as this would result in a violation of the Exchange's priority rule, Rule 11.9.
The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Post Only under Rule 11.6(n)(4) to replace an erroneous reference to the Hide Not Slide instruction with Display-Price Sliding. In sum, Post Only is an instruction that may be attached to an order that is to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 11.9 and Rule 11.10(a)(4) or cancelled, as appropriate, without routing away to another trading center except that the order will not remove liquidity from the EDGA Book, except as described below. As amended, an order with a Post Only instruction and a Display-Price Sliding, rather than Hide Not Slide, or Price Adjust instruction will remove contra-side liquidity from the EDGA Book if the order is an order to buy or sell a security priced below $1.00 or if the value of such execution when removing liquidity equals or exceeds the value of such execution if the order instead posted to the EDGA Book and subsequently provided liquidity, including the applicable fees charged or rebates provided.
The Exchange proposes to amend its TIF instructions to align with BZX Rule 11.9(b) and EDGX Rule 11.6(q). To the extent the amended text of Exchange Rule 11.6(q) differs from BZX Rule 11.9(b), such differences are necessary to conform the rule with existing Exchange rule text. The amended text is identical to EDGX Rule 11.6(q).
First, the Exchange proposes to align the definition of Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”) under Rule 11.6(q)(1) with BZX Rule 11.9(b)(1) and EDGX Rule 11.6(q)(1) to make clear that an order with an IOC instruction that does not include a Book Only instruction and that cannot be executed in accordance with Rule 11.10(a)(4) on the System when reaching the Exchange will be eligible for routing away pursuant to Rule 11.11.
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of the Fill-or-Kill (“FOK”) under Rule 11.6(q)(3) to align with BZX Rule 11.9(b)(6) and EDGX Rule 11.6(q)(3) to make clear that an order with a TIF instruction of FOK is not eligible for routing away pursuant to Rule 11.11.
The Exchange proposes to amend the description of Limit Orders under Rule 11.8(b) to align such Rule with existing EDGX and BZX Rules. Each of these changes are described in more detail below.
First, the Exchange proposes to remove from Rule 11.8(b)(4) language stating a Limit Order that includes both a Post Only instruction and Non-Displayed instruction will be rejected by the System. A similar prohibition against coupling a Post Only instruction and Non-Displayed instruction is not included in EDGX Rule 11.8(b)(4). Removing such language would enable the Exchange to further align its treatment of Limit Orders under Rule 11.8(b) with that of EDGX Rule 11.8(b). Such change also updates Rule 11.8(b)(4) to reflect current system functionality. As proposed, Rule 11.8(b)(4) would no longer prohibit User from including both a Post Only instruction and Non-Displayed instruction on their Limit Orders.
Second, the Exchange proposes to re-locate within Rule 11.8(b) and re-word the statement regarding the inclusion of a Discretionary Range on a Limit Order. Current Rule 11.8(b)(8) currently states that a “User may include a Discretionary Range instruction.” This ability to include a Discretionary Range instruction on a Limit Order is currently grouped with other functionality that can be elected for Limit Orders that also include a Post Only or Book Only instruction as well as specified time-in-force instructions for orders that can be entered into the System and post to the EDGA Book. However, the System does not allow the combination of a Discretionary Range and a Post Only instruction. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to re-locate the reference to the Discretionary Range instruction within Rule 11.8(b) so that it is no longer grouped with other orders that can be combined with a Post Only instruction. The Exchange also proposes to state in Rule 11.8(b) that: (i) A Limit Order with a Discretionary Range instruction may also include a Book Only instruction; and (ii) a Limit Order with a Discretionary Range instruction and a Post Only instruction will be rejected. Further, the Exchange proposes to refer to the ability of a Limit Order to include a Discretionary Range instruction, rather than a “User” that may include a Discretionary Range instruction.
Third, the Exchange proposes to replace a reference to “Displayed Price Sliding” with “Display-Price Sliding”. This proposed rule change is designed to update Rule 11.8(b)(10) to reflect the proposed changes of references from “Displayed Price Sliding” to “Display-Price Sliding” discussed above.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.8(b)(12) regarding the re-pricing of orders with a Non-Displayed instruction to align with to be identical to EDGX Rule 11.8(b)(12). The Exchange does not propose to modify the operation of the re-pricing of Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction. It simply seeks to replace the rule text with of Rule 11.8(b)(12) with text that is identical to EDGX Rule 11.8(b)(12). The re-pricing of Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction operates in an identical manner as the re-pricing of non-displayed limit orders on EDGX. Replacing the rule text would enable the Exchange to include identical rule text describing processes that operate in an identical manner across EDGA and EDGX.
With respect to the Exchange's priority and execution algorithm, the Exchange is proposing various minor and structural to changes based on BZX Rule 11.12 and EDGX Rule 11.9 that are intended to emphasize the processes by which orders are accepted, priced, ranked, displayed and executed, as well as a new provision related to the ability of orders to rest at the Locking Price and the Exchange's handling of orders in such a circumstance. In addition to the changes proposed with respect to Rule 11.9, discussed immediately below, these changes also relate to Rules 11.10 and 11.11.
The Exchange proposes modifications to Rule 11.9, Priority of Orders, to make clear that the ranking of orders described in such rule is in turn dependent on Exchange rules related to the execution of orders, primarily Rule 11.10. The Exchange believes that this has always been the case under Exchange rules but there was not previously a description of the cross-reference to Rule 11.10 within such rules. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add reference to the execution process in addition to the numeric cross-reference to Rule 11.10. The Exchange also proposes to change certain references within Rule 11.9 to refer to ranking rather than executing equally priced trading interest, as the Rule as a whole is intended to describe the manner in which resting orders are ranked and maintained, specifically in price and time priority, while awaiting execution against incoming orders. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed modifications substantively modify the operation of the rules but the Exchange believes that it is important to make clear that the ranking of orders is a separate process from the execution of orders. The Exchange also proposes changes to Rule 11.9(a)(4) and (a)(5) to specify that orders retain and lose “time” priority under certain circumstances as opposed to priority generally because retaining or losing price priority does not require the same descriptions, as price priority will always be retained unless the price of an order changes. Each change proposed above was recently approved with respect to analogous rules of BZX and
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B)(ii) to replace a reference to “Displayed Price Sliding” with “Display-Price Sliding”. This proposed rule change is designed to update Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B)(ii) to reflect the proposed change of references from “Displayed Price Sliding” to “Display-Price Sliding” discussed above.
The Exchange proposes to adopt paragraph (C) of Rule 11.10(a)(4), which would be identical to BZX Rule 11.13(a)(4)(C)
The Exchange also proposes to adopt Rule 11.10(a)(4)(D), which would be identical to BZX Rule 11.13(a)(4)(D).
To demonstrate the operation of this provision, again assume the NBBO is $10.10 by $10.11. Assume the Exchange has a posted and displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at $10.10 per share and a resting non-displayed bid to buy 100 shares of a security priced at $10.11 per share.
• Assume that the next order received by the Exchange is an order with a Post Only instruction to sell 100 shares of the security priced at $10.11 per share. The order with a Post Only instruction would not remove any liquidity upon entry pursuant to the Exchange's economic best interest functionality, would post to the EDGA Book and would be displayed at $10.11. The display of this order would, in turn, make the resting non-displayed bid not executable at $10.11.
• If an incoming offer to sell 100 shares at $10.10 is entered into the EDGA Book, the resting non-displayed bid originally priced at $10.11 will be executed at $10.105 per share, thus providing a half-penny of price improvement as compared to the order's limit price of $10.11. The execution at $10.105 per share also provides the incoming offer with a half-penny of price improvement as compared to its limit price of $10.10. The result would be the same for an incoming market order to sell or any other incoming limit order offer priced at $10.10 or below, which would execute against the non-displayed bid at a price of $10.105 per share. As above, an offer at the full price of the resting and displayed $10.11 offer would not execute against the resting non-displayed bid, but would instead either cancel or post to the EDGA Book behind the original $10.11 offer in priority.
The Exchange notes that, in addition to the changes described above, it is proposing to add descriptive titles to paragraphs (A) and (B) of Rule 11.10(a)(4), which describe the process by which executable orders are matched within the System. Specifically, so long as it is otherwise executable, an incoming order to buy will be automatically executed to the extent that it is priced at an amount that equals or exceeds any order to sell in the EDGA Book and an incoming order to sell will be automatically executed to the extent that it is priced at an amount that equals or is less than any other order to buy in the EDGA Book. These rules further state that an order to buy shall be executed at the price(s) of the lowest order(s) to sell having priority in the EDGA Book and an order to sell shall be executed at the price(s) of the highest order(s) to buy having priority in the EDGA Book. The Exchange emphasizes these current rules only insofar as to highlight the interconnected nature of the priority rule. The Exchange also proposes to move language contained within Rule 11.10(a)(2) to paragraph (a) of the rule such that the language is more generally applicable to the rules governing execution contained in Rule 11.10(a)(1) through (5). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to relocate language stating that any order falling within the parameters of the paragraph shall be referred to as “executable” and that an order will be cancelled back to the User, if based on market conditions, User instructions, applicable Exchange Rules and/or the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, such order is not executable, cannot be routed to another Trading Center pursuant to Rule 11.11 or cannot be posted to the EDGA Book. Each change proposed above was recently approved with respect to analogous rules of BZX, specifically amendments to Rule 11.13.
The Exchange also proposes to modify paragraph (h) of Rule 11.11 to clarify the Exchange's rule regarding the priority of routed orders. Paragraph (h) currently sets forth the proposition that a routed order does not retain priority on the Exchange while it is being routed to other markets. The Exchange believes that its proposed clarification to paragraph (h) is appropriate because it more clearly states that a routed order is not ranked and maintained in the EDGA Book pursuant to Rule 11.9(a), and therefore is not available to execute against incoming orders pursuant to
The Exchange intends to implement the proposed rule change immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule changes are generally intended to better align certain Exchange rules with those currently in place on EDGX, BZX, and BYX in order to provide a consistent rule set and functionality across the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. As noted above, the proposed changes will not result in any changes to the way the System operates due to the Exchange's current fee structure. However, by making the rule change, the Exchange will be in position to support such functionality immediately in the event the Exchange's fee structure changes in the future. Consistent functionality across the BGM Affiliated Exchanges will reduce complexity and streamline duplicative functionality, thereby resulting in simpler technology implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGX, BZX, and BYX. The proposed rule changes do not propose to implement new or unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the Commission or is not available on EDGX, BZX or BYX. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is based on applicable BZX and BYX rules and substantially similar to applicable EDGX rules; the proposed language of the Exchange's Rules differs from EDGX rules only to extent necessary to conform to existing Exchange rule text. Where possible, the Exchange has mirrored EDGX, BYX, or BZX rules, because consistent rules will simplify the regulatory requirements and increase the understanding of the Exchange's operations for Members of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGX, BZX, and BYX. As such, the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
In addition to the specific rules discussed below, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to clarify and re-structure the Exchange's priority, execution and routing rules will contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by making the Exchange's rules easier to understand.
In particular, the Exchange believes it is consistent with the Act to execute orders with a Discretionary Range instruction and orders with a Super Aggressive instruction against marketable liquidity (
The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to Rule 11.6(l) are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to the description of Limit Orders under Rule 11.8(b) is reasonable because it aligns their operation with existing EDGX and BZX rules and functionality as well as to reflect the relevant proposed changes discussed above. Therefore, the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it will avoid investor confusion by providing the identical default behavior across the Exchange, EDGA and BZX.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposal will provide consistent functionality across the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, thereby reducing complexity and streamlining duplicative functionality, resulting in simpler technology implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGX, BYX and BZX. Thus, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among national securities exchanges. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will benefit Exchange participants in that it is designed to achieve a consistent technology offering by the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to harmonize its rules across BGM Affiliated Exchanges in a timely manner, thereby simplifying the rules available to Members of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGX, BZX and BYX. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes a rule change relating to implementation of a fee on securities lending and repurchase transactions with respect to shares of the CurrencyShares® Euro Trust and the CurrencyShares® Japanese Yen Trust, which are currently listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.202. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange lists and trades shares of the CurrencyShares® Euro Trust (the “Euro Trust” or “FXE”) and the CurrencyShares® Japanese Yen Trust (the “Yen Trust” or “FXY” and together with the Euro Trust, the “Trusts”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.202.
The FXE and FXY hold euros and Japanese yen, respectively, and issue shares in baskets of 50,000 shares (“Baskets of Shares”) in exchange for deposits of euros or yen, respectively. Each Trust redeems Baskets of Shares and distributes euros or yen, respectively. The shares of FXE and FXY (“Shares”) represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interests in the assets held by the relevant Trust. The investment objective of each Trust is for a Trust's Shares to reflect the price (in U.S. dollars (“USD”)) of the foreign currency held by a Trust, plus accrued interest and less the expenses and liabilities of such Trust. The Shares are intended to provide institutional and retail investors with a simple, cost-effective means of including in their investment portfolio economic exposure to a particular foreign currency to, for example, hedge foreign currency risk in other portfolio assets or against U.S. dollar fluctuations more generally.
As Sponsor of the Trusts, Guggenheim receives a management fee, which is intended to compensate Guggenheim for its service as Sponsor and to cover certain Trust expenses. The management fee is paid monthly out of a Trust's assets and calculated as a percentage of the currency held by each Trust. With regard to the Euro Trust and Yen Trust, Guggenheim's fee accrues daily at an annual nominal rate of 0.40% of the euros and yen in each Trust, respectively. As described below, the management fee directly impacts the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Shares.
To calculate NAV, the trustee adds to the amount of euros or yen in a Trust at the end of the preceding business day:
• Accrued but unpaid interest;
• euros or yen receivable under pending purchase orders; and
• the value of other Trust assets.
From this sum, the trustee then subtracts:
• The accrued but unpaid management fee,
• euros or yen payable under pending redemption orders; and
• any other Trust expenses and liabilities.
The value of a Trust's Shares is determined by dividing a Trust's NAV by the number of Shares outstanding. Because the accrued but unpaid management fee is subtracted from the assets in calculating NAV on a daily basis,
Like other equity securities, Shares of each Trust may be lent by shareholders to other market participants. This securities lending activity can facilitate short selling of Shares, as well as other investment strategies.
The Sponsor has represented to the Exchange that it has identified a strategy (“Strategy”) that permits market participants (“Traders”) to profit from the reduction in the NAV of the Shares over time associated with Management Fee Decay to the detriment of the value of the Shares held by shareholders who do not engage in the Strategy.
Pursuant to the Strategy, a Trader borrows Shares and then either (1) sells the borrowed Shares, taking a short position in the Shares,
Because of the Management Fee Decay, the number of units of foreign currency underlying the Shares the Trader has sold short is reduced over time. Therefore, when the Trader unwinds its short position in the Shares by creating Shares through delivery of the currency it held as a hedge, or when the Trader purchases Shares and sells the currency held as a hedge, it will do so at lower cost than when it sold (or purchased) the Shares.
The Trader's profit from this Strategy is equal to the Management Fee Decay attributable to the Shares sold short, plus or minus the net cost of borrowing the Shares
Before the trade, there are 100 euros in the Trust for each outstanding Share. Assuming a USD/euro exchange rate of $1.10, FXE would be trading at $110 per Share. A Trader borrows 50,000 Shares of FXE and sells them for $5.5 million to obtain a short position of 50,000 Shares. At the same time, to hedge the short exposure to euros, the Trader obtains a long position in euros by entering into a forward contract to purchase in one year 4.98 million euros for $5.478 million. The Trader holds these positions for a year, by which time the FXE has predictably decayed by the 40 basis point management fee, regardless of the change in the USD/euro exchange rate.
Payment of the management fee by the Trust results in the sale of euros, causing the number of euros per Share to fall from 100 euros for each Share to 99.6 euros for each Share. As a result, the Trader can now create 50,000 Shares by depositing only 4.98 million euros, which the Trader can purchase for $5.478 million, and return the borrowed Shares. The $20,000 difference in cost to create 50,000 Shares one year after selling short 50,000 Shares for $5.5 million is profit. The Trader's transaction costs would be the cost of the forward contract, commissions, and any fees charged by the lender.
Before the trade, there are 100 euros in the Trust for each outstanding Share. Assuming a USD/euro exchange rate of $1.10, FXE would be trading at $110 per Share. A Trader borrows 50,000 Shares of FXE and redeems them in exchange for 5 million euros. The Trader uses the proceeds of the redemption as collateral for the stock borrow. The Trader holds this position for a year. Regardless of whether the USD/euro exchange rate rises or falls, the amount of euros per Share held by the Trust will fall because of the Management Fee Decay.
When the Trader redeemed the Shares, there were one hundred euros in the Euro Trust for each outstanding Share. During the year, the Euro Trust has had to sell euros to pay management fees, and therefore there are now only 99.6 euros per outstanding Share in the Euro Trust. As a result, the Trader will only have to deposit 4.98 million euros to create 50,000 Shares of FXE. The 20,000 euros difference between the 5 million euros received from redeeming 50,000 Shares and the 4.98 million euros cost to create 50,000 Shares one year later is the Trader's profit. The Trader's transaction costs would be commissions and any fees charged by the lender.
Shareholders who do not lend their Shares to Traders subsidize the Strategy employed by the lenders and Traders. The long holder of Shares agrees to pay a management fee for exposure to the underlying currency. When a shareholder lends its Shares, it retains the benefit of exposure to the euros or yen in a Trust. However, a Trader that borrows the Shares and redeems or sells its borrowed Shares deprives a Trust of the assets against which the management fee is assessed. The lender retains a long position in the Shares even though the assets reflecting its long position are no longer in a Trust and thus do not bear a proportional cost of managing the assets in a Trust. In this way, lenders and Traders that engage in the Strategy are subsidized by long holders of the Shares that do not lend their Shares.
The Sponsors continue to bear the cost of providing shareholder services to shareholders that lend Shares to Traders, even though, because Traders sell these borrowed Shares or redeem them with a Trust, there are no assets associated with these borrowed Shares against which a management fee is assessed to support these services. Long holders of Shares that do not lend to Traders are bearing the costs associated with lenders' long positions in Shares that Traders redeem or sell. Through the
This Strategy is not available with asset classes other than exchange-traded products because shares of operating companies do not charge management fees or provide investors with the ability to redeem their shares in exchange for the underlying assets. Thus, shares of a company do not have a decay that is extrinsic to the value of the company or a structure that provides the ability for the holder of a short interest to perfectly hedge its short position.
The Sponsor further represents that the Strategy discussed above is detrimental to liquidity in the Shares. Because of the large outstanding short positions in the Shares, the Sponsor represents that it is difficult to borrow Shares, particularly for market participants that are not Authorized Participants
As described in an April 8, 2013, amendment to the depositary trust agreement (“Trust Agreement”) governing the administration of each Trust,
For this reason, the Exchange is filing this proposed rule change relating to a fee (the “ETF Loan Fee”) on securities lending and repurchase transactions with respect to the Shares, which are currently listed and traded on the Exchange. Guggenheim Specialized Products, LLC (“Guggenheim” or the “Sponsor”), the sponsor of the Trusts,
The Sponsor believes and has advised the Trustee that it is in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners to impose an “ETF Loan Fee”
The procedures proposed by the Trusts would prohibit any shareholder from lending any Shares to another person (a “Loan Transaction”), or selling any Shares to another person subject to an agreement to repurchase Shares (a “Repurchase Transaction” and, collectively with a Loan Transaction, a “Permissible Stock Loan”), unless such shareholder notifies the custodian or its designee of such transaction on or prior to the inception of the Permissible Stock Loan. A shareholder engaging in a Permissible Stock Loan (a “Loaning Shareholder”) also would be required to notify the custodian or its designee of the termination of the Permissible Stock Loan on or prior to the termination of such transaction. For the pendency of the Permissible Stock Loan, the Loaning Shareholder would be obligated to pay the custodian the ETF Loan Fee with respect to that transaction. The ETF Loan Fee would be applicable to Loan Transactions occurring following Commission approval of this proposed rule change and after sixty days' notice
Upon effectiveness of amendments to the Trusts' depository trust agreements and Commission approval of this proposed rule change, and after sixty days' notice to shareholders (the “ETF Loan Fee Effective Date”), holders of Shares would be prohibited from lending Shares or selling Shares subject to an agreement to repurchase, without notifying BNY Mellon, as the ETF Loan Fee collection agent of the Trusts (the “Loan Fee Collection Agent”),
The ETF Loan Fee is expected to equal Guggenheim's management fee on a per Share basis.
To facilitate administration and collection of the ETF Loan Fee, Guggenheim intends to engage Precidian to serve as Administrator of the ETF Loan Fee. Once the ETF Loan Fee Collection Agent is notified of a transaction subject to the ETF Loan Fee, it would convey such information to Precidian, which would accrue the ETF Loan Fee on a daily basis and report it to each Trust. On a monthly basis, Precidian or its agent would bill Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) participants based on their loan transactions or the loan transactions of their clients and distribute the net ETF Loan Fee to Guggenheim.
Given that the proposed ETF Loan Fee is equal to the annual management fee, the proposed ETF Loan Fee should not affect the market in the Shares, including market makers' ability to arbitrage. If, for example, FXE Shares are trading at a premium to euros, an arbitrageur, in an attempt to profit from the difference between the price of a euro and a Share of FXE, could sell FXE short, simultaneously buy euros, exchange euros for one or more Baskets of 50,000 FXE Shares, and then close out the short position with the Basket or Baskets of FXE Shares. To minimize market risk, an arbitrageur typically would not carry a position in to the next trading day. Thus, because the short position was closed out the same day, the arbitrageur would not incur the ETF Loan Fee. If FXE Shares are trading at a discount to euros, an arbitrageur could buy one or more Baskets of FXE Shares and simultaneously sell euros short, redeem the FXE Shares for euros at the end-of-day NAV, and close out the euro short position with the euros received on redemption. In this case, because the arbitrageur did not acquire a short position in FXE Shares, no ETF Loan Fee would be incurred.
The Exchange also notes that market makers can create new Shares and redeem Shares if needed to facilitate market making activity.
The Exchange believes that the Strategy has had a negative impact on shareholders who do not lend their Shares because lenders of Shares maintain a long exposure to the Trust while profiting from a Strategy that eliminates the assets in trust against which a management fee is assessed. These lenders are freeriding on the management fee paid by those shareholders that do not lend Shares.
As a consequence of the Strategy, the issuer cannot achieve economies of scale necessary to reduce management fees charged to shareholders, which are being paid only by those shareholders who do not lend their Shares. Assessing the ETF Loan Fee would have a positive impact on shareholders that do not lend their Shares because the ETF Loan Fees collected would be used to offset Trust expenses, bringing down the management fee.
The ETF Loan Fee would eliminate the economic incentive for market participants to engage in the Strategy. Market participants could still sell FXE and FXY short, but the Traders who borrow those Shares would not be subsidized by those shareholders who do not lend their Shares. Eliminating the economic distortion created by the Strategy, would facilitate pricing of FXE and FXY on parity with the underlying asset (
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(5)
The Sponsor has represented that short interest in Shares of the Euro Trust exceeded the number of outstanding Shares by a ratio of 2.6 to 1 as of March 27, 2015. Short interest in the Shares of the Yen Trust was 1.6 to 1 as of March 27, 2015. Because of this large short interest, Guggenheim asserts that it is difficult to borrow Shares and, thus, the cost of borrowing Shares increases. The ETF Loan Fee would make the Strategy less economically desirable and, therefore, would be expected to reduce costs associated with borrowing of Shares by market participants engaged in short selling.
In addition, the Sponsor has stated an intention to credit ETF Loan Fees that it receives against management fees otherwise owed to it by the Trusts and other Trust-related expenses, which will inure to the benefit of Beneficial Owners of Shares.
The Exchange notes that the ETF Loan Fee, as described above, would be imposed on Loaning Shareholders at an annual rate of 0.40% (or such lower annual nominal rate as may be determined by the Sponsor from time to time). The imposition of the ETF Loan Fee is not expected to have a significant impact on the market for the Shares.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent abusive and manipulative acts and practices in that the ETF Loan Fee is not expected to have a disparate impact on the arbitrage mechanics as they relate to the Shares and should not impact market makers' ability to arbitrage. As noted above, to minimize market risk, an arbitrageur, in connection with an arbitrage transaction, typically would not carry a position in to the next trading day, and, because a short position would be
The ETF Loan Fee is intended to eliminate the economic incentive for market participants to short sell FXE and FXY that the Management Fee Decay creates. The ETF Loan Fee would be imposed only on market participants that have made the business decision to assume and maintain a short position in the Shares. The Exchange notes that short positions can be closed out by creating new Shares pursuant to applicable FXE and FXY creation procedures. Market participants could avoid imposition of the ETF Loan Fee by creating new Shares to cover short positions.
The Exchange believes that imposition of the ETF Loan Fee would not materially impact trading of the Shares. The 40 basis point management fee currently is assessed against assets in the Trust. Like fees of other pooled investments, the accrued management fee is deducted from the NAV calculated daily. A long position in the CurrencyShares Euro Trust, for example, represents a long exposure to euros and a simultaneous short exposure to U.S. dollars. Conversely, a short position in the CurrencyShares Euro Trust represents a short exposure to euros and a simultaneous long exposure in U.S. dollars. As a given currency must be priced in terms of a different currency (that is, if priced in its own currency, the currency will always equal itself whether it appreciates or declines), for a Trust, entering a long position is economically similar to entering a short position in so far as both positions effectively constitute a simultaneous long and a short position of one of the applicable currencies in the cross rate. One side (
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and to protect investors and the public interest. According to the Sponsor, the ETF Loan Fee is not expected to negatively affect short selling generally, but rather only affect certain types of short selling activities conducted by certain market participants (namely the Strategy) at the expense of long investors. As a result of imposing the ETF Loan Fee, the Sponsor anticipates that more Shares will be available for lending which is expected to reduce the overall cost of lending and borrowing the Shares and positively affect liquidity to the benefit of investors and the public interest. As noted above, the Sponsor believes the ETF Loan Fee would benefit the Trusts and Beneficial Owners because ETF Loan Fee proceeds received (net of amounts retained by the Loan Fee Administrator and Loan Fee Collection Agent) would be used to offset management fees. The Exchange believes that the ETF Loan Fee promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it is intended to reflect the cost to the Trusts and Beneficial Owners of the Strategy. Because the Sponsor will reduce management fees owed to it by the Trusts in amounts equal to the net ETF Loan Fees collected, investors and the public should be positively affected.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the ETF Loan Fee is to reduce borrowing costs by reducing short interest in the Shares, which currently far exceeds the number of Shares outstanding. In addition, the Exchange notes that ETF Loan Fee proceeds received (net of amounts retained by the Loan Fee Administrator and Loan Fee Collection Agent) would be used to offset management fees. The ETF Loan Fee will be imposed only on market participants that have made the business decision to assume and maintain a short position in the Shares, which short positions can be closed out by creating new Shares pursuant to applicable FXE and FXY creation procedures.
On August 21, 2013, NYSE Regulation, Inc. issued a Regulatory Bulletin (RB-13-72 or “Regulatory Bulletin”) requesting comment on the proposed ETF Loan Fee.
1.
The Exchange received two comment letters in response to RB-13-72. In a letter dated September 23, 2013, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) stated its belief that imposition of the ETF Loan Fee would raise significant legal, regulatory, logistical and trading issues.
In a letter dated September 20, 2013, Precidian stated that, notwithstanding that shares of exchange-traded funds can be created at will, thereby eliminating the need to fail on settlement, ETFs have substantially larger short interest than traditional corporate issuers because of the
2.
In the Precidian Letter, Precidian stated that the proposed ETF Loan Fee is only a fraction of the amount of the creation and redemption fee, and, therefore, would presumably have far less impact on arbitrage than the creation and redemption fee itself. Any market participant seeing that Shares are trading above indicative intraday value will immediately sell shares, which will move the price back to its normal value, at which point the market participant will buy the shares back. Precidian stated that such a trade does not involve any type of arbitrage.
3.
The Precidian Letter states that, as Precidian understands the issue Guggenheim is trying to address, sophisticated market participants are taking advantage of the decay inherent in ETF shares to the disadvantage of fund managers, service providers and shareholders. Precidian believes the lack of a procedure permitting an ETF Loan Fee is inconsistent with the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that the current situation (whereby certain market participants are implementing the Strategy, as described above) is inconsistent with the public interest and permits discrimination between sophisticated investors (who can take advantage of the situation) and the general public.
4.
In the Precidian Letter, Precidian stated that it did not see any meaningful additional burden that imposition of the ETF Loan Fee would impose on shareholders.
5.
In the SIFMA Letter, SIFMA stated its belief that the ETF Loan Fee is potentially inconsistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act. SIFMA also questioned the description of the underlying strategy cited by Guggenheim as the basis for its request, as well as the assertion that the Strategy is only available to professional investors. For example, it said, the description of the Strategy does not seem to account for the cost associated with the borrowing of the ETF.
In the Precidian Letter, Precidian stated that the existence of large short positions that exceed the number of shares outstanding negatively affects the market by making it far more expensive for legitimate short sellers to borrow shares. The proposed ETF Loan Fee should actually reduce the cost of borrowing ETF shares by eliminating the artificial demand to borrow shares. The proposed ETF Loan Fee should eliminate the profit in the Strategy and therefore will eliminate the practice for the Trusts. The Strategy negatively impacts the ability of market participants that want to maintain a net short position, as opposed to a fully-hedged position, by making it more expensive to borrow Shares. Precidian stated that the ability of market participants to implement the Strategy and the current inability of fund sponsors to protect themselves from the negative impact of the Strategy is a burden on competition that is inconsistent with the Act.
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 6, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Firm Monthly Fee Cap to establish tiers, effective on August 6, 2015.
The Exchange is proposing to modify Section I.I. of the Fee Schedule to establish tiers for the Firm Monthly Fee Cap that are tied to tiers achieved in the Exchange's Amex Customer Engagement (“ACE”) Program.
The proposed Firm Monthly Fee Cap tiers are set forth in the table below:
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to institute tiered caps to the Firm Monthly Fee Cap is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the tiers are based on the amount of business transacted on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would enhance the incentives for ACE Program participants who use Manual Transactions to execute those transactions on the Exchange, which would benefit all ATP Holders. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are consistent with the Act because the proposal could incentivize additional ATP Holders to participate in the ACE Program, and (for those that already do) to achieve higher ACE tiers which may attract greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which would benefit all market participants by providing tighter quoting and better prices, all of which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national market system.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Internal Fixation Systems, Inc. (CIK No. 1501732) (“IFIXQ”
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-named company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-named company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 18, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 31, 2015.
By the Commission.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on August 21, 2015, in the TVA West Tower Auditorium, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee. The public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a
Status: Open.
For more information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before September 9, 2015.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3086 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and other Federal agencies.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Wahida Rashid, Branch Chief, Office of Environmental Analysis, Ill Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612, during normal business hours from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., telephone (510) 286-5935, or email
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
The USFWS decision and Biological Opinion are available by contacting USFWS at the address provided above. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to
1. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations
2. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
3. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice and Low-Income Populations
4. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
5. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended
6. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management
7. Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987
8. Federal Clean Air Act
9. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (23 CFR 772)
10. Federal Endangered Species Act
11. Migratory Bird Treaty Act
12. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice to rescind Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Highway Administration is issuing this notice to advise the public that FHWA is rescinding its Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Corridor proposal in Virginia.
Edward Sundra, Director of Program Development, Federal Highway Administration, 400 North 8th Street, Suite 750, Richmond, VA 23219; email:
A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Corridor proposal was published in the
23 U.S.C. 315; 23 CFR 771.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that it has received an application from the National Star Route Mail Contractors Association (NSRMCA) on behalf of its member motor carriers that transport mail under contract for the United States Postal Service (USPS). NSRMCA requests that its contract carriers be exempt from the “14-hour rule” of the Agency's hours-of-service regulations found in section 395.3(a)(2). NSRMCA specifically requests that a U.S. mail-carrying driver may elect to drive a U.S. mail-carrying commercial motor vehicle (CMV) no more than 10 hours following 8 consecutive hours off duty; and not drive after having been on duty 15 hours following 8 consecutive hours off duty. NSRMCA believes the exemption would positively impact safety, while reducing operating costs for USPS and contractors that provide Highway Contract Route services to the USPS. FMCSA requests public comment on the NSRMCA application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2015-0262 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). Before doing so, the Agency must provide an opportunity for public comment. The Agency is required to publish a notice of each exemption request in the
NSRMCA is a national trade association representing contractors transporting mail for the United States Postal Service (USPS). The NSRMCA represents contractors in all 50 States as well as U.S. territories. The NSRMCA's interest is in the safe and efficient delivery of U.S. mail. NSRMCA members employ drivers who are regulated by the FMCSA hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, and they submitted their request for exemption on behalf of all motor carriers that meet the terms specified within the request.
NSRMCA is seeking an exemption from the “14-hour rule” in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2), which prohibits a property-
Many of NSRMCA's member carriers and drivers work in “split-shift” operations. Their Highway Contract Routes involve the distribution of mail from a central processing facility to U.S. Post Offices in the morning. In the afternoon, U.S. mail collected by these same U.S. Post Offices is picked up and delivered to a central USPS processing facility. A typical day for a NSRMCA driver involved in the distribution of mail from a central processing facility starts early morning and ends 4 hours later at the last U.S. Post Office on the route. The return route typically starts 9 hours later at this same U.S. Post Office, collecting received mail at each U.S. Post Office on the route and delivering to the USPS central processing facility 4 hours later. A typical driver will have worked 8 hours, with a 9-hour break during the day between outbound and inbound routes, and a 7-hour break overnight. Neither of these breaks meets the required 10 consecutive hours break (
The NSRMCA conducted a survey of its membership to determine who would be interested in using the proposed exemption. Twenty-two member motor carriers—who employ 1,834 drivers—replied that they would be interested in utilizing the proposed exemption. These motor carriers operate a total of 1,175 vehicles, 507 of which are used in “split-shift” operations.
NSRMCA believes the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety obtained under the current “14-hour rule”, which prohibits operators of property-carrying CMVs from driving after the 14th hour of coming on duty. They believe that this exemption—if granted—would positively impact safety, while reducing operating costs for the USPS and contractors that provide Highway Contract Route services to the USPS. To qualify for this exemption, NSRMCA proposes the following four conditions: (1) A driver must have a rest opportunity; (2) motor carriers operating under this exemption must have a “Satisfactory” safety rating, or be unrated; (3) motor carriers operating under this exemption must have Safety Management System (SMS) scores below FMCSA's intervention thresholds; and (4) motor carrier representatives must participate in annual education, focusing on safety rating and regulatory compliance within the mail contracting environment.
According to NSRMCA, operating under the proposed exemption would be safer than operating under the current FMCSRs, as drivers will spend less total time performing all tasks related to their employment. Furthermore, drivers and vehicles will travel less distance performing the same volume of work, thereby improving safety performance. A copy of the application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment on NRSMCA's application for an exemption from the “14-hour rule” requirement of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2). The Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on September 21, 2015. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that it has received an application from CRST Expedited, Inc. (CRST) for an exemption from certain provisions of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations. CRST proposes that its team drivers be granted an exemption from the HOS rules pertaining to use of a sleeper berth (SB). Current HOS rules require that all SB rest regimens include, in part, the regular use of a SB period for at least 8 hours—combined with a separate period of at least 2 hours, either in the SB, off-duty or some combination of both—to gain the equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. CRST proposes that its team drivers be allowed to take the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours off duty by splitting SB time into two periods totaling 10 hours, provided neither of the two periods is less than 3 hours. FMCSA requests public comment on CRST's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2015-0261 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
CRST states that it operates one of industry's largest fleet of team drivers with 4,000 drivers and 1,931 vehicles. CRST delivers products to 48 states from a wide variety of customer locations. The company operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Drivers are on duty an average of 48-52 hours per week. Drivers average between 42 and 44 hours of driving time. Work normally consists of picking up loaded trailers at a customer location, driving to the destination and delivering the loaded trailer.
According to CRST, the average driver team typically travels approximately 3,500 miles per week. CRST estimates that 75% of drivers obtain at least 34 consecutive hours off-duty while on the road each week. CRST operates on two- to three-week work cycles. Drivers report for work and are on the road typically 2 to 3 weeks and then return home for 4 to 5 days.
CRST's tractors are equipped with double-bunk sleepers in the event both drivers need or want to rest at the same time. Drivers are allowed to make their own decisions about when and where to take short rest breaks based on their personal needs and preferences in conformance with regulatory requirements. CRST asserts that it takes safety, health and wellness seriously, and hires well-qualified drivers who go through a comprehensive orientation/new-hire training program. CRST's trucks are equipped with electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) that include electronic logs.
CRST requests an exemption from the current regulations for its delivery shipment operations to eliminate the requirement that SB time include a period of at least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in the SB and a separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours either in the SB or off duty, or any combination thereof (49 CFR 395.1(g)(1)(ii)(A)(1)). CRST proposes that its team drivers be allowed to split SB time into two periods totaling at least 10 hours, provided neither of the two periods is less than 3 hours in length. The request would be limited to drivers in team operations. CRST operates on an average day, 1,500 trucks and 3,000 drivers in team operations—two drivers taking turns operating the same truck. If granted the exemption would apply to this number of trucks and drivers.
CRST states that many of their team drivers are newcomers to the trucking industry. Drivers have told CRST that driving an entire 10-11 hour driving shift is too long and that they want the opportunity to switch with a partner more frequently. According to CRST, having the flexibility to switch with a partner allows each driver to take advantage of shorter time periods when they may feel fatigued. Further, splitting the SB time for both team drivers would allow each driver to obtain sleep during critical nighttime hours, which would provide more restorative sleep.
CRST states that it is committed to maintaining its safety record by focusing on continuous improvement, promoting technologies to enhance safety, and having well-communicated policies in place to address both safety and compliance-related topics. CRST identified some countermeasures it would take to maintain safe operations if the exemption is granted. The safeguards would include, but not be limited to:
• Drive time would be reduced from 11 hours to 10 hours. Team drivers would be limited to 10 hours of driving prior to completing their required 10 hours total SB.
• Drivers use EOBRs to track their duty time and HOS compliance;
• All tractors are equipped with speed limiters; Company-owned trucks are governed at 65 MPH; and
• Trucks brought into service in 2015 are equipped with collision-avoidance technology.
CRST believes that by allowing its team drivers to exercise flexibility in their SB requirements, the drivers would experience more quality rest. To support its request for the exemption, CRST cited the results of an FMCSA-sponsored study entitled “Investigation of the Effects of Split Sleep Schedules on Commercial Vehicle Driver Safety and Health” by Belenky (2012). The report noted “. . . that when consolidated nighttime sleep is not possible, split sleep is preferable to consolidated daytime sleep.” (
A copy of CRST's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment on CRST's application for an exemption from certain provisions of the driver's HOS rules in 49 CFR part 395. The Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on September 21, 2015. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
30-day notice and request for comments: Continuation of six collections.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3519 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval without change of the six existing collections described below. The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments may now be submitted to OMB concerning whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and/or summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Written comments are due on September 16, 2015.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board, and should identify the collection(s) discussed in the comment. These comments should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Chandana L. Achanta, Surface Transportation Board Desk Officer, by email at
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s) contact Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333 or
In this notice the Board is requesting comments on the following information collections:
Under the PRA, a Federal agency conducting or sponsoring a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under § 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, Federal agencies are required, prior to submitting a collection to OMB for approval, to provide a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
In notice document 2015-19910 appearing on page 48622 in the issue of August 13, 2015, make the following correction:
On page 48622, in the first column, under the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, CO-30-92 (TD 8560), Consolidated Returns—Stock Basis and Excess Loss Accounts, earnings and Profits, Absorption of Deductions and Losses, Joining and Leaving Consolidated Groups, Worthless Stock Loss, Nonapplicability of Section 357(c), (§§ 1.1502-31, 1.1502-32, 1.1502-33, 1.1502-76).
Written comments should be received on or before October 19, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to Clear Reflection of Income in the Case of Hedging.
Written comments should be received on or before October 19, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 2006-47, Elections Created of Effected by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
Written comments should be received on or before October 19, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of notice should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form W-8CE, Notice of Expatriation and Waiver of Treaty Benefits.
Written comments should be received on or before October 19, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the existing consolidated set of rules relating to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) trial practice for
Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to:
Comments may also be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message to be able to more easily share all comments with the public. The Office prefers the comments to be submitted in plain text, but also accepts comments submitted in ADOBE® portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD® FORMAT. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that accommodates digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format.
The comments will be available for public inspection at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, currently located in Madison East, Ninth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Comments also will be available for viewing via the Office's Internet Web site
Susan L. C. Mitchell, Lead Administrative Patent Judge by telephone at (571) 272-9797.
In an effort to gauge the effectiveness of the rules governing AIA trials, the Office conducted a nationwide listening tour in April and May of 2014, and in June 2014, published a Federal Register Notice asking for public feedback about the AIA trial proceedings. The Office has carefully reviewed the comments and, in response to public input, already has issued a first, final rule, which was published on May 19, 2015. That final rule addressed issues concerning the patent owner's motion to amend and the petitioner's reply brief that involved ministerial changes. For instance, the final rules provided ten additional pages for a patent owner's motion to amend, allowed a claims appendix for a motion to amend, and provided ten additional pages for a petitioner's reply brief, in addition to other ministerial changes to conform the rules to the Office's established practices in handling AIA proceedings.
This second, proposed rule (the subject of this Federal Register document) addresses more involved proposed changes to the rules and proposed revisions to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The Office presents the following proposed rules to address issues and public comments that were raised concerning the claim construction standard for AIA trials, new testimonial evidence submitted with a patent owner's preliminary response, Rule 11-type certification, and word count for major briefing. The Office will also later amend its Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to reflect developments in practice before the Office concerning how the Office handles additional discovery, live testimony, and confidential information. In response to the USPTO's roundtable on attorney-client privilege issues held in February 2015, the Office also requests input on recognizing privilege for communications between a patent applicant or owner and its U.S. patent agent or foreign patent practitioner in a possible future rulemaking.
The Office anticipates that it will continue to refine the rules governing AIA trials to continue to ensure fairness and efficiency while meeting the congressional mandate. Therefore, the Office continues to encourage comments concerning how the rules may be refined to achieve this goal.
On September 16, 2011, the AIA was enacted into law (Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)), and shortly thereafter in 2012, the Office implemented rules to govern Office trial practice for AIA trials, including
In an effort to gauge the effectiveness of these rules governing AIA trials, the Office conducted a nationwide listening tour in April and May of 2014. During the listening tour, the Office solicited feedback on how to make the trial proceedings more transparent and effective by adjusting the rules and guidance where necessary. To elicit even more input, in June of 2014, the Office published a Request for Comments in the
The Request for Comments asked seventeen questions on ten broad topics, including a general catchall question, to gather stakeholder feedback on any changes to the AIA trial proceedings that might be beneficial.
Several commenters expressed satisfaction with the current rules governing AIA trial proceedings, and several commenters offered suggestions on how to strengthen the AIA trial proceeding rules. For example, some suggestions concerned the claim construction standard used by the PTAB, motions to amend, discovery procedures, and handling of multiple proceedings. The Office addressed all public comments that involved changes to the page limitations for a patent owner's motion to amend or a petitioner's reply brief in the first, final rulemaking. The Office will address the remaining comments in this second, proposed rulemaking.
The Office will address the differences between the proposed rules and the current rules in relation to the seventeen questions that the Office asked in the June 27, 2014 Notice concerning the following ten topics: (1) Claim construction standard; (2) a patent owner's motions to amend; (3) a patent owner's preliminary response; (4) additional discovery; (5) obviousness; (6) real party in interest; (7) multiple proceedings; (8) extension of one year period to issue a final determination; (9) oral hearing; and (10) general topics.
The Office asked, “Under what circumstances, if any, should the Board decline to construe a claim in an unexpired patent in accordance with its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears?” 79 FR at 36476. The Office received comments advocating various positions, including that it should continue to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in construing terms of an unexpired patent, that it should use a
Conversely, the Office received a comment suggesting the use of a
A scenario where it is clear that a patent will expire before a final decision is issued by the Office is a definitive circumstance where a petitioner can determine which claim construction will be applied with guidance from the Office. Specifically, the Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b) to reflect this change in the claim construction standard for claims in patents that will expire before a final written decision is issued in an AIA proceeding. The Office also intends to issue specific guidelines in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. The Office invites comments on how to structure guidelines to implement this change. For instance, the Office welcomes comments on the following questions: Should the Office set forth guidelines where a petitioner may determine, before filing a petition, which claim construction approach will be applied by the Office based on the relevant facts? Should the petitioner, who believes that the subject patent will expire prior to issuance of a final written decision, be required to submit claim interpretation analysis under both a
As to the remaining scenarios set forth by commenters, the Office will continue to apply a broadest reasonable interpretation standard because at the time that a petition is filed in each of those scenarios, the patent owner's ability to amend remains available. To allow the patent owner unilaterally to decide to forego any opportunity to amend after a petition has been filed, and thereby opt-in to a
The Office asked, “What modifications, if any, should be made to the Board's practice regarding motions to amend?” 79 FR at 36476. The Office received a spectrum of comments that ranged from seeking no change in amendment practice to proposals for liberal grant of amendments in AIA proceedings. The Office addresses these comments below.
Since receipt of these comments, the Office has clarified its statement made in
The Board's decision in
At this time, the Office does not contemplate seeking assistance from the Examining Corps for review of motions to amend.
In addition, the Office has clarified how the burden of production shifts between the parties with regard to a motion to amend. “With respect to a motion to amend, once Patent Owner has set forth a
Moreover, AIA proceedings are neither
As set forth above, however, the Office does recognize a clarification of amendment practice that affirmatively states that a patent owner must argue for the patentability of the proposed substitute claims over the prior art of record, including art provided in light of a patent owner's duty of candor and any other prior art or arguments supplied by the petitioner, in conjunction with the statutory requirement that the proposed substitute claims be narrower than the claims that are being replaced. In light of these requirements, the Office has explained how the burden of production shifts to the petitioner once the patent owner has set forth a
As for whether to revise the Rules and the Trial Practice Guide to state that a reissue application can be utilized as a mechanism for amending the claims after final written decision, the Office declines to propose a blanket rule applicable to all reissues, which have additional requirements governing those proceedings.
As for distinguishing between the burden of persuasion for permitting the Board to consider a motion to amend and the burden of proof as to patentability, the patent owner has a statutory right to file a motion to amend under 35 U.S.C. 316(d) and 326(d). Thus, there is no burden of persuasion for permitting the Board to consider a motion to amend, as the Board must consider a motion to amend that is filed in a proceeding.
The Office asked, “Should new testimonial evidence be permitted in a Patent Owner Preliminary Response? If new testimonial evidence is permitted, how can the Board meet the statutory deadline to determine whether to institute a proceeding while ensuring fair treatment of all parties?” 79 FR at 36476. The Office received comments that range from advocating preserving the current prohibition on the patent owner's ability to assert new testimonial evidence at the preliminary response stage, an intermediate position of allowing new testimonial evidence on issues for which the patent owner bears the burden of proof or in response to petitioner's declarant, to allowance of new testimonial evidence by patent owner at the preliminary response stage with no restriction on scope. Commenters did express an overall concern with the ability of parties to conduct adequate discovery relating to testimonial evidence and adhering to the statutory timeline for instituting proceedings.
The Office proposes amending the rules to allow the patent owner to file new testimonial evidence with its preliminary response. In order to be able to meet the three-month statutory deadline for issuing a decision on institution, the rules will provide expressly that no right of cross-examination of a declarant exists before institution. Because the time frame for the preliminary phase of an AIA proceeding does not allow for such cross-examination as of right, nor for the petitioner to file a reply brief as of right, the Office proposes amending the rules to provide that any factual dispute that is material to the institution decision will be resolved in favor of the petitioner solely for purposes of making a determination about whether to institute. This is proposed, among other reasons, to preserve petitioner's right to challenge statements made by the patent owner's declarant.
If supporting evidence is submitted by a patent owner, cross-examination of the witness providing the testimony is likely to be permitted only after the institution of the proceeding, given the time constraints surrounding the institution decision. Section 316(a)(5)(A) of Title 35 states that the Director shall prescribe regulations setting forth standards and procedures for discovery of relevant evidence including the depositions of witnesses submitting affidavits or declarations. Allowing for cross-examination as of right prior to the institution of a proceeding would negatively impact the ability of the Office to meet the statutory requirements set out in 35 U.S.C. 314(b) and 324(c), and would result in more cost to the parties before a review is instituted.
In order for the Board to act consistently when confronted with material factual disputes in the institution decision briefing and evidence, the Office proposes that any
The Office asked, “Are the factors enumerated in the Board's decision in
1. More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation. The mere possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that something useful will be found, are insufficient. Thus, the party requesting discovery already should be in possession of a threshold amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that something useful will be uncovered. “Useful” does not mean merely “relevant” or “admissible,” but rather means favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party moving for discovery.
2. Litigation Positions And Underlying Basis. Asking for the other party's litigation positions and the underlying basis for those positions is not necessarily in the interest of justice.
3. Ability To Generate Equivalent Information By Other Means. Discovery of information a party reasonably can figure out, generate, obtain, or assemble without a discovery request would not be in the interest of justice.
4. Easily Understandable Instructions. The requests themselves should be easily understandable. For example, ten pages of complex instructions are prima facie unclear.
5. Requests Not Overly Burdensome To Answer. The Board considers financial burden, burden on human resources, and burden on meeting the time schedule of the review. Requests should be sensible and responsibly tailored according to a genuine need.
The Office asked, “Under what circumstances should the Board permit the discovery of evidence of non-obviousness held by the Petitioner, for example, evidence of commercial success for a product of the Petitioner? What limits should be placed on such discovery to ensure that the trial is completed by the statutory deadline?” 79 FR at 36476. The Office provides guidance on its Web site,
The Office asked, “Should a Patent Owner be able to raise a challenge regarding a real party in interest at any time during a trial?” 79 FR at 36476. The Office provides guidance below in response to comments generated from these questions, and will revise the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to reflect this guidance.
To balance efficiency with fairness, the Office, in general, will permit a patent owner to raise a challenge regarding a real party-in-interest or privity at any time during a trial proceeding. Such a position is consistent with the final rule notice.
The Office asked a series of questions relating to how multiple proceedings, such as an AIA trial, reexamination, or reissue proceeding, before the Office involving the same patent should be coordinated, including whether one proceeding should be stayed, transferred, consolidated, or terminated in favor of another. The questions are replicated below, followed by the comments responsive to those questions and the Office's responses to the comments.
Commenters urged the Board to manage multiple AIA proceedings by manipulating the dates for the patent owner's preliminary response. Several commenters suggested that the Board should delay the time period for filing the patent owner's preliminary response to a second petition, “so as to effectively stay the filing of” that response, until after the first-filed petition is resolved by termination or a final written decision. One commenter remarked that this effective stay of the time for filing the patent owner's preliminary response in a second proceeding is especially appropriate where the proceeding, instituted on the first-filed petition, is near completion.
Another commenter proposed that, where a second petition is filed before the date on which the patent owner's preliminary response is filed in the first proceeding, the patent owner's preliminary response in the first proceeding should be reset to three months from the notice of filing date accorded the second petition. The commenter also urged that, under those circumstances, scheduling and briefing should be consolidated in the two proceedings. The same commenter proposed that the Board should stay all activity on a second petition that is filed after trial is instituted on a first petition.
Several commenters proposed requiring petitioners, who file a petition challenging the same patent claims at issue in an earlier-filed petition, to identify what issues were previously raised. Commenters also advocated requiring such petitioners to state whether they are amenable to joinder with the earlier proceeding. On that point, one commenter urged that duplicative petitions, filed after the deadline for joinder, “should be terminated at an early stage to conserve Patent Owner costs and [Board] resources.” Another commenter stated
The Board also must consider its ability to meet the statutory deadlines imposed by Congress on AIA trials. The Board agrees with the commenters that the timing of the patent owner's preliminary response may be altered, when helpful and fair in an appropriate case. No rule change is needed to accomplish that goal.
The Board has considered the comment that second petitioners should self-identify repetitive challenges, and state their amenability to joinder. As a practical matter, the Board is well-positioned to determine whether a second petition raises the same or substantially the same challenges presented in a first petition that is identified as a related matter. The Board is also adept at determining whether a grant of the second petition, with joinder, serves the interests of fairness, efficiency, and economy of process. In addition, pursuant to 37 CFR 42.8(b)(2), petitioners are required to identify other proceedings involving the same challenged patent, and petitioners are encouraged to identify any substantive similarities with other proceedings in the petition. No rule change requiring petitioners to self-identify repetitive challenges is warranted at this time.
The Board agrees with the commenters that a factor which may be relevant in appropriate cases is whether the petitioner in a later-filed proceeding is amenable to joinder with an earlier-filed proceeding involving the same patent claims.
Based on the comments, the Office determines that the current rules provide a workable framework for the Board to manage multiple proceedings that involve the same patent claims. No revision of the rules for managing such proceedings is necessary at this time.
The Office recognizes that approaching each case on its own facts raises consistency concerns that could be ameliorated by identifying a set of factors that apply in all cases. The Office agrees with the comments, however, suggesting that the interests, which bear on the propriety of a stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination where multiple proceedings are directed to the same patent claims, are best served by allowing the constellation of relevant factors to evolve gradually, tethered to the facts of individual cases. A restrained evolution, on a case-by-case basis, promotes fair and rational results in each case, and equips the Office with necessary flexibility to customize resolutions suitable for each particular case. The Office will develop relevant factors, tethered to specific facts raised in particular cases, through its body of case law. Given the still-evolving nature of AIA proceedings, the Office believes that this gradual approach is prudent and preferred over a premature attempt to establish a rule or factors divorced from particular facts raised in a particular case, which may not address the relevant concerns in every case. The Office plans to add further discussion on this issue to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.
For those commenters favoring a stay, the circumstances regarding when a stay should be lifted ranged from the rendering of a final written decision to when appeal to the Federal Circuit has been exhausted. Other commenters have requested that the Office clarify that it will not terminate the reexamination or reissue once the final written decision issues, so that a patent owner may pursue claim amendments in those proceedings.
In the circumstances when a copending reexamination or reissue is not stayed and when there is no overlap of claims involved in the copending proceedings and the instituted trial, a commenter stated that the Office should preclude the presentation of new amended claims in the copending proceedings involving the same patent because a “sequential,” rather than a “simultaneous,” evaluation of the claims is consistent with the legislative history of the AIA.
Other commenters proposed that the Office consider allowing the reexamination and reissue to continue in parallel with or before the instituted trial. One commenter stressed that the purpose of a reissue is to correct errors, and therefore the remedial nature of the proceeding counsels against waiting for a trial to conclude. The same commenter offered that staying a reexamination is unjust to the patent owner because reexaminations are given “special dispatch” under 35 U.S.C. 305, a statutory requirement that remained unchanged with the passage of the AIA. Because in an instituted trial only one amendment is allowed by motion, the same commenter stated that a stay would preclude examination of claims amended in a reexamination or reissue to address the newly cited prior art or correct an error that was not present or addressed during the original examination of the patent. In particular, one commenter stressed that a reexamination should be allowed to run its course, and in any event, because an AIA proceeding would replace reexamination, copending AIA and reexamination would not be a problem much longer.
In the event a reexamination is not stayed, one commenter suggested that the Board's claim construction should be applied in the reexamination, or briefing on claim construction for the reexamination should be allowed in light of the claim construction involved in the trial.
The Office is not proposing changes at this time to the Rules or to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to give guidance regarding the timing on lifting a stay or how to proceed in a copending reexamination or reissue that is not stayed. These determinations have been proceeding appropriately on a case-by-case basis, noting, among many factors, the impact of the concurrent reexamination on the trial and whether the trial has concluded.
The Office will continue to determine, on the facts of each case in which there is a copending reexamination or reissue, whether a stay is warranted or a stay should be lifted under the circumstances of each case.
Other comments favored the request for and grant of a stay of the trial in favor of the copending reexamination or reissue. One commenter noted that such a stay should be granted when the copending reexamination or reissue is near completion, and another commenter stressed that the stay may be implemented before the trial is instituted such that the statutory deadlines are not impacted.
Another commenter provided that denial of institution should result for grounds with claims that are at issue in a copending reexamination or reissue, where amended claims were filed in the copending proceeding before the deadline for the Board to determine institution. To clarify whether the Board would have jurisdiction over such a trial, the same commenter advocated revising the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to include clarification regarding the timing on when a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate or notice of allowance of a reissue would be effective.
At this time, the Office does not propose changes to the Rules or the Trial Practice Guide to list specific circumstances under which a party may show that a stay of either a decision on institution or a trial may be appropriate. The Office will continue to decide motions to stay proceedings according to the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Office does not propose to change the Rules or the portion of the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide pertaining to consolidation of a copending reexamination or reissue with AIA trials at this time. The Office will continue to determine on the facts of each case, in which consolidation is requested, whether a particular request sets forth facts sufficient to warrant consolidation of a copending reexamination or reissue with AIA trials.
The Office received a further comment that claim amendments should be allowed if an AIA trial is consolidated with a copending reexamination or reissue. The Office notes that claim amendments are available currently in all of these proceedings. Insofar as the commenter may be suggesting that all claim amendments be entered as a matter of right in a consolidated proceeding, the Office disagrees, and instead leaves entry of claim amendments to be determined by the panel conducting the consolidated proceeding in accordance with the statutory and regulatory framework applicable to each of the proceedings.
Some commenters suggested that the Board has coordinated and should continue coordinating schedules of multiple related proceedings without formally consolidating the proceedings, for example, so as to allow different petitioners flexibility to pursue different arguments and to allow patent owner all of its allotted pages to respond to those different arguments. The Office has been coordinating schedules of multiple related proceedings without formally consolidating the proceedings, on a case-by-case basis, and agrees with the commenters that such practices should be continued, as appropriate.
The Office does not propose to change the Rules or the portion of the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide pertaining to handling of consolidated proceedings. The Office will continue to determine based on a case-by-case basis the proper manner in which such consolidated proceedings should be handled.
Several commenters suggested a general policy of “one and done” to duplicative petitions, to prevent harassment of patent owners, minimize costs, and ensure quiet title of patent rights. Those same commenters also recommended that the citation of new art in a subsequent petition should create a rebuttable presumption that substantially the same prior art or arguments are not raised in that petition. Commenters also urged the Board to apply principles of redundancy, across different petitions, to deny duplicative grounds raised in later-filed petitions.
Other commenters stated that “[t]he Board should treat each petition independently,” and that a different petitioner, not in privity with the first petitioner, should be permitted to raise the same prior art in a subsequent petition. Some commenters proposed that duplicative petitions should not be denied where arguments in a later-filed petition differ in scope from those presented in an earlier-filed petition. Another commenter, by contrast, proposed a rule of “horizontal stare decisis” that would require treating a first decision on patentability as “binding law of the case” in subsequent proceedings, challenging the same patent claims, based on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments.
The comments do not suggest a need for a rule change at this time. The current rules provide the Board with broad discretion adequate to take all
Issued decisions already provide useful guidance in that regard. The Board has considered many factors, including, for example: (1) The degree of overlap between the prior art and arguments raised in the multiple petitions; (2) the identity of the petitioner in the later-filed proceeding; (3) whether the petitioner in the later-filed proceeding uses a prior decision on institution as a roadmap to refine and recycle arguments presented in an earlier-filed petition; (4) whether the circumstances surrounding the later-filed petition raises the specter of patent owner harassment; and (5) whether granting the later-filed petition is in the interests of justice.
The Office recognizes that a “one and done” approach to multiple petitions may favor patent owners by diminishing the opportunity for harassment and ensuring some certainty for patent rights. In that regard, the Board already has applied its broad discretion to curtail multiple challenges against a patent as described above.
The competing interests of fairness to petitioners and the public interest, however, favor retaining the Office's discretion to grant or deny multiple petitions, rather than imposing a rigid rule that would require denial and, in effect, bind all potential challengers to the outcome of a first-filed petition, regardless of the facts and equities that surround the filing of the subsequent petitions.
The Office also acknowledges that petitioners may benefit from a “rebuttable presumption” that would render inapplicable the provisions of section 325(d), where a subsequent petition raises even one prior art reference that was not raised in the first-filed petition. Such an approach, however, unfairly would provide petitioners a fail-safe mechanism for avoiding the provisions of the statute, by filing serial petitions that add a single new reference to support the same grounds raised in an earlier petition. Such an approach fails to take into account the unfairness, including the potential for harassment, to patent owners when “substantially the same” prior art is raised sequentially against the same patent claims. The Office's discretion to grant or deny subsequent petitions, by viewing all relevant circumstances as a whole, on a case-by-case basis, is preferable to setting down a rigid rule.
Within the existing framework of the statute and rules, the Office has discretion to consider the relative scope of the challenges raised in multiple petitions. If a petition raises challenges that are based on the same or substantially the same prior art as a prior petition, but advances arguments of different scope, the Office has discretion to deny or grant the second petition based on the totality of facts presented in the case. A rule of “horizontal stare decisis” would, therefore, abolish the Board's discretion, especially where two cases do not present the same facts or identical considerations.
The Office will to continue to apply the existing framework, based on discretion to customize a result based on the facts and equities of each case. No rule changes are indicated at this time.
The Office asked, “What circumstances should constitute a finding of good cause to extend the 1-year period for the Board to issue a final determination in an AIA trial?” 79 FR at 36477.
The Office also received comments advocating that the Office make more generous use of the option to extend the one-year statutory period under certain circumstances. For example, commenters proposed that an extension of the one-year deadline would be appropriate under the following circumstances: (1) “where a comparative test(s) are deemed necessary;” (2) where there is “delay by the party not seeking the extension;” (3) “if there is a later-filed AIA proceeding on the same patent that will not reach a final decision until after the first proceeding is concluded;” (4) “where
Many commenters also suggested that an extension would be appropriate in complex cases “in the interests of justness, fairness to the parties” and “to conduct a full and fair review of the record.” The commenters described examples of complex cases as including: (1) “where there is a complex situation with multiple proceedings;” (2) when “the [Patent] Owner is involved in multiple proceedings simultaneously;” (3) “when an invention is particularly complex;” (3) “where multiple AIA trials are consolidated or joined;” (4) “where there are a large number of parties involved;” and (5) “where the trial involves complicated discovery issues.”
The Office asked, “Under what circumstances, if any, should live testimony be permitted at the oral hearing? What changes, if any, should be made to the format of the oral hearing?” 79 FR at 36477.
The Office asked, “What other changes can and should be made in AIA trial proceedings? For example, should changes be made to the Board's approach to instituting petitions, page limits, or request for rehearing practice?” 79 FR at 36477.
Additionally, some commenters suggested that Section 4(A)(i) and (ii) of the default protective order should be modified to place the burden on the party designating the information confidential to show good cause for maintaining the information under seal. Other commenters recommended that the default protective order be entered automatically, and that the parties request authorization to file a motion to modify the default protective order.
With respect to the specific situation identified by the commenters regarding the filing of an opponent's confidential information, the current rules provide mechanisms to maintain confidentiality of such information. For example, under Rule 42.14, information subject to a motion to seal is “provisionally sealed on receipt of the motion and remain[s] so pending the outcome of the decision on the motion.” Following the filing of the motion to seal, an opponent may contact the Board and raise concerns regarding the other party's motion and the confidentiality of the opponent's information while the information is provisionally sealed. Further, under Rule 42.54, if applicable, the Board may issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential information, including “[f]orbidding the disclosure or discovery.” Moreover, to the extent that confidential information may have been improperly filed, Rule 42.56 provides for the expungement of this information from the record.
Additionally, a party need not wait for the filing of a motion to seal or proposed protective order to bring issues of confidentiality to the Board's attention. Parties are encouraged to discuss discovery matters, including the discovery of confidential information, early in proceedings to resolve potential disputes before these occur. These discovery matters include whether a protective order is necessary for the proceeding. The automatic entry of a protective order in every proceeding is not necessary, especially as the majority of evidence in these contested proceedings is non-confidential. Nevertheless, should the parties desire more or less protection than that provided by the default order in the Office Trial Practice Guide (Appendix B), the parties are always free to propose a stipulated protective order for consideration by the Board. The purpose of the default order is to encourage the parties to reach such agreements promptly, as lengthy disputes over complex protective order provisions are inconsistent with the legislative goal of providing a more efficient, less costly alternative to litigation. As always, if the parties are unable to come to agreement on any issue, the Board is available to provide guidance.
In light of the above, the Office does not propose any rule change in response to these comments. However, the Office appreciates the comments directed to affording the “opponent” an opportunity to explain why the evidence is confidential and placing the burden on the designating party to show good cause in sealing the information. The Office agrees it is reasonable that the party designating information as confidential is in the better position of explaining that designation and bearing the burden of maintaining confidentiality. Accordingly, the Office will revise the protective order in the Office Trial Practice Guide to include language addressing this concern.
With respect to the issue of termination following settlement, current Rule 42.74 provides the Board with discretion to determine issues of unpatentability after a settlement in a proceeding. In the Board's experience, this rule allows the Board greater flexibility to balance the public interest in resolving issues of unpatentability with the need to efficiently allocate Board resources. Thus, the Office does not adopt any rule change.
Also, in addition to the informative and precedential decisions, the Board further provides a list of representative orders and decisions at
The Office recently has revised SOP1 to describe situations in which an expanded panel may be utilized, where the decision to expand a panel is made on a case-by-case basis. In SOP1, the Office has included reasons that may warrant expansion of a panel. This guidance may be found on the Office's Web site at:
A request for rehearing is an opportunity to address whether a panel misapprehended or overlooked a matter in rendering its opinion, which may include identification of conflicting Board or court decisions, but does not necessitate such a statement.
To further attempt to prevent any misuse of the AIA proceedings, the Office proposes to amend § 42.11, which prescribes the duty of candor owed to the Office, to include a Rule 11-type certification for all papers filed with the Board with a provision for sanctions for noncompliance. The Board also may refer possible misconduct in the course of AIA proceedings to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline for investigation and, if warranted, further proceedings under 37 CFR 11.19-11.61.
In 2015, the Office launched an outreach initiative to explore various issues associated with confidential communications with patent agents or foreign patent practitioners. The Office published a notice convening a roundtable in February 2015 and requesting public comments.
Consistent with that earlier outreach initiative, the Office here seeks comments on the subject of attorney-client privilege or other limitations on discovery in PTAB proceedings, including on whether rules regarding privilege should be issued in connection with PTAB proceedings. Such rules could, for example, explicitly recognize privilege for communications between patent applicants or owners and their domestic patent agents or foreign patent practitioners, under the same circumstances as such privilege is recognized for communications between applicants or owners and U.S. attorneys. The Office invites the public to provide any comments on language, scope, or other considerations for creating such a privilege, including possible amendments to any of 37 CFR 42.51, 42.52, 42.55, 42.62, or 42.64 to accomplish this purpose.
The Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b) as follows:
• Amend 37 CFR 42.100(b) to add the phrase “that will not expire before a final written decision is issued” after “an unexpired patent.”
• Amend 37 CFR 42.200(b) to add the phrase “that will not expire before a final written decision is issued” after “an unexpired patent.”
• Amend 37 CFR 42.300(b) to add the phrase “that will not expire before a final written decision is issued” after “an unexpired patent.”
The Office will add further clarifying instructions in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide concerning how a petitioner may determine which standard to apply in the petition.
The Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.107(a) to provide that the patent owner is not prohibited from including new testimonial evidence with a preliminary response and that the patent owner's preliminary response to the petition is subject to the word count under 37 CFR 42.24. See the proposed text in the amendatory instructions below.
The Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.107 to delete paragraph (c) so that the patent owner is not prohibited from including new testimonial evidence with a patent owner preliminary response.
The Office proposes to revise 37 CFR 42.108(c) provide that the Board's decision whether to institute an
The Office proposes to revise 37 CFR 42.207(a) to provide that the patent owner is not prohibited from including new testimonial evidence with a preliminary response and that the patent owner's preliminary response to the petition is subject to the word count under 37 CFR 42.24. See the proposed text in the amendatory instructions below.
The Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.207 to delete paragraph (c) so that the patent owner is not prohibited from including new testimonial evidence with a patent owner preliminary response.
The Office proposes to revise 37 CFR 42.208(c) provide that the Board's decision whether to institute a post-grant review will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, but supporting evidence concerning disputed material facts will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner for purposes of deciding whether to institute a post-grant review, and that the petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response. See the proposed text in the amendatory instructions below.
The Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.70(b) to require at least seven, not just five, days before oral argument for exchange of exhibits to provide additional time for the parties to resolve disputes concerning demonstrative exhibits.
The Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.24 to implement a word count limitation for petitions, patent owner preliminary responses, patent owner responses, and petitioner's replies, by:
• Adding “Type-volume or” to the title;
• adding “word counts or” before the words “page limits” or “page limit” and adding “or word count” after “a certificate of service” in paragraph (a)(1);
• substituting “14,000 words” for “60 pages” in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(iv);
• substituting “18,700 words” for “80 pages” in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii);
• substituting “word counts” for “page limits” and “word count” for “page limit” in paragraph (a)(2) except for the last sentence in which “word counts or” is added before “page limits;”
• adding “word counts or” before the “page limits” in paragraph (b);
• substituting “word counts” for the two instances of “page limits” in paragraph (b)(1);
• substituting “word counts” for the two instances of “page limits” in paragraph (b)(2);
• adding “word counts or” before the two instances of “page limits” and adding “or word count” after “a certificate of service” in paragraph (c);
• substituting “5,600 words” for “25 pages” in paragraph (c)(1);
• adding paragraph (d) concerning word count certification. See the proposed text in the amendatory instructions below.
The Office proposes to amend 37 CFR 42.11 to add “signing papers; representations to the Board; sanctions” to the title of the section, to designate existing text as paragraph (a), and to add paragraphs (b) through (d) to include a Rule 11-type certification for all papers filed with the Board with a provision for sanctions for noncompliance. See the proposed text in the amendatory instructions below.
This proposed rule would revise the consolidated set of rules relating to Office trial practice for
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law), and thirty-day advance publication is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (or any other law).
For the reasons set forth herein, the Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that changes proposed in this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned
This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
This rulemaking will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).
This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).
This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).
This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions which involve the use of technical standards.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549) requires that the Office consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. This final rule involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549). This rulemaking does not add any additional information requirements or fees for parties before the Board. Therefore, the Office is not resubmitting information collection packages to OMB for its review and approval because the revisions in this rulemaking do not materially change the information collections approved under OMB control number 0651-0069.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Inventions and patents.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office proposes to amend 37 CFR part 42 as follows:
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), 6, 21, 23, 41, 135, 311, 312, 316, 321-326 and Public Law 112-29.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of the proceeding;
(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support; and
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence.
(d)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(e)
(a)
(i) Petition requesting
(ii) Petition requesting post-grant review: 18,700 words.
(iii) Petition requesting covered business method patent review: 18,700 words.
(iv) Petition requesting derivation proceeding: 14,000 words.
(v) Motions (excluding motions to amend): 15 pages.
(vi) Motions to Amend: 25 pages.
(2) Petitions to institute a trial must comply with the stated word counts but may be accompanied by a motion to waive the word counts. The petitioner must show in the motion how a waiver of the word counts is in the interests of justice and must append a copy of proposed petition exceeding the word count to the motion. If the motion is not granted, the proposed petition exceeding the word count may be expunged or returned. Any other motion to waive word counts or page limits must be granted in advance of filing a motion, opposition, or reply for which the waiver is necessary.
(b)
(1) The word counts for a patent owner preliminary response to petition are the same as the word counts for the petition.
(2) The word counts for a patent owner response to petition are the same as the word counts for the petition.
(3) The page limits for oppositions are the same as those for corresponding motions.
(c)
(1) Replies to patent owner responses to petitions: 5,600 words.
(2) Replies to oppositions (excluding replies to oppositions to motions to amend): 5 pages.
(3) Replies to oppositions to motions to amend: 12 pages.
(d)
(b) Demonstrative exhibits must be served at least seven business days before oral argument and filed no later than the time of the oral argument.
(b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.
(a) The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. The response may set forth the reasons why no
(c) [Reserved]
(c)
(b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.
(a) The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. The response may set forth the reasons why no post-grant review should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 324 and can include supporting evidence. The preliminary response is subject to the word count under § 42.24.
(c) [Reserved]
(c)
(b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.
(b) The Program shall be administered by a Director, appointed by the Administrator under authorities of the General Services Administration (GSA). GSA shall provide necessary staff, resources and administrative support for the Program to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.
(c) GSA shall appoint the Fellows and, in cooperation with agencies, shall facilitate placement of the Fellows to participate in projects that have the potential for significant positive effects and are consistent with the President's goals.
(b) The Administrator will designate a representative to serve as the Chair of the Advisory Board. In addition to the Chair, the membership of the Advisory Board shall include the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management and Budget's Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government, and the Assistant to the President and Chief Technology Officer, or their designees and such other persons as may be designated by the Administrator. Consistent with law, the Advisory Board may consult with industry, academia, or non-profits to ensure the Program is continually identifying opportunities to apply advanced skillsets and innovative practices in effective ways to address the Nation's most significant challenges.
(b) Following publication of these processes, the Director may accept for consideration applications from individuals. The Director shall establish, administer, review, and revise, if appropriate, a Government-wide cap on the number of Fellows.
(b) Prior to the selection of Fellows, the Director will consult with agencies and executive branch departments, regarding potential projects and how best to meet those needs. Following such consultation, the Director shall select and appoint individuals to serve as Fellows.
(c) The Fellows shall serve under short-term, time-limited appointments. As a general matter, they shall be appointed for no less than 6 months and no longer than 2 years in the Program. The Director shall facilitate the process of placing Fellows at requesting agencies and executive branch departments.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
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 |