| Page Range | 12071-12319 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 12174 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12174 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 80 FR 12208 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 12227 - In the Matter of Spriza, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 12212 - In the Matter of Discovery Oil, Ltd., I/O Magic Corporation, Maydao Corporation, NX Global, Inc, and SensiVida Medical Technologies, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 12213 - In the Matter of China Infrastructure Investment Corp., Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 12188 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 12187 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 12071 - Delegation of Authority Under the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 | |
| 80 FR 12142 - Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Gathering Sessions for Safe Food Handling Instructions | |
| 80 FR 12247 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 80 FR 12109 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 80 FR 12172 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 12244 - Notice Seeking Exemption under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest, C3 Capital Partners III, L.P. | |
| 80 FR 12207 - Request for a License to Export Deuterium | |
| 80 FR 12156 - Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12195 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Desert Quartzite Solar Project and a Possible Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Riverside County, California | |
| 80 FR 12147 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 12245 - Delegation to the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights With Respect to Authority Under Section 620M(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended (22 U.S.C. 2378d) | |
| 80 FR 12081 - Service of Process; Address Change | |
| 80 FR 12191 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Inspector Candidate Assessment Questionnaire | |
| 80 FR 12190 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Re-entry Assistance Program | |
| 80 FR 12259 - National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12156 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Zone 82; MH Wirth, Inc. (Offshore Drilling Riser Systems); Theodore, Alabama | |
| 80 FR 12209 - Submission for Review: Certificate of Medical Examination, 3206-0250 | |
| 80 FR 12246 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Drawing in Silver and Gold: Leonardo to Jasper Johns” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 12191 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Resident Opportunity & Self Sufficiency (ROSS) Grant Forms | |
| 80 FR 12246 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Russian Modernism: Cross-Currents in German and Russian Art, 1907-1917” Exhibition | |
| 80 FR 12157 - Acquisition of Items for Which Federal Prison Industries Has a Significant Market Share | |
| 80 FR 12247 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Tête-a-Tête: Three Masterpieces From the Musée d'Orsay” | |
| 80 FR 12246 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Art With Benefits: The Drigung Tradition” | |
| 80 FR 12144 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12197 - Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects | |
| 80 FR 12139 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12246 - Delegation by the Secretary of State to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security With Respect to Authority Under Section 1203 of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act | |
| 80 FR 12170 - Available Transfer Capability Standards for Wholesale Electric Transmission Services; Supplemental Notice of Workshop on Available Transfer Capability Standards | |
| 80 FR 12206 - Advisory Committee for Geosciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12206 - Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12162 - FortisUS Energy Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., UniSource Energy Development Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
| 80 FR 12168 - Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 80 FR 12169 - Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Ozark Abandonment Project | |
| 80 FR 12162 - Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests | |
| 80 FR 12161 - City of Alexandria, Louisiana; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 12166 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 12163 - Dominion Transmission, Inc., Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Supply Header Project and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings | |
| 80 FR 12159 - Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Study Plan Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12161 - California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of FERC Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 12159 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 12254 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 12170 - Notice of Final Decision To Reissue the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC Land-Ban Exemption | |
| 80 FR 12073 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040 | |
| 80 FR 12245 - International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice; Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12248 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 12244 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: R/PPR Research Surveys | |
| 80 FR 12083 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, Morgan, NJ | |
| 80 FR 12082 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Harlem River, New York City, NY | |
| 80 FR 12082 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor, Alameda, CA | |
| 80 FR 12146 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Submission of Conservation Efforts To Make Listings Unnecessary Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 80 FR 12154 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; List of Gear by Fisheries and Fishery Management Council | |
| 80 FR 12155 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Scientific Research, Exempted Fishing, and Exempted Activity Submissions | |
| 80 FR 12138 - Information Collection Request; Debt Settlement Policies and Procedures | |
| 80 FR 12256 - Use of Foreign-Flag Anchor Handling Vessels in the Beaufort Sea or Chukchi Sea Adjacent to Alaska | |
| 80 FR 12245 - Shipping Coordinating Committee Notice of Renewal of Charter | |
| 80 FR 12078 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers; Correction | |
| 80 FR 12175 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 12239 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12223 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12212 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12238 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
| 80 FR 12092 - Geographic-Based Hiring Preferences in Administering Federal Awards | |
| 80 FR 12256 - Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad LLC-Operation Exemption-Rail Holdings, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 12178 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 80 FR 12156 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
| 80 FR 12262 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License | |
| 80 FR 12247 - Eric Bickleman and Robert Lowe-Continuance in Control Exemption-Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad LLC | |
| 80 FR 12253 - Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Los Angeles International Airport for the Summer 2015 Scheduling Season | |
| 80 FR 12193 - Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community-Amendment to Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance | |
| 80 FR 12158 - Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12257 - Contracting Initiative | |
| 80 FR 12159 - Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Temporary Waiver of Filing and Reporting Requirements | |
| 80 FR 12167 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 12160 - East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 12251 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 80 FR 12136 - Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Meetings | |
| 80 FR 12079 - Boundary Expansion of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Notification of Effective Date | |
| 80 FR 12142 - Forest Resource Coordinating Committee | |
| 80 FR 12177 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension | |
| 80 FR 12146 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Availability of the Final Recovery Plan for Staghorn and Elkhorn Corals | |
| 80 FR 12234 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Continued Listing Requirements, as Set Forth in Section 802.01E of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual, in Relation to the Late Filing of a Company's Annual or Quarterly Report With the Securities and Exchange Commission | |
| 80 FR 12213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Rules of the Government Securities Division and the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Regarding the Default of Fixed Income Clearing Corporation | |
| 80 FR 12183 - Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages, Notice for Request for Nominations | |
| 80 FR 12184 - Council on Graduate Medical Education; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12179 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12205 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Youth CareerConnect Impact and Implementation Evaluation | |
| 80 FR 12081 - Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs | |
| 80 FR 12175 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 80 FR 12175 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 12173 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 80 FR 12088 - Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 | |
| 80 FR 12079 - Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations | |
| 80 FR 12154 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12155 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12173 - Filing Dates for the New York Special Election in the 11th Congressional District | |
| 80 FR 12152 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops | |
| 80 FR 12184 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 12182 - National Institute on Aging Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12182 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 12186 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12184 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 12145 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee To Hear Testimony on Seclusion and Restraint of Children With Disabilities in Kansas Schools | |
| 80 FR 12181 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12180 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12240 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Specifying in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory Compliance | |
| 80 FR 12221 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Specifying in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory Compliance | |
| 80 FR 12225 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Specifying in Exchange Rules the Exchange's Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order Handling and Execution, Order Routing, and Regulatory Compliance | |
| 80 FR 12228 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of Eight PIMCO Exchange-Traded Funds | |
| 80 FR 12232 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change in Order To Permit OCC To Adjust the Size of Its Clearing Fund on an Intra-Month Basis | |
| 80 FR 12228 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List | |
| 80 FR 12209 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22 To Update the Names of Certain Market Data Products | |
| 80 FR 12242 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22 To Update the Names of Certain Market Data Products | |
| 80 FR 12211 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICE Clear Europe Clearing Fees | |
| 80 FR 12224 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Formalize the ICC Operational Risk Management Framework | |
| 80 FR 12261 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities Transactions | |
| 80 FR 12194 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan in the West Mojave Planning Area, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, CA | |
| 80 FR 12208 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting | |
| 80 FR 12097 - Guidance Regarding Reporting Income and Deductions of a Corporation That Becomes or Ceases To Be a Member of a Consolidated Group | |
| 80 FR 12186 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 12205 - Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory and Products Containing the Same; Commission's Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 80 FR 12215 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Concerning a Proposed Capital Plan for Raising Additional Capital That Would Support The Options Clearing Corporation's Function as a Systemically Important Financial Market Utility | |
| 80 FR 12260 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, Broomfield, Colorado | |
| 80 FR 12204 - Outer Continental Shelf, 2017-2022 Oil and Gas Leasing Program | |
| 80 FR 12192 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private Litigants | |
| 80 FR 12176 - AmeriFreight, Inc. and Marius Lehmann; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 12171 - Implementation of a New Label for the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program and Supporting Modifications to the DfE Standard for Safer Products; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 12083 - Significant New Use Rule for Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- | |
| 80 FR 12191 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
| 80 FR 12080 - Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Categories of Archaeological Material From the Pre-Hispanic Cultures of the Republic of El Salvador | |
| 80 FR 12139 - Flathead National Forest, Montana; Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Flathead National Forest and an Amendment of the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forest Plans To Incorporate Relevant Direction From the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy | |
| 80 FR 12203 - Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sales, Western Planning Area Lease Sales 246 and 248 | |
| 80 FR 12104 - Determination That an Individual Shall Not Be Deemed an Employee of the Public Health Service | |
| 80 FR 12094 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 12207 - Federal-Commercial Spectrum Sharing Workshop: Models, Application, and Impacts of Incentives for Sharing | |
| 80 FR 12120 - Operation of Radar Systems in the 76-81 GHz Band | |
| 80 FR 12264 - Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements |
Farm Service Agency
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by adding the Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040, to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Holtec International's intent with this design is to provide an underground storage option compatible with the Holtec International HI-STORM FLOOD/WIND (FW) System (CoC No. 1032).
This final rule is effective on April 6, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0120 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:
•
•
•
Gregory R. Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6445, email:
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in part 72 of Title 10 of the
The NRC published a direct final rule on this amendment in the
By letter dated June 29, 2012, and as supplemented on July 16 and November 20, 2012; January 30, April 2, April 19, June 21, August 28, December 6, and December 31, 2013; and January 13, and January 28, 2014, Holtec International submitted an application to add the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR part 72. The HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System is a spent fuel storage system designed to be in full compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. Holtec International's intent with this design is to provide an underground storage option compatible with the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the HI-STORM FW
As documented in the safety evaluation report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC request submitted by Holtec International.
The HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the Technical Specifications (TSs), and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage Systems that meet the criteria of CoC No. 1040 under 10 CFR 72.212.
The NRC received multiple comments from private citizens on the companion proposed rule to the direct final rule published on September 9, 2014. The NRC has not made any changes to the proposed rule as a result of the public comments the NRC has received.
The NRC received almost a dozen comments on the proposed rule, many raising multiple and overlapping issues. Because the NRC received at least one comment that it is treating as a significant adverse comment on the proposed rule (raising issues the NRC deemed serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify the record), the NRC withdrew the direct final rule and is responding to the comments here. Other comments were not treated as significant adverse comments because, in most instances, they were beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Nonetheless, in addition to responding to the issues raised in the comments treated as significant adverse comments, the NRC is also taking this opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised in the comments that are beyond this scope of this rulemaking in order to clarify information about the CoC rulemaking process related to the comments received.
Many of the comments the NRC received questioned the fact that aging management programs (AMPs) were not being established for this CoC system. Commenters noted that the NRC has not yet issued the revision to NUREG-1927 (“Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Spent Fuel Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance”), which is currently being updated to include information regarding AMPs, among other things. The comments stated that the approval of this CoC system, “should be put on hold until after the revised NUREG-1927 is final and any appropriate aging management issues are addressed in this CoC.”
The comments questioned some specific example AMPs discussed at public meetings, including questions regarding an example AMP for Chloride-Induced Stress Corrosion Cracking Tests (seismic concerns and sampling size), as well as the absence of an AMP given issues with damaged fuels and the “unknowns of extended storage with high burnup fuel.” In sum, these commenters felt that approval of CoCs, such as this one, should await the formulation and approval of aging management programs.
These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking which is limited to amending the spent fuel storage regulations by adding the UMAX Canister Storage System, CoC No. 1040, to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” in 10 CFR 72.214. This rulemaking is not making any changes to the regulations governing the standards for approval of a CoC.
The CoC for the HI-STORM UMAX is being issued for 20 years in accordance with 10 CFR part 72. According to the NRC staff's SER published in the
Based on the regulations in 10 CFR part 72, an AMP will be required to be included in any renewal application for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, for a duration beyond the initial 20-year term. The renewal application, if filed, will be required to comply with the applicable regulations, and consider applicable NRC aging management guidance available at the time of submittal. While NUREG-1927 may prove useful to applicants seeking to renew a CoC, because it does not provide guidance regarding applications seeking initial approval of certificates, there is no reason to await the guidance before proceeding with the addition of this system to the 10 CFR part 72 regulations.
Several comments also questioned the ability of the underground storage system to be adequately inspected and potentially repaired if necessary during the initial certification period of 20 years, especially if the system was being used in a coastal environment where stress corrosion cracking could be an issue.
The NRC is treating this comment as a significant adverse comment warranting clarification of the record. The NRC has evaluated the design of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and has determined that the design is robust, and contains numbers of layers of acceptable confinement systems in compliance with 10 CFR part
Furthermore, the NRC has evaluated the susceptibility to and effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on safety significant systems for SNF dry cask storage (DCS) systems during an initial certification period. The staff has determined that the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, when used within the requirements of the proposed CoC, will safely store SNF and prevent radiation releases and exposure consistent with regulatory requirements.
Several comments also raised concerns regarding the ability of this CoC system to withstand seismic events, particularly if the system were to be used at specific sites with known seismic activity, such as San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).
The NRC is treating this comment as a significant adverse comment warranting clarification of the record. This rulemaking would add a CoC system to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214. The certification provided by this approval does not, in and of itself, authorize use of this system at any specific site. Instead, general licensees (a power reactor that stores spent fuel under a general Part 72 license) that wish to use this system must first ensure that other applicable requirements are met. (See 10 CFR 72.212).
The seismic design levels of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System as provided in this CoC are acceptable for most areas in the continental U.S. For locations that have potential seismic activity beyond those analyzed for this system, additional evaluations and certifications may be required before the system may be used in those locations. The NRC is currently evaluating an amendment request to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System that provides additional analysis intended to ensure the system's integrity during an earthquake with higher seismic demands, including the seismic demands at the location of SONGS. If the NRC approves that amendment request, the amended system could be selected for use at SONGS, provided regulatory requirements are met.
A comment also raised questions about the implications of the potential bankruptcy of corporations that seek CoC approvals.
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking would add a certified system to the list of spent fuel systems in 10 CFR 72.214 and does not seek to alter the standards for approval of a CoC system. In any event, NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 72 address the financial viability of licensees to ensure spent fuel management and decommissioning are funded. Pursuant to NRC requirements, once a general licensee accepts delivery of a storage system authorized by a CoC, the financial responsibility for maintaining and decommissioning the system become the responsibility of the general licensee (see 10 CFR 72.30(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)).
One comment stated that the design basis of the Watts Bar 2 reactor (not yet licensed for operation) intends that safe shut down could occur if there were a flood event that delivered 13
This rulemaking is limited to the approval of a CoC system to be added to the list of spent fuel storage casks in 10 CFR 72.214. This rulemaking does not propose any change to the standards for approval of a CoC, or the requirements that govern the use of this CoC by a general licensee. Therefore, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 72.212, “Conditions of a general license issued under 10 CFR 72.210,” require that a general licensee (a power reactor that stores spent fuel under a general part 72 license) perform written evaluations to ensure that the DCS systems used at the location meet the technical requirements of the CoC. The NRC inspects these evaluations prior to the first use of the DCS system and every three years after first use to ensure compliance with the terms of the CoC. If the CoC does not allow for water intrusion, then the general licensee is required to provide engineered measures to ensure that this condition does not occur.
Several comments also raised questions regarding the long-term acceptability of the extended storage of high burnup fuel (HBF).
Most of the comments raising HBF as an issue did so in the context of the need for AMPs for approval of the CoC for the first 20 years, and that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, as explained above.
To the extent commenters raised issues about the storage of HBF in the CoC for the first 20 years, the NRC is treating this portion of the comment as a significant adverse comment warranting clarification of the record. The NRC has evaluated the acceptability of storage of HBF for the initial 20-year certification term for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. As documented in the NRC staff's SER under Docket ID NRC-2014-0120, the staff has determined that the use of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, including storage of HBF, will be conducted in compliance with the applicable regulations of 10 CFR part 72, and the CoC should be approved for the initial 20-year term.
Storage beyond the initial term of 20 years will require the applicant to submit a license renewal application with the inclusion of AMPs addressing HBF. In that regard, a demonstration project is being planned by the U.S. Department of Energy to provide confirmatory data on the performance of HBF in DCS. The NRC plans to evaluate the data obtained from the project to confirm the accuracy of current models that are relied upon for authorizing the storage of HBF for extended storage periods beyond the initial 20-year certification term.
Some comments also raised issues with the limited duration of this initial CoC for a term of only 20 years and stated that the systems should have to demonstrate safe storage of nuclear fuel for a much longer storage period.
The issues of long-term storage and disposal of SNF are outside the scope of this CoC rulemaking. This rule is limited to the addition of this storage system to the list of approved designs in 10 CFR 72.214. The regulations governing the length of the CoC term are not within the changes proposed by this rule.
One comment highlighted issues addressed in the 2014 NRC Inspector General's report of the SONGS steam generator replacement, entitled, “NRC Oversight of Licensee's Use of 10 CFR 50.59 Process to Replace SONG'S Steam Generators (Case No. 13-006).”
The issues raised by the NRC's IG report of the SONGS steam generator replacement are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This report is applicable only to that proposed steam generator replacement effort, and does not apply to nor is it related to this specific CoC rulemaking. Approval of this CoC is based upon a safety and environmental review of this specific CoC design as submitted by the vendor. If power reactor licensees wish to use this system at their specific sites, they must first ensure other applicable regulatory requirements are met (see 10 CFR 72.212).
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC will add the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274), requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to add the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System to the listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” as CoC No. 1040. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.
This final rule adds CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Holtec International's intent with this design is to provide an underground storage option compatible with the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this CoC addition tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage Systems are designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an ISFSI, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the use of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed addition of CoC No. 1040 will not result in radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented its safety findings for this review in the SER.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design and issue a site-specific license to each utility that proposes to use the casks. This alternative would cost both the NRC and utilities more time and money for each site-specific license. Conducting site-specific reviews would ignore the procedures and criteria currently in place for the addition of new cask designs that can be used under a general license, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site reviews. This alternative also would
Approval of the addition of CoC No. 1040 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this final rule.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a current valid OMB control number.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214.
By letter dated June 29, 2012, and as supplemented on July 16 and November 20, 2012; January 30, April 2, April 19, June 21, August 28, December 6, and December 31, 2013; and January 13, and January 28, 2014, Holtec International submitted an application to add the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design and issue a site-specific license to each utility that proposes to use the casks. This alternative would cost both the NRC and utilities more time and money for each site-specific license. Conducting site-specific reviews would ignore the procedures and criteria currently in place for the addition of new cask designs that can be used under a general license, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site reviews. This alternative also would tend to exclude new vendors from the business market without cause and would arbitrarily limit the choice of cask designs available to power reactor licensees. This final rule will eliminate the above problems and is consistent with previous Commission actions. Further, the rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety.
Approval of this final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This final rule adds CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.”
The addition of CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System was initiated by Holtec International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or in response to an NRC request. The addition of CoC No. 1040 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the NRC has determined that this action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act sec. 102 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 148 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704, (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 788 (2005).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d) (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)).
Section 72.46 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 189 (42 U.S.C. 2239); Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 134 (42 U.S.C. 10154).
Section 72.96(d) also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 145(g) (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)).
Subpart J also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act secs. 117(a), 141(h) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10161(h)).
Subpart K also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10198).
Certificate Number: 1040.
Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 6, 2015.
SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.
SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.
Docket Number: 72-1040.
Certificate Expiration Date: March 6, 2035.
Model Number: MPC-37, MPC-89.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; correction.
On June 3, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a final rule adopting conservation standards for some classes of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer components. The final rule was published with typographical errors to some of the reported values. DOE is providing corrections to address these errors. Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule.
This correction is effective March 6, 2015.
Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
The Department of Energy (“DOE”) is
In FR Doc 2014-11489 appearing in the issue of June 3, 2014 (79 FR 32049), make the following corrections:
1. On page 32052, in Table I.2, under the Average LCC savings, and Median payback period values, for DC.M.I, first row, is corrected to read “1485”, second column and “2.8” third column, respectively.
2. On page 32102, Table V.12 is corrected to read as follows:
3. On page 32115, in Table V.44, the Mean LCC Savings values for DC.M.I, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “1485”.
4. On page 32115, in Table V.45, Median Payback Period (in years) values for DC.M.I, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “2.8”.
5. On page 32115, in Table V.46, the Net Cost (%) values, for DC.M.I:, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “0”.
6. On page 32115, in Table V.46, the Net Benefit (%) values, for DC.M.I:, third row, TSL 2 and TSL 3, third and fourth columns, are both corrected to read “100”.
Federal Election Commission.
Announcement of Effective Date.
On October 21, 2014, the Commission published in the
The effective date for the final rule published October 21, 2014, at 79 FR 62797, is January 27, 2015.
Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Joanna S. Waldstreicher, Ms. Esther D. Gyory, or Ms. Cheryl A.F. Hemsley, Attorneys, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
On October 21, 2014, the Commission published final rules to implement changes to its rules governing independent expenditures and electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations. Final Rules on Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations 79 FR 62797 (Oct. 21, 2014). These changes responded to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the James Madison Center for Free Speech petitioning the Commission to amend its regulations in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30111(d), the Commission must transmit any rules or regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate for a period of 30 legislative days before they are finally prescribed. For the changes to 11 CFR parts 104 and 114 concerning independent expenditures and electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations, the rules were sent to Congress on October 10, 2014. The 30 legislative day period ended on January 26, 2015, in the Senate and January 27, 2015, in the House of Representatives.
In the final rules, the Commission stated that it would publish a separate notice announcing the effective date of the amendments to 11 CFR parts 104 and 114. 79 FR 62797. Through this Notice, the Commission announces that the effective date of amendments to 11 CFR parts 104 and 114 is January 27, 2015.
On behalf of the Commission.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notification of effective date.
NOAA published a final rule to expand the boundary of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS or sanctuary), clarify the correlation between TBNMS regulations and Indian tribal fishing activities, and revise the corresponding sanctuary terms of designation on September 5, 2014 (79 FR 52960). The new boundary for TBNMS increases the size of the sanctuary from 448 square miles to 4,300 square miles and extends protection to 47 additional known historic shipwrecks of national significance. Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)) the final regulations take effect after 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on September 5, 2014. Through this notification, NOAA is announcing the regulations became effective on February 3, 2015.
The regulations published on September 5, 2014 (79 FR 52960) are effective on February 3, 2015.
Jeff Gray, Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Superintendent, at (989) 356-8805 ext 12.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This final rule amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the extension of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological material from the Pre-Hispanic cultures of the Republic of El Salvador (El Salvador). The restrictions, which were originally imposed by Treasury Decision (T.D.) 95-20 and previously extended by T.D. 00-16, CBP Decision (CBP Dec.) 05-10 and CBP Dec. 10-01, are due to expire on March 8, 2015, unless extended. The Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State (State), has determined that conditions continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions. Accordingly, these import restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to reflect this extension until March 8, 2020. These restrictions are being extended pursuant to determinations of the U.S. Department of State made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act in accordance with the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. T.D. 95-20 contains the Designated List of archaeological material representing Pre-Hispanic cultures of El Salvador, and describes the articles to which the restrictions apply.
Effective March 8, 2015.
For legal aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0030. For operational aspects, William R. Scopa, Branch Chief, Partner Government Agency Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade, (202) 863-6554,
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, codified into U.S. law as the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (hereafter, the Cultural Property Implementation Act or the Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
On March 8, 1995, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the Government of the Republic of El Salvador (El Salvador) concerning the imposition of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological material from the Pre-Hispanic cultures of El Salvador. On March 10, 1995, the former U.S. Customs Service (now U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)) published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 95-20 in the
Import restrictions listed in 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period can be extended for additional periods not to exceed five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists. 19 CFR 12.104g(a).
Since the initial notice was published on March 10, 1995, the import restrictions were subsequently extended three times. First, on March 9, 2000, the former U.S. Customs Service published T.D. 00-16 in the
After reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, and in response to a request by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador, on February 3, 2015, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, concluding that the cultural heritage of El Salvador continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of Pre-Hispanic archaeological resources, made the necessary determinations to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years. Diplomatic notes have been exchanged, reflecting the extension of
The Designated List of Archaeological Material Representing Pre-Hispanic Cultures of El Salvador covered by these import restrictions is set forth in T.D. 95-20. The Designated List and accompanying image database may also be accessed from the following Internet Web site address:
The restrictions on the importation of these archaeological materials from El Salvador are to continue in effect for an additional five years. Importation of such material continues to be restricted unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). For the same reasons, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, it is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 599, revised as of April 1, 2014, on page 147, in § 520.580, the heading for paragraph (d) is restored to read “
In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 599, revised as of April 1, 2014, on page 167, in § 520.1193, in paragraph (b)(2), revise “051311 and 059130” to read “000859 and 051311”.
Department of State.
Final rule.
This rulemaking changes the address for service of process on the Department of State.
This rule is effective on March 6, 2015.
Alice Kottmyer, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State; phone: 202-647-2318,
This rulemaking provides the new address, effective immediately, for the service on the U.S. Department of State of the documents or actions listed in 22 CFR 172.1(a).
This rule is published as a final rule, effective immediately, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 553(d)(3). The Department finds good cause for the immediate effect of the rule without notice and comment because public comment on an address change is unnecessary; and, more importantly, it is in the interest of the public for the Department to provide the correct address for service of process, and for it to be effective, as expeditiously as possible.
(1) Since this rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, it does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
(2) This rulemaking does not meet the criteria for Department actions under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; Executive Order 13175 (impact on tribes); or Executive Orders 12372 and 13132 (federalism). This rulemaking is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.
(3) In the view of the Department, this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, and is consistent with the guidance in Executive Order 13563. The benefits of this rulemaking—in providing a current address for service of process—outweigh any costs.
(4) This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Service of process.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, title 22, part 172, is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1202(f); 22 U.S.C. 2658, 2664, 3926.
(a) * * * All such documents should be delivered or addressed to: The Executive Office, Office of the Legal Adviser, Suite 5.600, 600 19th Street NW., Washington DC 20036. (Note that the suite number is 5.600.)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Alameda County highway drawbridge at High Street across the Oakland Inner Harbor, mile 6.0, at Alameda, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to make necessary repairs and rehabilitation of the bridge. This deviation allows single leaf operation of the double leaf, bascule-style drawbridge during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 6, 2015 through 6:30 p.m. on April 27, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 9:30 a.m. on March 2, 2015, until March 6, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0079], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
Alameda County has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Alameda County highway bridge at High Street, mile 6.0, over Oakland Inner Harbor, at Alameda, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides horizontal clearance of 244 feet between pier fenders. During single leaf operation, horizontal clearance is reduced to approximately 100 feet. The drawbridge provides a vertical clearance of 16 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. As required by 33 CFR 117.181, the draw opens on signal; except that, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels. However, the draw shall open during the above closed periods for vessels which must for reasons of safety, move on a tide or slack water, if at least two hours notice is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial, recreational, emergency and law enforcement vessels.
During the deviation period, the drawspan will be operated with only one leaf between 9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, while the opposite leaf will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position for rehabilitation. A two hour advance notice will be required from vessel operators for a double leaf opening. At night and on weekends, the drawbridge will resume the normal double leaf operation, when work is not being performed on the bridge. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for larger vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the waterway users via our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators 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.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Metro-North (Park Avenue) Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 2.1, at New York City, New York. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform electrical repairs at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed from March 13, 2015 through May 21, 2015.
This deviation is effective from March 13, 2015 through May 21, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0065] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336,
The Metro-North (Park Avenue) Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 2.1, at New York City, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.789(c).
The waterway is transited by commercial vessels.
The bridge owner, Metro-North, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate electrical repairs as a result of damage incurred from Hurricane Sandy.
Under this temporary deviation, the Metro-North (Park Avenue) Bridge may remain in the closed position from March 13, 2015 through May 21, 2015.
The habitual users can transit under the bridge without requesting bridge openings due to the high vertical clearance under the bridge.
There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draw during this closure may do so at all times. The bridge may not be opened in the event of an emergency.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways 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.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO) railroad bridge across Cheesequake Creek, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New Jersey. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform structural repairs at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed on three consecutive weekends.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on March 14, 2015 through 7 p.m. on March 28, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0085] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336,
The NJTRO railroad bridge across Cheesequake Creek, mile 0.2, at Morgan, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 3 feet at mean high water and 8 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.709(b).
The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.
The bridge owner, NJTRO, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation the NJTRO railroad bridge shall remain in the closed position for three consecutive weekends from 6 a.m. on Saturday through 7 p.m. on Sunday on the following dates: March 14 and 15, March 21 and 22, and March 28 and 29, 2015.
The draw shall maintain its normal operating schedule at all other times.
There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draw during this closure may do so at all times. The bridge may be opened in the event of an emergency.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways 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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- that was the
This final rule is effective April 6, 2015.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0) contained in this final rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of the subject chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
EPA is finalizing a SNUR, under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0) codified at 40 CFR 721.10509. This final rule requires persons who intend to manufacture or process the chemical substance for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
In the
The comment noted that in the time period between filing of a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import in March 2008, and the time of publication of the direct final SNUR in September 2012, the company had entered into an industrial solvent use that did not specifically fall within the scope of the 40 CFR 721.80(j) (the confidential uses identified in the amended premanufacture notice) significant new use reporting requirement contained in the rule. Therefore, the use was considered an ongoing use at the time of the direct final SNUR.
Further, the commenter mentioned the intent to submit several health and safety studies on the PMN substance that were completed after the expiration of the PMN review period. The following table identifies the studies that were subsequently submitted to the Agency for review and the results of EPA's review of those studies:
Agency review of the 29-day inhalation toxicity study, which demonstrated liver effects, along with the perfluorochemical analog data cited in the proposed SNUR, demonstrate the concern cited in the proposed SNUR for neurotoxicity and liver effects as a result of unprotected occupational exposures via the dermal route. Therefore, the Agency is issuing a final SNUR as proposed that designates as a significant new use manufacture or processing of the substance without impervious gloves, where there is a potential for dermal exposure, and simplifies the wording in the significant new use designation under 40 CFR 721.80 to encompass the ongoing use as follows: “A significant new use is any use of the substance other than for the specific confidential industrial solvent uses identified in the amended premanufacture notice (PMN).”
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the final rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (2), (3), and (5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the
During review of the PMN for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0), EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met. For additional discussion of the rationale for the SNUR on this chemical, see Units II., IV., and V. of the proposed rule.
EPA is issuing this final SNUR for the chemical substance Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS N. 870778-34-0) because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this final rule:
• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substance pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0), EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
If uses begun after the proposed rule was published were considered ongoing rather than new, any person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the significant new use before the final rule was issued. Therefore EPA has designated the date of publication of the proposed rule as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. Consult the
Any person who began commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substance identified as pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy)- (PMN P-07-204; CAS No. 870778-34-0) for any of the significant new uses designated in the proposed SNUR after the date of publication of the proposed SNUR, must stop that activity before the effective date of the final rule. Persons who ceased those activities will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires, before engaging in any activities designated as significant new uses. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under 40 CFR 721.45(h), the person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:
1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing.
Recommended testing that would address the criteria of concern of § 721.170 can be found in Unit IV. of the proposed rule. Descriptions of tests are provided only for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and § 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance during the development of the direct final rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941.
This final rule establishes a SNUR for a chemical substance that was the subject of a PMN. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this final rule.
This final rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit VIII. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission” or “we”) respond to Petitions for Reconsideration of the
Effective April 6, 2015.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Brendan Murray,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. In the
2. In the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Congress added section 621(a)(1) to the Communications Act. That section requires a local franchise for the provision of cable service. A local franchising authority (“LFA”) may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Section 621 prohibits a cable franchise authority from prohibiting, limiting, or restricting the provision of telecommunications service by a cable operator. Congress, in enacting this section, sought to enhance cable competition and accelerate broadband deployment.
3. In 2007, the Commission adopted the
4. In the
5. Petitioners request clarification regarding whether the
6. In both the
7. Petitioners argue that the Commission's conclusions on MFN clauses are inconsistent with our preemption of level playing field regulations in the
8. LFAs petitioned for reconsideration of the inclusion of in-kind payments in calculating the franchise fee cap, arguing that the Commission's determinations give an overly expansive scope of section 622(g)(2)(D), which exempts “charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise” from the five percent franchise fee cap and also expand the definition of in-kind payments in the
9. We disagree with the Petitioners that the Commission's interpretation of the phrase “incidental to” in section 622(g)(2)(D) goes beyond or is inconsistent with our interpretation in the
10. Further, we disagree with Petitioners that the
11. Petitioners argue that the
12. We reaffirm that (1) prior rulings were intended to apply only to the local franchising process, and not to franchising laws or decisions at the state level; (2) MFN clauses are contractual terms that are not affected by any of the Commission's prior findings; and (3) “in-kind” payments—non-cash payments, such as goods, or services—count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent operators and new entrants. We decline to modify our conclusions regarding mixed-use networks. We grant Petitioner's request that we depart from our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and submit a revised FRFA in order to comply with the mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
13. The
14. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) relating to the
15. The Commission will send a copy of this
16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
17. The need for FCC regulation in this area derives from eliminating barriers to competitive entry of cable operators into local markets. This Order extends a number of the rules and findings promulgated in the
18. Specifically, we reaffirm that (1) prior rulings were intended to apply only to the local franchising process, and not to franchising laws or decisions at the state level; (2) most favored nation (“MFN”) clauses are contractual terms that are not affected by any of the Commission's prior findings; and (3) “in-kind” payments—non-cash payments, such as goods, or services—count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent operators and new entrants. We decline to modify our conclusions regarding mixed-use networks. We grant Petitioner's request that we depart from our Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and submit a revised FRFA in order to comply with the mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
19. Only one commenter, the Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable, submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA. The Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable contends that the Commission should issue a revised IRFA because of the erroneous determination that the proposed rules would have a
20. We disagree with the Local Government Lawyer's Roundtable's assertion that our rules will have any more than a
21. After issuing the FRFA in the
22. The Commission determined that since the findings in the
23.The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental entity” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).
24. The rules adopted by the
25.Our action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. Small businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States in 2009. There were 1,621,315 small organizations nationwide in 2007, which are defined as independently owned and operated not-for-profit enterprises that are not dominant in their perspective fields. Finally, there were 89,527 small governmental jurisdictions in 2007, which are defined as governments of cities, towns and other entities with a population of less than fifty thousand.
26. This category includes establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 396 such firms that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 349 operated with annual revenues below $25 million and 47 operated with annual revenues of $25 million or more. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.
27. The Commission defines a small cable company as one that serves 400,000 or fewer subscribers
28. The Communication Act of 1934 defines a small cable system operator as “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076,934 cable operators nationwide, all but 13 are small under this size standard.
29. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. A small business in this category is a business that has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees and 44 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that a majority of businesses can be considered small entities.
30. The rule and guidance adopted in the
31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
32. In the
33. None.
34. Accordingly,
35.
36.
37.
Office of the Secretary (OST); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The DOT proposes to amend its regulations implementing the Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards to permit recipients and subrecipients to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable, but the DOT may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
•
Michael Harkins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for General Law (OST-C10), Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W83-312, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-0590.
On December 26, 2014, the DOT's regulations at 2 CFR part 1201 became effective, which adopted the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revised Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal awards to non-Federal entities at 2 CFR part 200 (Common Rule). These requirements at 2 CFR 200.319(b) prohibit the use of in-state or local geographic preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals except where Federal statute mandates or encourages the use of such preferences.
Many recipients and subrecipients at the local governmental level have local hiring provisions that they otherwise apply to procurements that do not involve Federal funding. Such provisions are intended to ensure that the communities in which the projects are located benefit from the jobs that result from their investment of their funds, particularly for workers in low income areas. Transportation plays a critical role in connecting Americans and communities to economic opportunity. The choices that are made regarding transportation infrastructure can strengthen communities, create pathways to jobs and improve the quality of life for all Americans. Transportation investments and policies can improve access to jobs, education, and goods movement, while providing construction and operations jobs. As such, the DOT believes that local and other geographic-based hiring preferences are essential to promoting Ladders of Opportunity for the workers in these communities by ensuring that they participate in, and benefit from, the economic opportunities such projects present.
Additionally, Section 418 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 (FY 2015 Appropriations Act), prohibits the Federal Transit Administration from using fiscal year (FY) 2015 funds to implement, administer, or enforce 49 CFR 18.36(c)(2), for construction hiring. Section 18.36(c)(2) prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed in-State or local geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals.
Therefore, the DOT is proposing to amend Part 1201 by promulgating a provision to deviate from the OMB guidance by making clear that geographic hiring preferences may be used in DOT grant programs. With this deviation, local communities will be in a better position to leverage Federal and State and local funds into local jobs and economic growth. However, this deviation would only apply to the extent that such geographic hiring preferences are not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute or regulation. For example, the Federal statutory provision at 23 U.S.C. 112 requires full and open competition in the award of contracts under the Federal-aid highway program. The Federal Highway Administration has traditionally interpreted this provision as prohibiting the use of geographic hiring preferences and reinforced this interpretation in 23 CFR 635.117(b). Under a 2013 Opinion from
In order to determine whether contracting requirements may be used consistent with the 2013 OLC opinion, the DOT has established a pilot program under which such geographic-based hiring requirements may be used on an experimental basis. This program, which is published in today's
The DOT has preliminarily determined that this action would not be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would not be significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal. These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Allowing local geographic preferences in hiring, where none currently exist, may result in additional local hiring and in non-local workers not obtaining jobs they otherwise might get. To the extent this occurs this would be an economic transfer from non-local workers to local workers and not a cost.
To the extent local labor markets are tight this could increase labor costs for the DOT-Grant funded projects if all hiring is local. Similarly, if local supply of labor in the skilled trades is low, productivity on DOT-Grant funded project could decrease and project costs could increase if all hiring is local. However, the proposed rule is not forcing local governments to hire locally; it is only saying that they
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the DOT has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities and has determined that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed action does not affect any funding distributed under any of the programs administered by the DOT. For these reasons, I hereby certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the DOT will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, tribal governments and the private sector.
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the DOT has determined preliminarily that this proposed action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The DOT has also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order since it 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.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Accordingly, the DOT solicits comments on this issue.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The DOT has determined that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
This action 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. The DOT certifies that this proposed action would not cause any environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
The DOT has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interface with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The DOT does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
The DOT has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Uniform administrative requirements, Cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1201 of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322.
Notwithstanding 2 CFR 200.319, non-Federal entities may utilize geographic hiring preferences (including local hiring preferences) pertaining to the use of labor on a project consistent with such non-Federal entities' policies and procedures, when not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute or regulation.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather. This proposed AD would require replacing certain pitot probes on the captain, first officer, and standby sides with certain new pitot probes. We are proposing this AD to prevent airspeed indication discrepancies during inclement weather, which, depending on the prevailing altitude, could lead to unknown accumulation of ice crystals and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 20, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed 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
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0237R1, dated December 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Occurrences have been reported on A320 family aeroplanes of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather conditions. Investigation results indicated that A320 aeroplanes equipped with Thales Avionics Part Number (P/N) 50620-10 or P/N C16195AA pitot probes appear to have a greater susceptibility to adverse environmental conditions that aeroplanes equipped with certain other pitot probes.
Prompted by earlier occurrences, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [DGAC] AD 2001-362 [
Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, Thales pitot probe P/N C15195BA was designed, which improved airspeed indication behavior in heavy rain conditions, but did not demonstrate the same level of robustness to withstand high-altitude ice crystals. Based on these findings, EASA have decided to implement replacement of the affected Thales [pitot] probes as a precautionary measure to improve the safety level of the affected aeroplanes.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0237 [
The following related DGAC France ADs were also cancelled by EASA AD 2014-0237, without retaining any of their requirements:
• AD 91-227-021R1 [
• AD 2002-586R1 [
Since EASA issued AD 2014-0237, it was brought to the Agency's attention that Airbus modification (mod) 155737 was introduced to install Thales probes in production. This affects paragraph (4) of the [EASA] AD.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD is revised to amend paragraph (4), making reference to aeroplanes which are post-mod 25578, but also post-mod 155737, as a result of which they have Thales probes installed.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
On February 4, 2004, we issued AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, and A300 F4-600R series airplanes; Model A310 series Airplanes; Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes; Model A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342 airplanes; and Model A340 series airplanes. That AD requires, among other actions, replacement of certain pitot probes with certain new pitot probes. That AD was issued to prevent loss or fluctuation of indicated airspeed, which could result in misleading information being provided to the flightcrew.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated September 1, 2014; Service Bulletin A320-34-1456, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012; and Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012. The service information describes procedures for replacing certain Thales Avionics pitot probes on the captain, first officer, and standby sides with certain other Goodrich pitot probes.
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
The EASA MCAI specifies that installation of a pitot probe approved after the effective date of the EASA AD, and compliant with the “new EASA icing requirements,” is equal to compliance with the requirements in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD, provided the part is approved by EASA or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement because EASA regulations do not apply to airplanes type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29).
Paragraph (1) of the MCAI requires replacement of Thales part number (P/N) 50620-10 pitot probes with Thales P/N C16195AA pitot probes. However, that action is not included in this proposed AD. Paragraph (f) of AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), requires that action.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $21,930 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,223,310, or $22,270 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
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 20, 2015.
This AD affects AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather. We are issuing this AD to prevent airspeed indication discrepancies during inclement weather, which, depending on the prevailing altitude, could lead to unknown accumulation of ice crystals and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace any Thales pitot probe having part number (P/N) C16195AA or P/N C16195BA, with a Goodrich pitot probe having P/N 0851HL, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 28, dated September 1, 2014. Accomplishing the replacement in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2004-03-33, Amendment 39-13477 (69 FR 9936, March 3, 2004), for that airplane only.
(1) Replacement of the pitot probes in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1456, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012 (pitot probes on the captain and standby sides); and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, Revision 01, dated May 15, 2012 (pitot probes on the first officer side); is an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 25578 was embodied in production, except for post-modification 25578 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 155737 (installation of Thales pitot probes) was also embodied in production, are compliant with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it can be conclusively determined that no Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA, P/N C16195BA, or P/N 50620-10 has been installed since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Post-modification 25578 airplanes on which Airbus Modification 155737 (installation of Thales pitot probes) was also embodied in production must be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(xxiv) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 04, dated May 24, 2000.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 05, dated September 11, 2000.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 06, dated October 18, 2001.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 07, dated December 4, 2001.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 08, dated January 15, 2003.
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 09, dated February 17, 2003.
(vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 10, dated November 21, 2003.
(viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 11, dated August 18, 2004.
(ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 12, dated December 2, 2004.
(x) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 13, dated January 18, 2005.
(xi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 14, dated April 21, 2005.
(xii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 15, dated July 19, 2005.
(xiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 16, dated November 23, 2006.
(xiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 17, dated February 14, 2007.
(xv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 18, dated October 9, 2009.
(xvi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 19, dated November 9, 2009.
(xvii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 20, dated December 1, 2010.
(xviii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 21, dated March 24, 2011.
(xix) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 22, dated July 19, 2011.
(xx) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 23, dated February 3, 2012.
(xxi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 24, dated April 12, 2012.
(xxii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 25, dated September 4, 2012.
(xxiii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 26, dated September 16, 2013.
(xxiv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1170, Revision 27, dated March 18, 2014.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement of pitot probes on the captain and standby sides specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1456, dated December 2, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the replacement of pitot probes on the first officer side specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-34-1463, dated March 9, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD: No person may install on any airplane a Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA or P/N C16195BA.
(i) For airplanes with a Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA or P/N C16195BA installed: After accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(ii) For airplanes without a Thales pitot probe having P/N C16195AA or P/N C16195BA installed: As of the effective date of this AD.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a Thales pitot probe having part number P/N 50620-10.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0237R1, dated December 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) 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
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed amendments to the consolidated return regulations. These proposed regulations would revise the rules for reporting certain items of income and deduction that are reportable on the day a corporation joins or leaves a consolidated group. The proposed regulations would affect such corporations and the consolidated groups that they join or leave.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 4, 2015.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-100400-14), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-100400-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Russell G. Jones, (202) 317-6847; concerning the submission of comments or to request a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) P. Taylor, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
This notice of proposed rulemaking contains proposed regulations that amend 26 CFR part 1 under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Section 1502 authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for corporations that join in filing a consolidated return, and it expressly provides that those rules may be different from the provisions of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code that would apply if those corporations filed separate returns. Terms used in the consolidated return regulations generally are defined in § 1.1502-1.
These proposed regulations provide guidance under § 1.1502-76, which prescribes rules for determining the taxable period in which items of income, gain, deduction, loss, and credit (tax items) of a corporation that joins in filing a consolidated return are included. Section 1.1502-76(b) provides, in part, that if a corporation (S) becomes or ceases to be a member of a consolidated group during a consolidated return year, S must include in the consolidated return its tax items for the period during which it is a member. S also must file a separate return (including a consolidated return of another group) that includes its items for the period during which it is not a member.
On September 8, 1966, the IRS and the Treasury Department promulgated regulations under § 1.1502-76 in TD 6894, 31 FR 11794 (1966 regulations). Section 1.1502-76(b) of the 1966 regulations was silent regarding the treatment of S's tax items that accrued on the day S became or ceased to be a member of a consolidated group (S's change in status). Thus, whether S's tax items for the day of S's change in status should have been reflected on S's tax return for the short period ending with S's change in status, or whether these tax items should have been reflected instead on S's tax return for the short period beginning after S's change in status, was unclear under the 1966 regulations.
On August 15, 1994, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final regulations (TD 8560; 59 FR 41666) under § 1.1502-76(b) (current regulations) that revised the 1966 regulations to eliminate uncertainty regarding the treatment of tax items recognized by S on the day of S's change in status. Under the general rule of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(
The notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed the current end of the day rule (57 FR 53634, Nov. 12, 1992) (1992 NPRM) indicated that the current end of the day rule was intended to provide certainty and prevent inconsistent reporting of S's items between the consolidated and separate returns. Prior to the 1992 NPRM, some taxpayers had inferred (based upon the administrative practice of the IRS) that the inclusion in a particular return of a tax item of S incurred on the day of S's change in status depended on a factual determination of whether the transaction occurred before or after noon on the day of S's change in status (the so-called “lunch rule”).
There are two exceptions to the current end of the day rule. The first exception (in § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(A)(
Added at the same time as the current end of the day rule, the second exception (in § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B)) provides that if a transaction occurs on the day of S's change in status that is properly allocable to the portion of S's day after the event resulting in S's change in status, S and certain related persons must treat the transaction as occurring at the beginning of the following day for all federal income tax purposes (current next day rule). The current next day rule was added in response to comments to the 1992 NPRM suggesting that the current end of the day rule created a “seller beware” problem with respect to S's tax items arising on the day of S's change in status but after the event causing S's change in status. Commenters suggested that, for example, if consolidated group A sold the stock of S to consolidated group B, and group B caused S to sell one of its divisions on the same day it was acquired by group B, the gain from the sale of the division would be inappropriately allocable to group A's consolidated return. Commenters recommended that final regulations adopt rules substantially similar to the current next day rule to protect the reasonable expectations of sellers and buyers of S's stock. Commenters suggested that a rule providing this type of protection was most appropriate with respect to extraordinary items, and some commenters suggested that a rule similar to the current next day rule should operate unless the seller and buyer of S agreed otherwise.
The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that changes should be made to the regulations under § 1.1502-76(b) due to uncertainty regarding the appropriate application of the current next day rule. These proposed regulations address this concern as well as additional concerns with the current regulations, as summarized in this section 3.A. and discussed in greater detail in sections 3.B. through 3.K. of this preamble.
To provide certainty, the proposed regulations generally clarify the period in which S must report certain tax items by replacing the current next day rule with a new exception to the end of the day rule (proposed next day rule) that is more narrowly tailored to clearly reflect taxable income and prevent certain post-closing actions from adversely impacting S's tax return for the period ending on the day of S's change in status. The proposed next day rule applies only to “extraordinary items” (as defined in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C) of the proposed regulations) that result from transactions that occur on the day of S's change in status, but after the event causing the change, and that would be taken into account by S on that day. This rule requires those extraordinary items to be allocated to S's tax return for the period beginning the next day. The proposed next day rule is expressly inapplicable to any extraordinary item that arises simultaneously with the event that causes S's change in status.
The proposed regulations further clarify that fees for services rendered in connection with S's change in status constitute a “compensation-related deduction” for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(
The proposed regulations also add a rule (previous day rule, described in section 3.C. of this preamble) to clarify the application of the S corporation exception. In addition, the proposed regulations limit the scope of the end of the day rule, the next day rule, the S corporation exception, and the previous day rule to determining the period in which S must report certain tax items and determining the treatment of an asset or a tax item for purposes of sections 382(h) and 1374 (as opposed to applying for all federal income tax purposes).
Additionally, the proposed regulations provide that short taxable years resulting from intercompany transactions to which section 381(a) applies (intercompany section 381 transactions) are not taken into account in determining the carryover period for a tax item of the distributor or transferor member in the intercompany section 381 transaction or for purposes of section 481(a). Furthermore, the proposed regulations provide that the due date for filing S's separate return for the taxable year that ends as a result of S becoming a member is not accelerated if S ceases to exist in the same consolidated return year.
The proposed regulations make several other conforming and non-substantive changes to the current regulations as well. Finally, the proposed regulations add several examples to illustrate the proposed rules.
The IRS and the Treasury Department note that neither the current regulations nor the proposed regulations are intended to supersede general rules in the Code and regulations concerning whether an item is otherwise includible or deductible.
The current next day rule provides that S and certain related persons must treat a transaction as occurring at the beginning of the day following S's change in status if the transaction occurs on the day of S's change in status and is “properly allocable” to the portion of that day following S's change in status. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe, however, that the standards provided in the current next day rule for determining whether a transaction is “properly allocable” to the portion of S's day after the event resulting in S's change in status have
The proposed next day rule is intended to eliminate the perceived electivity and the source of these controversies. Under the proposed regulations, the application of the proposed next day rule is mandatory rather than elective—if an extraordinary item results from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status, but after the event resulting in the change, and if the item would be taken into account by S on that day, the transaction resulting in the extraordinary item is treated as occurring at the beginning of the following day for purposes of determining the period in which S must report the item.
The proposed regulations also provide that the proposed next day rule is inapplicable to items that arise simultaneously with the event that causes S's change in status. Under the end of the day rule (as revised by these proposed regulations), those items are reported on S's tax return for the short period ending on the day of S's change in status. The proposed regulations are expected to afford taxpayers and the IRS greater certainty regarding the period to which S's tax items resulting from such a transaction are allocated.
As noted in section 2 of this preamble, the special rule for S corporations provides an exception to the end of the day rule if an S corporation joins a consolidated group. To avoid creating a one-day C corporation tax return for the termination date, the S corporation exception provides that S becomes a member of the group at the beginning of the termination date, and that S's taxable year ends for all federal income tax purposes at the end of the preceding day.
Although these proposed regulations retain the S corporation exception, the proposed regulations add a previous day rule that mirrors the principles of the proposed next day rule. Whereas the proposed next day rule requires extraordinary items resulting from transactions that occur on the day of S's change in status (but after the event causing the change) to be allocated to S's tax return for the short period that begins the following day, the previous day rule requires extraordinary items resulting from transactions that occur on the termination date (but before or simultaneously with the event causing S's status as an S corporation to terminate) to be allocated to S's tax return for the short period that ends on the previous day (that is, the day preceding the termination date).
Under the current end of the day rule, S becomes or ceases to be a member at the end of the day on which its status as a member changes, and its tax year ends “for all federal income tax purposes” at the end of that day. However, applying the end of the day rule for purposes other than the reporting of S's tax items could yield results inconsistent with other consolidated return rules. For example, under §§ 1.1502-13 and 1.1502-80(d)(1), if a member contributes property subject to a liability in excess of the property's basis to a nonmember in exchange for the nonmember's stock, and if the transferee becomes a member of the transferor's consolidated group as a result of the exchange, the transaction is treated as an intercompany transaction and section 357(c) does not apply. However, if the end of the day rule applies “for all federal income tax purposes,” it may be unclear whether the transferee becomes a member “immediately after the transaction,” whether the transaction is an intercompany transaction, and whether section 357(c) could apply to the transaction.
To eliminate possible confusion arising from application of the current end of the day rule and related rules, these proposed regulations provide that the end of the day rule, the proposed next day rule, the S corporation exception, and the previous day rule apply for purposes of determining the period in which S must report its tax items, as well as for purposes of sections 382(h) and 1374 (discussed in section 3.I. of this preamble).
The proposed next day rule mandatorily applies to extraordinary items that result from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status but after the event that causes the change. In contrast, the previous day rule mandatorily applies to extraordinary items that result from a transaction that occurs on the day of S's change in status but before or simultaneously with the event that causes S's status as an S corporation to terminate.
One category of extraordinary items, set forth in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(
The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether the list of extraordinary items set forth in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C) should be modified to include any item not currently listed or whether any item currently included should be deleted or modified. Specifically, the IRS and the Treasury Department are considering whether the item in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(
The IRS and the Treasury Department also request comments as to whether any extraordinary item should be excluded, in whole or in part, from application of the next day rule and the previous day rule. In particular, the IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether the extraordinary items set forth in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(
Rather than require S to perform a closing of the books on the day of its change in status, the current regulations under § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii) permit S's tax items, other than the extraordinary items, to be ratably allocated between S's two short taxable years if certain conditions are met. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether S no longer should be permitted to elect to ratably allocate its tax items between the periods ending and beginning with S's change in status.
Solely for purposes of determining the short taxable year of S to which the items of a passthrough entity in which S owns an interest are allocated, § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi)(A) of the current regulations generally provides that S is treated as selling or exchanging its entire interest in the entity immediately before S's change in status. This rule does not apply to certain foreign corporations the ownership of which may give rise to deemed income inclusions under the Code. In addition, a deemed income inclusion from a foreign corporation and a deferred tax amount from a passive foreign investment company under section 1291 are treated as extraordinary items under § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(ii)(C)(11). The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments as to whether such deemed income inclusions or deferred tax amounts should continue to be treated as extraordinary items, whether rules having similar effects to the rule in § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi)(A) relating to passthrough entities should be adopted for controlled foreign corporations and passive foreign investment companies in which S owns an interest, and whether any other changes should be made to § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(vi) of the current regulations.
Under § 1.1502-76(b)(3) of the current regulations, if any person acts with a principal purpose contrary to the purposes of § 1.1502-76(b) to substantially reduce the federal income tax liability of any person (prohibited purpose), adjustments must be made as necessary to carry out the purposes of § 1.1502-76 of the current regulations (anti-avoidance rule). The proposed regulations clarify that the anti-avoidance rule may apply to situations in which a person modifies an existing contract or other agreement in anticipation of S's change in status in order to shift an item between the taxable years that end and begin as a result of S's change in status if such actions are undertaken with a prohibited purpose. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments regarding this proposed amendment to the anti-avoidance rule.
For purposes of section 382, the term
Section 382(h)(1)(B) generally provides that if a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL), then any RBIL taken into account in a taxable year any portion of which falls in the recognition period (recognition period taxable year) is treated as a deduction subject to the loss corporation's section 382 limitation as if the RBIL were a pre-change loss. The amount of RBILs subject to the section 382 limitation in any recognition period taxable year is limited, however, to the excess of the NUBIL over total RBILs in prior taxable years ending in the recognition period. (The amount of such excess is referred to in this preamble as the outstanding NUBIL balance.) In other words, the amount of the NUBIL limits the amount of RBILs that are treated as pre-change losses, and any built-in loss treated as an RBIL further reduces the outstanding NUBIL balance.
In many cases, the event that causes S's change in status for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii) also causes S to undergo an ownership change for purposes of section 382. Thus, an item of deduction or loss that becomes reportable on the day of S's change in status falls within the recognition period beginning that day, even if the item is allocated to S's short period ending that day under the end of the day rule. As a consequence, an item that should be a pre-change loss is treated as an RBIL that reduces the outstanding NUBIL balance. For example, assume consolidated group A sells all of S's stock to consolidated group B. If on the day of S's change in status (but before the event causing the change), S recognizes a loss on the sale of an asset, under the end of the day rule the loss is reported on group A's consolidated return. However, notwithstanding that the loss may not be claimed by group B, the loss may be treated as an RBIL and reduce the outstanding NUBIL balance.
To prevent such an outcome, these proposed regulations provide that, for purposes of section 382(h), items includible in the short taxable year that ends as a result of S's change in status (including items allocated to that taxable year under the end of the day rule) are not treated as occurring in the recognition period. Rather, only items includible in S's short taxable year that begins as a result of S's change in status (including items allocated to that taxable year under the proposed next day rule) are treated as occurring in the recognition period. Therefore, the beginning of the recognition period for purposes of section 382(h) would correspond with the beginning of S's short taxable year that begins on the day after S's change in status.
Section 1374 generally imposes a corporate-level tax (section 1374 tax) on the recognition of gain by an S corporation that formerly was a C corporation (or that acquired assets from a C corporation in a transferred basis transaction) during a recognition period specified in section 1374(d)(7) (section 1374 recognition period), but only to the extent of the corporation's net recognized built-in gain (as defined in section 1374(d)(2)) for a given taxable year. The section 1374 tax also applies to certain tax items attributable to the corporation's C corporation taxable years. In addition, regulations under section 337(d) extend section 1374 treatment to (1) a C corporation's conversion to a real estate investment
As with the application of section 382(h), the event that causes S's change in status for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii) may be the event that results in S being a corporation that is subject to the section 1374 tax. Therefore, it is necessary to determine in which return (the group's consolidated return or S's separate return beginning the day after S's change in status) S's tax items for the day of S's change in status are included. Similarly, if the event that causes S's change in status for purposes of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii) is the event that results in S ceasing to be a corporation subject to the section 1374 tax, it is necessary to determine in which return (the group's consolidated return or S's separate return for the period ending the day before S's change in status) S's tax items for the day of S's change in status are included. The proposed regulations thus provide that if S ceases to be a corporation subject to the section 1374 tax upon becoming a member, or if S elects to be a corporation that is subject to the section 1374 tax for its first separate return year after ceasing to be a member, S's items of recognized built-in gain or loss for purposes of section 1374 will include only the amounts reported on S's separate return (including items reported on that return under the previous day rule or the next day rule).
Under the current consolidated return regulations, if a member distributes or transfers its assets to another corporation that is a member immediately after the distribution or transfer in an intercompany section 381 transaction, and if the distributor or transferor member has a net operating loss carryover or a net capital loss carryover, the distributor or transferor member will not be treated as having a short taxable year for purposes of determining the years to which the loss may be carried. Sections 1.1502-21(b)(3)(iii) and 1.1502-22(b)(4).
These proposed regulations would amend current law by moving these rules to § 1.1502-76(b)(2)(i) and making conforming changes to §§ 1.1502-21(b)(3)(iii) and 1.1502-22(b)(4). In addition, these proposed regulations would expand these rules by providing that a short taxable year of the distributor or transferor member by reason of an intercompany section 381 transaction is not counted as a separate taxable year for purposes of determining either the taxable years to which any tax attribute of the distributor or transferor member may be carried or the taxable years in which an adjustment under section 481(a) is taken into account. No inference should be drawn from the proposed changes to these rules as to whether a short taxable year of a member resulting from an intercompany section 381 transaction is counted under current law for purposes of determining the years to which a tax credit may be carried or in which a section 481 adjustment is taken into account.
The proposed regulations also eliminate a provision that could cause taxpayers to inadvertently miss a return filing deadline. Under § 1.1502-76(b)(4) of the current regulations, if S joins a consolidated group, the due date for filing S's separate return is the earlier of the due date (with extensions) of the group's return or the due date (with extensions) of S's return if S had not joined the group. If S goes out of existence during the consolidated return year in which S joins a group, its taxable year would end. Under section 6072, the due date for S's short period return would be the 15th day of the third month (ninth month, with extensions) following the date on which S ceases to exist. Accordingly, if S ceases to exist during the same consolidated return year in which it becomes a member, the due date for S's tax return for the short period that ended as a result of S becoming a member could be accelerated. To prevent a taxpayer from inadvertently missing a filing date and being subject to potential penalties for filing a late return, the proposed regulations provide that if S goes out of existence in the same consolidated return year in which it becomes a member, the due date for filing S's separate return is determined without regard to S's ceasing to exist.
In addition to the changes described in this preamble, the proposed regulations make several non-substantive changes to the current regulations, including moving an example concerning § 1.1502-80(d) from the text of § 1.1502-76(b)(1)(ii)(B)(
The amendments to §§ 1.1502-21(b)(3)(iii), 1.1502-22(b)(4)(i), 1.1502-76(b)(2)(i), and 1.1502-76(b)(4) will apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the regulations apply only to transactions involving corporations that file consolidated federal income tax returns, and that such corporations tend to be larger businesses. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the “Addresses” heading. The IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by any person who timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing will be published in the
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Russell G. Jones of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1361-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1361. * * *
Section 1.1362-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1362. * * *
Section 1.1502-13 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
Section 1.1502-21 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
Section 1.1502-22 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
Section 1.1502-28 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
Section 1.1502-76 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 382(m) and 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
(c) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) * * *
* * *
(e)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii)
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section applies to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4)
(h)
(1) * * *
(iii) Paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section applies to consolidated return years beginning on or after the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * * If a corporation (S) becomes or ceases to be a member in a stock disposition or purchase for which an election under section 336(e) or section 338 is made, paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(2)(iii) of this section do not apply to the transaction.
(ii) * * *
(A)
(
(B)
(
(D)
(2) * * *
(i) * * * If a member distributes or transfers assets in an intercompany transaction to which section 381(a) applies, a short taxable year of the distributor or transferor corporation is not taken into account either for purposes of determining the taxable years to which any tax attribute of the distributor or transferor corporation may be carried or for purposes of determining the taxable years in which an adjustment under section 481(a) is taken into account.
(ii) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(3)
(4) * * * In addition, if S ceases to exist in the same consolidated return year in which S becomes a member, the due date for filing S's separate return shall be determined without regard to S's ceasing to exist in that year.
(5) * * *
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b)
(6)
Department of Justice.
Proposed rule.
The proposed rule proposes criteria and a process by which the Attorney General or designee may determine that an individual shall not be deemed an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Written comments must be postmarked on or before May 5, 2015, and electronic comments must be sent on or before midnight Eastern time May 5, 2015.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. CIV 150” on all written and electronic correspondence. Written comments being sent via regular or express mail should be sent to James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Room 8098N National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530. Comments may also be sent electronically through http://
Please note that the Department is requesting that electronic comments be submitted before midnight Eastern Time on the day the comment period closes because
James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 616-4400.
You are not required to submit personal identifying information in order to comment on this rule. Nevertheless, if you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in the Department's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the “For Further Information” paragraph.
The Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Acts of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-501) and 1995 (Pub. L. 104-73) amended section 224 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 233) to make the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680) the exclusive remedy for personal injury or death resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental or related functions by federally supported health centers and their employees, to the extent the centers and employees have been deemed by the Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, to be eligible for FTCA coverage. Section 233(i) of title 42 provides that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), may on the record determine, after notice and an opportunity for a full and fair hearing, that an individual physician or other licensed or certified health care practitioner who is an officer, employee, or contractor of an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4) shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 if “treating such individual as such an employee would expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss” based on certain prescribed circumstances. This proposed rule proposes that the determination may be made based on one or more of the following statutory criteria: (1) The individual does not comply with the policies and procedures that the entity has implemented pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 233(h)(1); (2) the individual has a history of claims filed against him or her as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 233 that is outside the norm for licensed or certified health care practitioners within the same specialty; (3) the individual refused to reasonably cooperate with the Attorney General in defending against any such claim; (4) the individual provided false information relevant to the individual's performance of his or her duties to the Secretary, the Attorney General, or an applicant for or recipient of funds under title 42 chapter 6A; or (5) the individual was the subject of disciplinary action taken by a state medical licensing authority or a state or national professional society.
The proposed rule proposes a process for making such a determination. The first step, pursuant to § 15.13(a), is a determination by the “initiating official,” who is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice's Civil Division, that treating an individual as an employee of the Public Health Service may expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. Section 15.13(a) requires the initiating official, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to provide notice to the individual in question that an administrative hearing will be held to determine whether treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. Following a period for discovery and depositions, to the extent determined appropriate by an administrative law judge under § 15.15, the hearing is then conducted by the administrative law judge in the manner prescribed in § 15.14. After the hearing is conducted and the record is closed, § 15.16 requires the administrative law judge to submit written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended decision to the “adjudicating official,” who is the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Civil Division. Section 15.17(b) then gives the parties 30 days to submit certain additional materials, including exceptions to the administrative law judge's recommended decision, to the adjudicating official, who then must make a final agency determination of whether treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. Section 15.18 provides that an individual who is dissatisfied with the determination may seek rehearing within 30 days after notice of the determination is sent, and § 15.20 allows individuals who have been determined to expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss to apply for reinstatement after a period of time. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(a) and 45 CFR 60.3, 60.5(h) and 60.16, the rule also provides for the Department to notify the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a confidential information clearinghouse created by Congress with primary goals of improving health care quality and protecting the public, of the issuance of a final order deeming an individual not to be an employee of the Public Health Service under this rule.
This proposed rule would add a new subpart B in part 15 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, containing the regulations of the Department of Justice governing such a determination.
The Department invites comments on any issues relating to the proposed rule.
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this proposed rule and, by approving it, certifies that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department.
This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”
The Department of Justice has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this proposed rule and believes that its benefits would justify its costs. As an initial matter, the Department does not expect that the proposed rule would have systemic or large-scale costs, because it is only the
The Department is unable to quantify these costs at this time, as the authority to deem a provider not a member of the Public Health Service has not previously been used. However, based on the expectation that the authority will be used sparingly and only for providers who expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss, the Department has concluded that the net benefits of improved patient care and reduced costs of malpractice will outweigh these possible costs.
This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Department of Justice has determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This proposed rule would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in cost or prices; significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation; or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Claims, Government contracts, Government employees, Health care, Immunization, Nuclear energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Attorney General proposes to amend part 15 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 554, 556, 557, and 8477(e)(4); 10 U.S.C. 1054, 1089; 22 U.S.C. 2702, 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 2679; 38 U.S.C. 7316; 42 U.S.C. 233, 2212, 2458a, and 5055(f); and sec. 2, Pub. L. 94-380, 90 Stat. 1113 (1976).
§§ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, and 15.4 [Designated as Subpart A]
§§ 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, 15.8, 15.9, and 15.10 [Added and Reserved]
(a) The purpose of this regulation is to implement the notice and hearing procedures applicable to a determination by the Attorney General or his designee under 42 U.S.C. 233(i) that an individual shall not be deemed an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g).
(b) Section 233(i) of title 42 provides that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may on the record determine, after notice and an opportunity for a full and fair hearing, that an individual physician or other licensed or certified health care practitioner who is an officer, employee, or contractor of an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4) shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 if treating such individual as such an employee would expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss.
As used in this regulation:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) The individual does not comply with the policies and procedures that the entity has implemented pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 233(h)(1);
(2) The individual has a history of claims filed against him or her as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 233 that is outside the norm for licensed or certified health care practitioners within the same specialty;
(3) The individual refused to reasonably cooperate with the Attorney General in defending against any such claim;
(4) The individual provided false information relevant to the individual's performance of his or her duties to the Secretary, the Attorney General, or an applicant for or recipient of funds under title 42, chapter 6A, United States Code; or
(5) The individual was the subject of disciplinary action taken by a state medical licensing authority or a state or national professional society.
(a) Whenever the initiating official personally concludes that treating an individual as an employee of the Public Health Service may expose the Government to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss, the initiating official, after consultation with the Secretary, shall notify the individual that an administrative hearing will be conducted for the purpose of determining whether treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss.
(b) The notice of hearing shall be in writing and shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the individual at the individual's last known address, or to the individual's attorney in the event the Attorney General has received written notice that the individual has retained counsel.
(c) The notice shall contain:
(1) A statement of the nature and purpose of the hearing;
(2) The name of the administrative law judge;
(3) A statement of the nature of the action proposed to be taken; and
(4) A statement of the time, date, and location of the hearing.
(d) The hearing shall be initiated not sooner than 60 days of the date on the written notice of hearing.
(a) An administrative law judge appointed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3105 shall preside over the hearing.
(b) If the administrative law judge appointed is unacceptable to the individual, the individual shall inform the Attorney General within 14 days of the notification of the reasons for his or her position. The Attorney General may select another administrative law judge, or affirm the initial selection. In either case, the official shall inform the individual of the reasons for the decision.
(c) The administrative law judge shall have the following powers:
(1) Administer oaths and affirmations;
(2) Issue subpoenas authorized by law;
(3) Rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;
(4) Take depositions or have depositions taken when the ends of justice would be served;
(5) Regulate the course of the hearing;
(6) Hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the issues by consent of the parties or by the use of alternative means of dispute resolution;
(7) Inform the parties as to the availability of one or more alternative means of dispute resolution, and encourage use of such methods;
(8) Dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;
(9) Make or recommend decisions;
(10) Require and, in the discretion of the administrative law judge, adopt proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders.
(11) Take other action authorized by agency rule consistent with this subchapter;
(12) All powers and duties reasonably necessary to perform the functions enumerated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section.
(d) The administrative law judge may call upon the parties to consider:
(1) Simplification or clarification of the issues;
(2) Stipulations, admissions, agreements on documents, or other understandings that will expedite conduct of the hearing;
(3) Limitation of the number of witnesses and of cumulative evidence;
(4) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the case.
(e) At the discretion of the administrative law judge, parties or witnesses may participate in hearings by video conference.
(f) All hearings under this part shall be public unless otherwise ordered by the administrative law judge.
(g) The hearing shall be conducted in conformity with 5 U.S.C. 554-557 (sections 5-8 of the Administrative Procedure Act).
(h) The initiating official shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and shall generally present the government's evidence first.
(i) Technical rules of evidence shall not apply to hearings conducted pursuant to this part, but rules designed to assure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to cross-examination shall be applied where reasonably necessary by the administrative law judge. The administrative law judge may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record shall be open to examination by the parties, and opportunity shall be given to refute facts and arguments advanced on either side of the issues. A transcript shall be made of the oral evidence except to the extent the substance thereof is stipulated for the record.
(j) During the time a proceeding is before an administrative law judge, all motions shall be addressed to the administrative law judge and, if within
(a) At any time after the initiation of the proceeding, the administrative law judge may order, by subpoena if necessary, the taking of a deposition and the production of relevant documents by the deponent. Such order may be entered upon a showing that the deposition is necessary for discovery purposes, and that such discovery could not be accomplished by voluntary methods. Such an order may also be entered in extraordinary circumstances to preserve relevant evidence upon a showing that there is substantial reason to believe that such evidence could not be presented through a witness at the hearing. The decisive factors for a determination under this subsection, however, shall be fairness to all parties and the requirements of due process. A deposition may be taken orally or upon written questions before any person who has the power to administer oaths and shall not exceed one day of seven hours.
(b) Each deponent shall be duly sworn, and any adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine. Objections to questions or documents shall be in short form, stating the grounds upon which objections are made. The questions propounded and the answers thereto, together with all objections made (but not including argument or debate), shall be reduced to writing and certified by the person before whom the deposition was taken. Thereafter, the person taking the deposition shall forward the deposition and one (1) copy thereof to the party at whose instance the deposition was taken and shall forward one (1) copy to the representative of the other party.
(c) A deposition may be admitted into evidence as against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or who had due notice thereof, if the administrative law judge finds that there are sufficient reasons for admission and that the admission of the evidence would be fair to all parties and comport with the requirements of due process.
Within a reasonable time after the close of the record of the hearings conducted under § 15.14, the administrative law judge shall submit written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended decision to the adjudicating official. The administrative law judge shall promptly make copies of these documents available to the parties and the Secretary.
(a) In hearings conducted under § 15.14, the adjudicating official shall make the final agency determination, on the basis of the record, findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented by the administrative law judge.
(b) Prior to making a final agency determination, the adjudicating official shall give the parties an opportunity to submit the following, within thirty (30) days after the submission of the administrative law judge's recommendations:
(1) Proposed findings and determinations;
(2) Exceptions to the recommendations of the administrative law judge;
(3) Supporting reasons for the exceptions or proposed findings or determinations; and
(4) Final briefs summarizing the arguments presented at the hearing.
(c) All determinations made by the adjudicating official under this rule shall constitute final agency actions. After a final agency determination under this rule that an individual shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service, such individual will be deemed not to be an employee of the Public Health Service except pursuant to § 15.20.
(a) An individual dissatisfied with a final agency determination under § 15.17 may, within 30 days after the notice of the final agency determination is sent, request the adjudicating official to re-review the record, and may present additional evidence that is appropriate and pertinent to support a different decision.
(b) The adjudicating official may require that another oral hearing be held on one or more of the issues in controversy, or permit the dissatisfied party to present further evidence or argument in writing, if the adjudicating official finds that the individual has:
(1) Presented evidence or argument that is sufficiently significant to require the conduct of further proceedings; or
(2) Shown some defect in the conduct of the adjudication under this subpart sufficient to cause substantial unfairness or an erroneous finding in that adjudication.
(c) Any rehearing ordered by the adjudicating official shall be conducted pursuant to §§ 15.13 through 15.16.
(d) A determination that an individual may be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 pursuant to this section shall be distributed in the same manner as provided in § 15.19.
(a) A final agency determination under § 15.17 that an individual shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233 shall be provided to the Department of Health and Human Services and sent by certified or registered mail to the individual and to the entity employing such individual if the individual is currently an officer, employee, or contractor of an entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4). In the event the individual is no longer an officer, employee, or contractor of such an entity, the determination shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the individual and to the last entity described in 42 U.S.C. 233(g)(4) at which such individual was an officer, employee, or contractor.
(b) A final agency determination shall be effective upon the date the written determination is received by such entity.
(c) An adverse final agency determination shall apply to all acts or omissions of the individual occurring after the date the adverse final determination is received by such entity.
(d) The Attorney General will inform the National Practitioner Data Bank of any final agency determination under § 15.17 that an individual shall not be deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233.
(a) No less than five years after the time for rehearing has expired, and no more often than every five years, an individual who has been the subject of a final agency determination under § 15.17 may petition the Attorney General for reconsideration of that determination and reinstatement. The individual bears the burden of proof and persuasion.
(b) In support of the petition for reinstatement, the individual shall submit relevant evidence relating to the period since the original proceedings under this subpart and a statement
(c) Upon receiving a petition for reinstatement, the initiating official shall determine, in the initiating official's unreviewable discretion, whether the petition makes a prima facie case that no longer would expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss. The initiating official's determination that a petition does not make a prima facie case is not subject to further review.
(d) Upon a prima facie case having been made, an administrative law judge shall be appointed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3105 and shall conduct such proceedings pursuant to §§ 15.13 through 15.16 as the administrative law judge deems necessary, in his or her sole discretion, to determine whether the individual has established that treating the individual as an employee of the Public Health Service for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 233(g) would no longer expose the United States to an unreasonably high degree of risk of loss, and shall submit written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended decision to the adjudicating official pursuant to § 15.16.
(e) On a petition for reinstatement, the adjudicating official shall make the final agency determination, on the basis of the record, findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented by the administrative law judge, which shall include the record from the original determination and any petition for rehearing. All determinations made by the adjudicating official under this rule shall constitute final agency actions.
(f) A determination that an individual is reinstated pursuant to this section shall be distributed in the same manner as provided in § 15.19.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Kansas addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2010 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Sulfur Dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0528, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides additional
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states make a SIP submission to EPA to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA after reasonable notice and public hearings. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that such infrastructure SIP submissions must address. SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs.
On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the current 24-hour and annual standards with a new short-term standard based on the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the yearly distribution of1-hour daily maximum SO
For the 2010 SO
EPA is acting upon the July 15, 2013, SIP submission from Kansas that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein. EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, therefore the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and New Source Review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
With respect to element[s] C and J, EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. Kansas has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.
At present, EPA has determined the Kansas' SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Kansas PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of Kansas' infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of elements C, D(i)(II), and J.
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
EPA Region 7 received Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
The State of Kansas' statutes and regulations authorize the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control regulations. KDHE's statutory authority can be found in chapter 65, article 30 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), otherwise known as the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3003 places the responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary of Health and
KSA section 65-3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing the Kansas Air Quality Act. It also gives the Secretary the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the State of Kansas as a whole or for any part thereof. KSA section 65-3005(a)(12). The Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, in furtherance of a policy to implement laws and regulations consistent with those of the Federal government. KSA section 65-3005(b). The Secretary also has the authority to establish emission control requirements as appropriate to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3010(a).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
To address this element, KSA section 65-3007 provides the enabling authority necessary for Kansas to fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). This provision gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. Furthermore, the Secretary has the authority to require such air contaminant sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impacts of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary can also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3007(b).
Kansas has an air quality monitoring network operated by KDHE and local air quality agencies that collects air quality data that are compiled, analyzed, and reported to EPA. KDHE's Web site contains up-to-date information about air quality monitoring, including a description of the network and information about the monitoring of SO
Within KDHE, the Bureau of Air implements these requirements. Along with its other duties, the Monitoring and Planning Section collects air monitoring data, quality assures the results, and reports the data. The data is then used to develop the appropriate regulatory or outreach strategies to reduce air pollution.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
(1)
KSA section 65-3018 gives the Secretary or the Director of the Division of Environment the authority to impose a monetary penalty against any person who, among other things, either violates any order or permit issued under the Kansas Air Quality Act, or violates any provision of the Act or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. Section 65-3028 provides for criminal penalties for knowing violations.
(2)
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Kansas' infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO
(3)
In a previous action on June 20, 2013, EPA determined that Kansas has a program in place that meets all the PSD requirements related to all required pollutants (78 FR 37126).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
In this notice, we are not proposing to take any actions related to the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2. At this time, there is no SIP submission from Kansas relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO
With respect to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3, EPA notes that Kansas' satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas of the 2010 SO
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional haze.
Kansas meets this requirement through EPA's final approval of Kansas' regional haze plan on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80754). In this final approval, EPA determined that the Kansas SIP met requirements of the CAA, for states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants located over a wide geographic area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully approve this aspect of the submission.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively.
Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the state. The Kansas regulations address abatement of the effects of interstate pollution. For example, KAR 28-19-350(k)(2) “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” requires KDHE, prior to issuing any construction permit for a proposed new major source or major modification, to notify EPA, as well as: Any state or local air pollution control agency having jurisdiction in the air quality control region in which the new or modified installation will be located; the chief executives of the city and county where the source will be located; any comprehensive regional land use planning agency having jurisdiction where the source will be located; and any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose lands will be affected by emissions from the new source or modification.
Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Kansas with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the state's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the requirements of section 115.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
(1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to adequate authority, we have previously discussed Kansas' statutory and regulatory authority to implement the 2010 SO
With respect to adequate resources, KDHE asserts that it has adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The Kansas statutes provide the Secretary the authority to employ technical, professional and other staff to effectuate the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act from funds appropriated and available for these purposes.
With respect to funding, the Kansas Legislature annually approves funding and personnel resources for KDHE to implement the air program. The annual budget process provides a periodic update that enables KDHE and the local agencies to adjust funding and personnel needs. In addition, the Kansas statutes grant the Secretary authority to establish various fees for sources, to cover any and all parts of administering the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act. For example, KSA section 65-3008(f) grants the Secretary authority to fix, charge, and collect fees for construction approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65-3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. These emission fees, along with any moneys recovered by the state under the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act, are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.
Kansas also uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along with General Revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to, among other things, implement the SIP.
(2) Conflict of interest provisions—section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of section 128, relating to representation on state boards and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
On June 20, 2013, EPA approved Kansas' SIP revision addressing the section 128 requirements (78 FR 37126). For a detailed discussion on EPA's analysis of how Kansas meets the section 128 requirements, see EPA's April 17, 2013, proposed approval of Kansas' 1997 and 2006 PM
(3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, KSA section 65-3005(a)(8) grants the Secretary authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their own jurisdictions and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdictions. In fact, KSA section 65-3016 allows for cities and/or counties (or combinations thereof) to form local air quality conservation authorities. These authorities will then have the authority to enforce air quality rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary and adopt any additional rules, regulations and standards as needed to maintain satisfactory air quality within their jurisdictions.
At the same time, the Kansas statutes also retain authority in the Secretary to carry out the provisions of the state air pollution control law. KSA section 65-3003 specifically places responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary. The Secretary shall then administer the Kansas Air Quality Act through the Division of Environment. As an example of this retention of authority, KSA section 65-3016 only allows for the formation of local air quality conservation authorities with the approval of the Secretary. In addition, although these authorities can adopt additional air quality rules, regulations and standards, they may only do so if those rules, regulations and standards are in compliance with those set by the Secretary for that area. Currently, KDHE oversees the following local agencies that implement that Kansas Air Quality Act: The City of Wichita Office of Environmental Health, Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, and Unified Government of Wyandotte County-Kansas City, Kansas Public Health Department.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
To address this element, KSA section 65-3007 gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. The Secretary shall require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary.
In addition, KAR 28-19-12(A) “Measurement of Emissions” states that KDHE may require any person responsible for the operation of an emissions source to make or have tests made to determine the rate of contaminant emissions from the source whenever it has reason to believe that existing emissions exceed limitations specified in the Kansas air quality regulations. At the same time, KDHE may also conduct its own tests of emissions from any source. KAR 28-19-12(B). The Kansas regulations also require that all Class I operating permits include requirements for monitoring of emissions (KAR 28-19-512(a)(9) “Class I Operating Permits; Permit Content”).
Kansas makes all monitoring reports (as well as compliance plans and compliance certifications) submitted as part of a construction permit or Class I or Class II permit application publicly available.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
KSA section 65-3012(a) states that whenever the Secretary receives evidence that emissions from an air pollution source or combination of sources presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or to the environment, he or she may issue a temporary order directing the owner or operator, or both, to take such steps as necessary to prevent the act or eliminate the practice. Upon issuance of this temporary order, the Secretary may then commence an action in the district court to enjoin these acts or practices.
KAR 28-19-56 “Episode Criteria” allows the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health. KAR 28-19-57 “Emission Reduction Requirements” imposes restrictions on emission sources in the event one of these three air pollution episode statuses is declared.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO
KSA section 65-3005(b) specifically states that it is the policy of the state of Kansas to regulate the air quality of the state and implement laws and regulations that are applied equally and uniformly throughout the state and consistent with that of the Federal government. Therefore, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Federal CAA. KSA 65-3005(b)(1).
As discussed previously, KSA section 65-3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing and consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. The Secretary also has the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the state of Kansas or any part thereof. KSA section 65-3005(a)(12). Therefore, as a whole, the Secretary has the authority to revise rules as necessary to respond to any necessary changes in the NAAQS.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
(1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should provide a process for consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies. KSA section 65-3005(a)(14) grants the Secretary the authority to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the state, local governments, other states, interstate and interlocal agencies, and the Federal government. Furthermore, as noted earlier in the discussion on section 110(a)(2)(D), Kansas' regulations require that whenever it receives a construction
(2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in section 127, the infrastructure SIP should provide citations to regulations in the SIP requiring the air agency to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.
As discussed previously with element (G), KAR 28-19-56 “Episode Criteria” contains provisions that allow the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency status whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health. Any of these emergency situations can also be declared by the Secretary even in the absence of issuance of a high air pollution potential advisory or equivalent advisory from a local weather bureau meteorologist, if deemed necessary to protect the public health. In the event of such an emergency situation, public notification will occur through local weather bureaus.
In addition, information regarding air pollution and related issues is provided on a KDHE Web site,
(3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C of the CAA, relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection, as noted in above under element (C), the Kansas SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the Federal rule by reference. With respect to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. However, when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these visibility and regional haze requirements under part C do not change. EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements under part C as a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to element J after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Nevertheless, as noted above in section D, EPA has already approved Kansas' Regional Haze Plan and determined that it met the CAA requirements for preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility caused by air pollutants.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
Kansas has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. KSA section 65-3005(a)(9) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage and conduct studies, investigations and research relating to air contamination and air pollution and their causes, effects, prevention, abatement and control. As an example of regulatory authority to perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, the regulations at KAR 28-19-350 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” incorporate EPA modeling guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for the purposes of demonstrating compliance or non-compliance with a NAAQS.
The Kansas statutes and regulations also give KDHE the authority to require that modeling data be submitted for analysis. KSA section 65-3007(b) grants the Secretary the authority to require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions or any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary may also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act. These reports could include information as may be required by the Secretary concerning the location, size, and height of contaminant outlets, processes employed, fuels used, and the nature and time periods or duration of emissions, and such information as is relevant to air pollution and available or reasonably capable of being assembled. KSA section 65-3007(c).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
KSA section 65-3008(f) allows the Secretary to fix, charge, and collect fees for approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65-3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. Fees from the construction permits and approvals are deposited into the Kansas state treasury and credited to the state general fund. Emissions fees are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the Kansas state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.
Kansas' Title V program, found at KAR 28-19-500 to 28-19-564, was approved by EPA on January 30, 1996 (61 FR 2938). EPA reviews the Kansas Title V program, including Title V fee structure, separately from this proposed action. Because the Title V program and associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, the infrastructure SIP action we are proposing today does not preclude EPA
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
KSA section 65-3005(a)(8)(A) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions and on a cooperative basis and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions on the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdiction. The Secretary also has the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with local governments. KSA section 65-3005(a)(14). He or she may enter into contracts and agreements with local governments as is necessary to accomplish the goals of the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65-3005(a)(16).
Currently, KDHE's Bureau of Air has signed state and/or local agreements with the Department of Air Quality from the Unified Government of Wyandotte County—Kansas City, Kansas; the Wichita Office of Environmental Health; the Johnson County Department of Health and Environment; and the Mid-America Regional Council. These agreements establish formal partnerships between the Bureau of Air and these local agencies to work together to develop and annually update strategic goals, objectives and strategies for reducing emissions and improving air quality.
In addition, as previously noted in the discussion about section 110(a)(2)(J), Kansas' statutes and regulations require that KDHE consult with local political subdivisions for the purposes of carrying out its air pollution control responsibilities.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submissions from Kansas which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2010 SO
We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the EPA approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provision for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 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).
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 statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur Dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to authorize radar applications in the 76-81 GHz band. The Commission seeks to develop a flexible and streamlined regulatory framework that will encourage efficient, innovative uses of the spectrum and to allow various services to operate on an interference-protected basis. In doing so, it further seeks to adopt service rules that will allow for the deployment of the various radar applications in this band, both within and outside the U.S. The Commission takes this action in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) and two petitions for reconsideration of the 2012
Comments must be filed on or before April 6, 2015, and reply comments must be filed on or before April 20, 2015.
Aamer Zain, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2437, email:
You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 15-26, by any of the following methods:
This is a summary of the Commission's
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Reconsideration Order (NPRM), the Commission proposes rules that will accommodate the commercial development and use of various radar technologies in the 76-81 GHz band under part 95 of its rules. These proposals include allocation changes to the bands as well as provisions to ensure that new and incumbent operations can share the available frequencies in the band. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following 76-81 GHz band matters;
• Expanding radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band;
• Modifying the Table of Frequency Allocations to provide an allocation for the radiolocation service in the 77.5-78 GHz band;
• Authorizing the expanded radar operations on a licensed basis under part 95;
• Shifting vehicular and other users away from the existing part 15 unlicensed operating model; and
• Evaluating the compatibility of incumbent operations, including that of amateur radio, with radar applications in the 77-81 GHz band.
2. The 76-77.5 GHz and 78-81 GHz bands are allocated to the Radio Astronomy service (RAS) and the Radiolocation service on a primary basis and to the Amateur and Space research (space-to-Earth) services on a secondary basis. The 77.5-78 GHz band is allocated to the Amateur and Amateur-Satellite services on a primary basis and to the Radio astronomy and Space research (space-to-Earth) services on a secondary basis. Discussed further are primary radiolocation services that are allocated in the 76-77.5 GHz and 78-81 GHz bands.
3. These bands are in the region of the radiofrequency spectrum known as “millimeter wave” spectrum. At these frequencies, radio propagation decreases more rapidly with distance than at lower frequencies and antennas that can narrowly focus transmitted energy are practical and of modest size. While the limited range of such transmissions might be a disadvantage for many applications, it does allow frequency reuse within very short distances and thereby enables a higher concentration of transmitters in a geographical area than is possible at lower frequencies.
4. In recent years, the Commission has sought to make frequencies in the 76-81 GHz range available for new and innovative radar applications that can provide important benefits to the public at large. In a series of rulemaking proceedings that date back to 1995, the Commission has established rules to allow the use of this spectrum by automotive collision avoidance radar applications (“vehicular radars”) and radar systems that detect foreign object debris (FOD) at airport facilities (“FOD detection radars”). Vehicular radars are authorized under part 15 of our rules, while FOD detection radars currently are permitted to operate under parts 15 and 90 of the Commission's rules.
5. Vehicular radars can determine the exact distance and relative speed of objects in front of, beside, or behind a car to improve the driver's ability to perceive objects under bad visibility conditions or objects in blind spots. In 1995, the Commission adopted rules to allow the use of the 76-77 GHz band by vehicular radars on an unlicensed basis. These provisions were limited to vehicle-mounted radars; fixed applications were not permitted.
6. On May 24, 2011, Toyota Motor Corporation filed a petition to modify the technical rules for vehicular radars to allow greater flexibility in vehicular radar applications. In response, the Commission issued a
7. Vehicular radar technology has continued to evolve, and industry has developed more enhanced and cost-effective long-range vehicular radars (LRR) in the 76-77 GHz band. Developers of these technologies claim that the existing 1 gigahertz bandwidth used by LRR is insufficient to develop high-resolution short-range vehicular radars (SRR) that can implement safety features such as collision warning, lane departure warning, lane change assistance, blind-spot detection, and pedestrian protection. As background, LRRs have narrow beams with bandwidth less than1 gigahertz and typical spatial resolution of 0.5 meters. Their range of operation is up to 150 to 250 meters. SRRs on the other hand have wide beam with bandwidths up to 4 gigahertz and typical spatial resolution of 0.1 meters. Their range of operation is up to 30 meters.
8. Recently, Bosch filed a petition for rulemaking to modify § 15.253 of the Commission's rules to expand the operation of unlicensed vehicular radar systems from 76-77 GHz to the 76-81 GHz band to develop SRR applications. It claims that the additional 4 gigahertz bandwidth will provide SRR with both frequency separation from LRR and the necessary bandwidth for range accuracy, angular accuracy, and good object discrimination.
9. On July 17, 2012, the Commission issued a public notice seeking comment on Bosch's petition. The petition drew general support from the automotive industry, opposition from an individual amateur radio operator and interest from two developing non-vehicular radio applications for the band. Specifically, eight parties filed comments and three parties submitted ex parte written communications.
10. The Commission has recognized the benefits associated with radars that can detect FOD at airports. Generally speaking, FOD include any substance, debris, or object that can damage aircraft or equipment. FOD can seriously threaten the safety of airport personnel and airline passengers and can have a negative impact on airport logistics and operations. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FOD “has the potential to damage aircraft during critical phases of flight, which can lead to catastrophic loss of life and airframe, and at the very least increased maintenance and operating costs.” Moreover, the direct maintenance costs to airlines caused by FOD have been estimated to be one to four billion dollars per year. The Commission
11. Interest in using the millimeter wave bands to support FOD detection radars dates back to February 23, 2009, when Era Systems Corporation (“Era”) requested for waiver of §§ 2.803, 15.201 and 15.253 of the Commission's rules. In response, the Office of Engineering and Technology issued a public notice seeking comments on Era waiver request and later granted Era a limited waiver to allow the installation of radar systems at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
12. Also in a separate proceeding, Era filed comments asking the Commission to amend its part 15 rules to permit fixed use of 76-77 GHz radars at airports for monitoring air traffic and airport service vehicles only. The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) decided to treat ERA's comments as a Petition for Rulemaking, and consolidated Era and Vehicular Radar petitions into single rule making proceeding in the 76-77 GHz band. During the course of this proceeding, Xsight Systems Ltd. (Xsight) filed
13. Subsequently, as part of the
14. Licensed FOD detection radar can be traced to an August 10, 2010, petition for Rulemaking in which Trex Enterprises Corporation (Trex) asked us to amend part 90 of the Commission'sr rules to permit FOD detection radars to operate in the 78-81 GHz band and to impose service rules that require each airport location to be individually licensed to operate FOD detection radars. The Commission subsequently issued a
15. Our evaluation of the 76-81 GHz band also implicates two outstanding petitions for reconsideration. Both petitions were filed in response to the
16. The first petition concerns the scope of fixed infrastructure applications in the 76-77 GHz band. In the
17. Second, Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell) asks that the Commission clarify that § 15.253(a) of its rules does not prohibit the operation of 76-77 GHz band radar devices located on aircraft while the aircraft are on the ground. Honeywell envisions that its radar application will help aircraft avoid collisions with other aircraft, stationary objects, and service vehicles.
18. Numerous representatives of the automotive industry as well as Xsight Systems, Inc., filed to oppose the Honeywell petition. These parties raised procedural arguments—that the issue of removing the current prohibition on the use of 76-77 GHz frequency range on aircraft or satellite was not properly raised in the proceeding and is otherwise outside the scope of the decision—as well as claims that there is insufficient evidence that both aircraft-mounted and vehicular radars can co-exist in the 76-77 GHz band. In response, Honeywell claims that the issues it raises are within the scope of the Commission's rulemaking proceeding, that there is no technical reason why aircraft-mounted radar cannot operate in the 76-77 GHz band while the aircraft is on ground, and that there is an urgent and recognized public interest need for the anti-collision benefits its aircraft-mounted radars can provide.
19. The Commission originally adopted rules to allow use of the 76-77 GHz band, limited to vehicle-mounted radars. It recognized concerns raised by the Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) of the National Academies about potential interference to radio astronomy operations, and prohibited the use of 76-77 GHz unlicensed devices aboard aircraft and satellites as a way to protect the radio astronomy services. Any change to the restriction on the use of 76-77 GHz unlicensed devices aboard aircraft and satellites was neither part of the
20. The radio astronomy service is a passive service that receives radio waves of cosmic origin to better understand our universe. Astronomical research above 50 GHz is particularly well suited for studies of star formation, the properties of the interstellar medium, the chemical evolution of the Universe, detection of extra-solar planets and many other phenomena. RAS has a mix of primary and secondary allocations that span the 76-81 GHz band. RAS installations are remotely located to provide interference protection from active services. The Commission previously concluded that there is very negligible risk of potential interference to RAS equipment from vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band. The Commission also concluded that unlicensed FOD detection equipment would not cause harmful interference to RAS equipment as both applications only operate fixed stations, are limited
21. In addition to the above services, the Commission also allows amateur radio use within the 76-81 GHz band. Generally speaking, amateur operators use radio spectrum for private recreation, non-commercial exchange of messages, wireless experimentation, self-training, and emergency communication purposes. The amateur radio community previously stated that the frequencies in the 76-81 GHz range (which it identifies as the “4 mm band”) are well suited for experiments relating to short-range high-speed data communication. The Commission has previously considered compatibility issues for amateur operations with vehicular radar and FOD detection radar operations. In light of concerns about interference between amateur operations and vehicular radars, the Commission imposed (and, more recently, maintained) a suspension of the amateur-satellite service allocation in the 76-77 GHz band.
22. An additional permitted operation in the 77-81 GHz band is that of level probing radars (LPRs) which operate on an unlicensed basis under part 15. LPRs are used to measure the amount of various materials contained in storage tanks or vessels or to measure water or other material levels in outdoor locations. They are typically mounted inside storage tanks or on bridges or on other elevated structures in outdoor locations, and emit radio frequency (RF) signals through an antenna aimed downwards to the surface of the substance to be measured. The Commission recently concluded that LPR devices would be able to co-exist successfully with vehicular radars. It based its conclusion on the nature of LPR equipment, which is installed in a downward-looking position at fixed locations, and because the main-beam emission limits have been carefully calculated to avoid harmful interference to other radio services.
23. The Commission undertakes this proceeding to expand the available spectrum for radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band. Specifically, it proposes to add rules for radars in the 76-81 GHz band as licensed services under part 95 of our rules. In doing so, the Commission recognizes that the millimeter wave bands support numerous beneficial services and incumbent operations, including vehicular radars, radio astronomy, FOD detection radars, level probing radars and amateur applications, and that this frequency band could host other additional applications in the future. The following discussion addresses the compatibility issues among services and proposes rules to authorize vehicular radars, FOD detection radars, fixed infrastructure radars and aircraft-mounted radars in the 76-81 GHz band. As with other spectrum users, the Commission seeks to promote the efficient use of these resources by radar applications.
24. The Commission recognizes that the usage of vehicular radar applications has continued to grow and evolve since the Commission issued the
25. The Commission's proposals are informed in large part by the Bosch petition, which was filed on behalf of the “79 GHz Project”—an industry-backed group that seeks to make the 77-81 GHz frequency range available for short-range automotive radar systems on a worldwide basis. In its petition, Bosch describes the development of short-range radar (SRR) applications that are used for both active and passive automotive safety applications. According to Bosch, SRR active safety applications include “stop and follow,” “stop and go,” autonomous braking, firing of restraint systems and pedestrian protection. Passive safety applications include obstacle and pedestrian avoidance, collision warning, lane departure warning, lane change aids, blind spot detection, parking aids and airbag arming. Collectively, collision-warning systems, vehicle environmental sensing systems, and other SRR applications are referred to as a “safety belt” for vehicles. As a practical matter, these applications offer new and tangible ways to enhance the safety of the Nation's drivers, and to meet important automotive safety objectives.
26. The Commission proposes to make additional spectrum available for vehicular radars to accommodate the new SRR applications. As an initial matter, Bosch contends that sharing studies conducted by the automotive industry have concluded that sharing is not achievable between the LRR systems that are currently deployed in the 76-77 GHz band and new high-resolution SRR applications, due to foreseeable saturating interference from LRRs into SRRs (but not vice-versa). Bosch claims that in such a co-channel environment, the SRRs would be jammed due to the lack of frequency separation. Bosch further notes that the 76-77 GHz band has already been designated for vehicular and infrastructure radar systems in the United States pursuant to § 15.253, and in Europe pursuant to ECC Decision ECC/DEC/(02)01 on Road Transport and Traffic Telematic (RTTT) systems, and is used for such LRR applications as Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems, with a maximum bandwidth of 1 gigahertz. For these reasons, it asserts that a common band between the two systems is not feasible, and that the Commission should identify alternate spectrum for SRR use.
27. Bosch identifies a 4 gigahertz-wide band in the 77-81 GHz range for SRR applications. Other automotive interests support Bosch's request. They argue that the existing LRR systems must be supplemented by a wider bandwidth segment of up to 4 gigahertz for SRRs to perform effectively. They contend that greater bandwidth leads to better range separation and object discrimination that enables SRRs to implement functions such as pedestrian/automotive collision avoidance, side impact warning, and roadwork avoidance. Trex, however, urges the Commission to examine closely the need for 4 GHz of bandwidth for automotive radars in the context of ensuing efficient and flexible use of our spectrum resources, and asks that in addressing Bosch's request, the Commission also ensure that any rules that it adopts do not unreasonably restrict additional, valuable uses of the band. The Commission seeks comment on how the FCC can accommodate SRR applications while ensuring efficient and flexible use of spectrum by radar applications.
28. The Commission finds merit in Bosch's request, and proposes to grant SRR applications access to additional spectrum apart and distinct from the spectrum currently used for LRR. In particular, the Commission proposes to provide up to 4 gigahertz of bandwidth for SRRs so that these radars can gather information about objects with a sufficient resolution. Moreover, the extensive catalogue of enhanced features supported by SRR and the expectation that their deployment will become more widespread suggests that the public interest would be served by providing SRR with expanded access to
29. The Commission also believes that the spectrum identified by Bosch—the 77-81 GHz band—is a good fit for vehicular radar. At these millimeter wave frequencies, radio propagation losses increase more rapidly with distance than at lower frequencies and antennas that can narrowly focus transmitted energy are practical and of modest size. While the limited range of such transmissions might appear to be a major disadvantage for many applications, it does allow the reuse of frequencies within very short distances and, thereby enables a higher concentration of transmitters to be located in a geographic area than is possible at lower frequencies. This characteristic makes the band especially desirable as vehicular radars become more common throughout the transportation ecosystem. Moreover, these frequencies are adjacent to the 76-77 GHz band, which has already proven to be well suited for LRR applications. Because manufacturers can adapt equipment already designed to operate in the 76-77 GHz band, they will enjoy the benefits of expanded radar use at a lower cost than if they had to design equipment for a different non-adjacent band.
30. As Bosch notes in its petition, permitting vehicular radars throughout the 76-81 GHz band can also support industry efforts to consolidate vehicular radar into an internationally harmonized frequency band. Materials prepared by the 79 GHz project indicate that the 77-81 GHz band is already available for SRR applications in many parts of the world, including Europe, Australia, Russia, and Chile, and is in progress in many others. Bosch and Continental further note that the 2015 World Radio Communication Conference is expected to adopt an allocation to support the operation of vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz range on a worldwide basis. In response to the Bosch petition, several commenters contend that global spectrum harmonization of LRRs at 76-77 GHz and SRRs at 78-81 GHz will reduce prices and will encourage deployment of automotive radars in lower-cost vehicles. Lastly, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in prior matters regarding vehicular radars operating in the 24 GHz band, encouraged us to continue to monitor technology advancements in the 77-81 GHz range and committed to “work with the Commission to ensure that an adequate frequency allocation in the 77-81 GHz band is available for the operation of vehicular radar systems.”
31. The Commission believes that new proposed radar operations will be compatible with incumbent operations in the 76-81 GHz band. As a general matter, the same technical principles that already allow successful shared operation in the 76-77 GHz band should apply in the larger 76-81 GHz range.
32. In the
33. The Commission also believes that vehicular radar use in the expanded frequency range of 77-81 GHz will be compatible with FOD detection radars and LPR devices in that range. Although the Commission discusses proposals to expand the use of FOD detection radars in detail, it tentatively concludes here the same principles that informed our conclusion in the
34. In its petition, Bosch states that it expects no interference issues between Amateur Radio operation and vehicular radar operations at 77-81 GHz. It notes that it is unconvinced after several meetings with the technical staff of ARRL that there is any “significant incompatibility” and describes how amateur operations in the band “tend to be largely experimental, occurring in geographic areas such as mountaintops and other rural areas where motor vehicle operation is not typical.” However, the Commission has previously recognized evidence of potential interference conflicts between
35. In its proposal, Bosch suggests that the Commission support SRR in the 77-81 GHz band by modifying our existing part 15 rules. Because the existing vehicular radars are governed under our rules for unlicensed devices, they may not cause interference to licensed services, and must accept interference from both licensed and unlicensed users. For reasons discussed in more detail below, this regulatory structure may not be the most appropriate fit. Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on the proposal.
36. The Commission is proposing an approach by which it would establish vehicular radars as a service licensed by rule within part 95 of its rules under a radiolocation allocation, but also seek comment on other options, including authorizing an expansion of vehicular radars under the current part 15 model. The Commission's approach in proposing to migrate vehicular radar services from part 15 to part 95 of its rules is based on several factors. A licensed approach would make the 76-81 GHz vehicular radar services consistent with other transportation-related services currently operating under parts 90 and 95 of the rules—in particular, the 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short-range Communication (DSRC) services, a Department of Transportation initiative to integrate communication and information technology to advance transportation systems. Additionally, Bosch, in its petition, states that SRRs in the 79 GHz band “require a certain (albeit low) degree of interference protection in order to function adequately.” A unified licensed approach for all vehicular radars under our part 95 rules can offer a level of interference protection that the part 15 rules cannot provide. While the Commission notes that Bosch proposes modifying only the existing part 15 rules to support vehicular radar applications, it does not anticipate any opposition from Bosch for a licensing approach under the part 95 rules. Finally, in light of these considerations and the ongoing work to adopt an international allocation to support the operation of vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz range on a worldwide basis, the Commission seeks comment on licensing by rule, pursuant to part 95, the proposed 77-81 GHz vehicular radar services the Commission proposed and on migrating existing 76-77 GHz vehicular radar services to part 95 of the s rules. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on any benefits or drawbacks such an approach would provide and whether it would be appropriate to continue to authorize vehicular radars on an unlicensed basis.
37. The Commission's Personal Radio Services rules, codified in part 95, provide for a variety of personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications. In addition, many of these services are licensed by rule—that is, a user is not required to obtain an individual license document and is instead authorized to operate so long as it does so in accordance with the applicable service rules. Radio services licensed in this manner—such as the Family Radio Service and the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service—are typically designed to support a particular type of application (
38. Under the proposed rules, the Commission would adopt the same emission limits as those defined in its rules for unlicensed vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band for the entire 76-81 GHz band, and to likewise adopt technical specifications that mirror those currently provided under the Commission's part 15 rules for the newly expanded radar band. The Commission does not propose to distinguish between SRR and LRR operations in our rules, but instead rely on the market to determine the appropriate portions of the 76-81 GHz band for particular types of vehicular radar applications. As noted in the Bosch petition, as well as the related comment record, it already appears that there is widespread industry consensus on locating new SRR applications above 77 GHz. The Commission seeks comment on the applicability of these rules for both SRR and LRR across the 76-81 GHz band. Commenters that advocate different rules should provide detailed technical analyses showing how their preferred rules will provide for both SRR and LRR in the band as well as minimize any potential harmful interference with other services. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on our proposal not to specify specific portions of the band for SRR and LRR, but instead to rely on the market and the standards process to determine the best use of the available bandwidth. The Commission is proposing to upgrade the allocation status of the radiolocation service in the 77.5-78 GHz band. Currently the radio astronomy and space research (space-to-Earth) services are allocated on a secondary basis in the 77.5-78 GHz band. Should the radio astronomy and space research services also be upgraded to a primary allocation status in the 77.5-78 GHz band?
39. To support the expanded frequency range for vehicular radar use, the Commission proposes to allocate the 77.5-78 GHz band segment to the radiolocation service on a co-primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use. This would result in a co-primary allocation throughout the entire 77-81 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this allocation proposal.
40. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether vehicular radars should continue to operate as unlicensed devices under the part 15 rules. And, if so, whether FOD detection devices and other radar applications should be authorized in a consistent manner. Given anticipated extensive use of this spectrum, would band sharing under an unlicensed approach without any assurance of protection from harmful interference under the rules? What would be the relative benefits and disadvantages of unlicensed operation compared with the license-by-rule approach under part 95 or with the
41. Lastly, the Commission proposes to consolidate future vehicular radar use into the new 76-81 GHz band as part of our effort to ensure spectrally efficient use of resources. Currently, vehicular radars may operate on an unlicensed basis in the 16.2-17.7 GHz, 23.12-29.0 GHz, 46.7-46.9 GHz, and 76-77 GHz bands. Continental, in its comments supporting the Bosch petition, notes that the use of the 24 GHz band for vehicular radars is being phased out in Europe and that “the effect of the cessation of the use of that band in Europe will strongly affect availability of 24 GHz radars in the United States in the near term.” In addition, the Commission's records indicate no certifications in the 16.2-17.7 GHz and 46.7-46.9 GHz bands, and only three certifications in the 23.12-29 GHz band. This record suggests that there is little or no use of vehicular radars outside the 24 GHz and 76-77 GHz bands.
42. The Commission proposes to grandfather, for the life of the equipment, vehicular radars that are already installed or in use in the 22-29 GHz band range. It may be financially burdensome and logistically difficult for automobile owners to upgrade existing equipment; alternately, discontinuing the use of these radars would mean that drivers might not be able to repair existing equipment or might have to forego useful safety features. The Commission intends to prohibit the certification of new vehicular radars that do not operate in the 76-81 GHz range, effective 30 days from the date of publication of our final rules in the
43. As previously mentioned, FOD at airports includes any substance, debris, or object in a location that can damage aircraft or equipment. FOD detection radars currently operate under part 15 and under part 90 of the Commission's rules in the frequency bands 76-77 GHz (unlicensed) and 78-81 GHz (licensed) respectively. However, the Commission only recently authorized and not yet established technical rules for licensed FOD detection radar operation under part 90.
44. The Commission proposes to consolidate the FOD detection radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band under part 95 on a non-exclusive licensed basis. Also, with the introduction of specific technical requirements for these applications, the burden to facilitate coordination for these applications will be reduced. This proposal will afford an additional one gigahertz of spectrum (77-78 GHz), for these important applications. By providing a contiguous band of spectrum for FOD detection radars, the Commission can foster the development of technologically improved and cost-effective safety measures that will benefit both airport personnel and the general public. The 76-81 GHz band is well suited for FOD detection radar functions, including real-time monitoring of the position and shape of the foreign objects debris on the runways and taxiways.
45. As an initial matter, the Commission believes that the rationale for concluding that increased vehicular radar operations can be expanded throughout the 76-81 GHz band and such operations can co-exist with FOD detection radars is broadly applicable. In other words, there is good reason to conclude that, if vehicular radars can co-exist with FOD detection radars in 76-77 GHz band, then both vehicular radars and FOD detection radars operating under the part 95 rules will be able to operate successfully throughout the 76-81 GHz band. Furthermore, the Commission believes that our proposal will not increase the interference potential to any other authorized services operating in the band. The services that the Commission proposes to reallocate to the 76-81 GHz band typically employ highly directional antennas both to detect vehicles or objects in a particular area and to compensate for the relatively high propagation losses over short distances at these frequencies. The narrow beams utilized by the FOD detection radars, the geographic location of operations, and the very high path losses in this region of the spectrum, should mitigate any potential interference. The location of FOD detection radars should prevent them from illuminating public roads, and should further reduce any likelihood of interference to vehicular radars while enabling airports to improve debris detection on the runways.
46. Our proposal would result in all radar applications operating in the 76-81 GHz range—including vehicular radars and mobile and fixed radars used at airport only for FOD detection and for monitoring aircraft and airport service vehicles—being governed by a single new subpart in part 95. This approach will promote spectrum efficiency and maximize the shared use of our spectrum resource, while also providing a comprehensive and consistent set of rules and policies to govern each of the different types of radar applications. In the case of FOD detection radars, it reduces the application and licensing burdens that will be associated with operation in the 78-81 GHz band under the part 90 model, and it offers the simplicity of operation under a singular licensing model. Also, the limited geographic use area and limited number of FOD detection radars alleviates any burdens associated with the sharing of spectrum. Thus, the Commission believes that the benefits in the unified licensing of FOD detection radars under part 95 outweigh any burdens. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
47. The Commission proposes to grandfather, for the life of the equipment, FOD detection radars that are already installed or in use in the 76-81 GHz band range. The Commission intends to prohibit the certification of new FOD detection radars, operating in the 76-81 GHz range, under part 90 of our Rules effective April 6, 2015. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals.
48. The Commission proposes to adopt rules that would permit fixed radar infrastructure applications as discussed below. Fixed infrastructure radars can detect locations of stopped vehicles or pedestrians on roads, provide obstacle detection capability for industrial machinery including port cranes, mining trucks and locomotives, and provide security monitoring for government and public infrastructures. As previously mentioned, Navtech filed a petition for partial reconsideration asking the Commission to reconsider its decision that limited the use of fixed infrastructure radars in the 76-77 GHz
49. In the
50. The Commission's decision in the
51. In the
52. The Commission seeks to update the record and is especially interested in whether there are interference studies or reports indicating compatibility or lack thereof between vehicular and fixed radars in the 76-77 GHz band. As mentioned before, the Commission continues to believe that where two radars are aiming directly at each other, fixed radar should have no more impact on a vehicular radar then that from a radar located on a stationary vehicle. The Commission seeks comment on its conclusion and is particularly interested in the arguments as to why or why not a fixed radar would be more interfering than a vehicular radar located on a stopped vehicle.
53. While the Commission seeks broad comment on allowing the fixed infrastructure radar use within the 76-81 GHz range, it also asks commenters to address whether fixed infrastructure radars should be limited to the 76-77 GHz band. Because fixed infrastructure radars are intended to detect obstacles that are relatively large (
54. The Commission also seeks comment on expanding the use of radar in the 76-77 GHz band to provide for aircraft-mounted radars used only on the ground. This application, also referred to by Honeywell as “wingtip radar,” is used while aircraft are on the ground to prevent and or mitigate the severity of aircraft wing collisions while planes are moving between gates and runways. This matter tracks the issues Honeywell first raised in its petition for reconsideration in ET Docket No. 10-28.
55. The Commission believes that wingtip radar technologies can provide important public benefits. Aircraft wingtip collisions, which account for approximately 25 percent of all aircraft ground accidents, involve substantial costs, both in terms of repairs to aircraft and ground facilities and in lost time for passengers due to flight delays and cancellations. Honeywell asserts that mitigating the risk of wingtip collisions can reduce these costs and improve safety for both aviation personnel and the travelling public. The use of wingtip radar also appears to support National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations regarding the use of anti-collision aids on aircraft.
56. The Commission seeks to develop a full record on the compatibility of aircraft-mounted radar used only on the ground with the other applications in the 76-81 GHz band. At the time, Honeywell filed its petition, many automotive radar supporters expressed concern about the potential for interference. However, because the Commission expects that wingtip radars will be used in the same locations as FOD detection radars (that is, on airport property and, in the case of aircraft-mounted radars, only during taxi and other ground activities), and because the Commission has already tentatively concluded that FOD detection radars and automotive radars can successfully co-exist, it also tentatively concludes that aircraft-mounted radars should likewise be compatible with vehicular radars.
57. As an initial matter, the Commission notes that there are functional differences between the FOD detection radar and wingtip radar applications that may promote compatibility between the two operations: wingtip radars can be useful during times of aircraft movement, such as taxiing between runways and ramp areas and while being pushed out of gates, while FOD detection appear to have high value in runway environments and before takeoff and landing. Therefore, it may be possible to create time and space separation between the FOD detection radar and wingtip radar application uses to reduce the potential for interference. In addition, the nature of the millimeter wave bands, as the Commission discussed
58. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be feasible to employ an automatic shut-off mechanism for wingtip radars that would prevent radar operation any time the aircraft is not on the ground. Are there existing aircraft components (such as altimeters) that could be used in conjunction with such a system, and if so, how easily could wingtip radar be integrated with such devices? Could such an automated system be easily deployable on all types of aircraft (
59. While the Commission seeks broad comment on allowing wingtip radar use within the 76-81 GHz range, it notes that the wingtip radar may only require bandwidth of one gigahertz or less to detect obstacles in its path. For this reason, the Commission proposes to allow wingtip radars to operate with a bandwidth of 1 gigahertz in the 76-77 GHz band. Alternatively, and similar to the fixed radar proposals discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on other ways the it could accommodate wingtip radars. Such approaches could include permitting wingtip radars to operate in a different one gigahertz frequency range between 77-81 GHz band, or allowing them in the entire 76-81 GHz band but with limited bandwidth usage of one Gigahertz or less over any portion of the band. Our overall objective is to promote efficient use of the spectrum and facilitate development of technologies that will improve airport operations and provide important benefits to both airport personnel and the general public.
60. In conjunction with our efforts to develop a comprehensive policy for use of the 76-81 GHz band, the Commission seeks comment on how it should structure future amateur 4 mm band use. As background, the Commission decided to temporarily restrict amateur station access to the 76-77 GHz band in 1998 to ensure against potential interference to what were then newly developing vehicular radar systems. The Commission observed that amateur station transmissions in the 76-77 GHz were not significant at the time, reasoned that its action would not have an immediate impact on amateur operators, and stated that it planned to revisit the issue later. In 2004, the Commission extended the amateur-satellite allocation suspension, citing interference issues and suggesting that it would be useful to consider the development of technical sharing criteria for the band. Bosch, in its petition, does not seek to alter the current 76-77 GHz arrangement.
61. Based on our proposals for new vehicular and other radars in the 77-81 GHz band, the Commission proposes to adopt a comprehensive approach for amateur radio use on these frequencies. Given the continuing lack of technical sharing criteria or any other evidence of compatibility, should the Commission extend the 76-77 GHz amateur suspension to the entire 76-81 GHz band? If so, should the Commission modify the current amateur suspension of use of the 76-77 GHz band by removing all amateur allocations from the 76-81 GHz band? Alternately, would it be possible to lift our suspension of the amateur service and conduct both amateur and vehicular radar operations in the entire 76-81 GHz band? The Commission tentatively concludes that there is no apparent technical reason to treat the 76-77 GHz and the 77-81 GHz bands differently. Commenters who believe that the Commission should continue to distinguish between the two bands should explain the reasons for doing so. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other approaches that would achieve compatibility between the amateur and radiolocation services within the 76-81 GHz band that the Commission has not discussed above.
62. Bosch, in its petition, states that it “is unconvinced, after several meetings with technical staff of ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio, that there is any significant incompatibility between Amateur Radio and SRR operation at 79 GHz.” It says the nature of amateur use of this spectrum—largely experimental and occurring on mountaintops and locations where motor vehicle operation is not typical—will provide sufficient geographic separation to prevent interference from amateur users to new vehicular radar operations above 77 GHz. However, Bosch also notes that European regulators previously determined “that the use of SRR within the band 77-81 may be incompatible with the Radio Amateur Service,” but also concluded that amateur users could be accommodated in the 75.5-76 GHz band (which is not currently available in the U.S.). The Commission seeks comment on these points. Additionally, to help better inform its decision, the Commission seeks to develop a record on the types of amateur use, and the extent of such use, that is currently undertaken in the amateur 4 mm band.
63. To the extent that commenters believe that amateur operators can continue to use the millimeter band, the Commission seeks comment on what additional rule modifications it would have to adopt to realize successful shared use of the entire band. For example, our existing service rules would permit amateur operators to transmit with significantly higher power than other proposed operations. Would adopting the same emission limits for amateur operations as the Commission proposed for other services in this band reduce the potential for mutual interference? Are there any additional conforming edits to the part 97 amateur radio service rules that the Commission would have to implement?
64. If, instead, the Commission were to remove all amateur allocations from the 76-81 GHz range, it seeks comment on alternate spectrum that it might be able to make available in this general region. Bosch recommends an amateur allocation at 75.5-76 GHz, arguing that such an allocation would permit re-accommodation of any displaced Amateur Radio operators as the result of aggregate noise from SRRs in the 79 GHz band, and harmonize the United States Amateur allocation with that in ITU Region 1 and in other areas of the world. The Commission seeks comment on allocating the 75.5-76 GHz band to the amateur service if the Commission were to remove the amateur allocation, including amateur satellite, in the 76-81 GHz band.
65. The Commission set forth proposed rules that would license vehicular and FOD detection radars in the 76-81 GHz band and aircraft-mounted and fixed infrastructure radars in the 76-77 GHz band as licensed services under part 95 of our rules. The Commission also proposes to add a primary allocation for radiolocation in the 77.5-78 GHz band. The Commission proposes technical rules that would be appropriate for a part 95 licensed-by-rule approach.
66. In general, the proposed technical rules are consistent with those already set forth for existing vehicular radar and FOD detection radars under part 15 of our rules, including that the average and peak emission limits for vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz band not to exceed 88 µW/cm
67. Because the existing part 95 rules do not specify rules for vehicular, FOD detection, aircraft-mounted and fixed infrastructure radar operations, the Commission propose to create a new subpart of part 95, titled the 76-81 GHz radar service, that will accommodate all authorized radar types within the band, but that will not otherwise distinguish among the different radar types. Our proposed service rules are intended to facilitate the industry in developing the various radar types in their authorized specific frequency ranges. For example, in the case of vehicular radars, the Commission leaves it up to the automotive industry to optimize the use of the 76-81 GHz frequency band and develop the SRR and LRR vehicular radar application within the band. Alternately, the Commission seeks comment on whether distinctive or differentiating rules for the different radars would be appropriate and if so, what those rules should be.
68. To fully implement our proposal to accommodate radars under part 95, the Commission also proposes to make additional modifications to parts 1, 2, 15, and 90 of our rules. All of our proposed rule modifications are shown in this NPRM. The Commission seeks comment on all of these proposals, and invites commenters to identify any additional rules that the Commission would need to update to accomplish our objectives.
69. As part of our comprehensive look at shared use of the 76-81 GHz band, the Commission has incorporated matters that were first raised in pleadings filed in ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90—namely Honeywell Aircraft's Petition relating to aircraft-mounted radar applications and Navtech's Fixed Radar Petition. Although the Commission believes that there is merit in considering the issues raised by Honeywell and Navtech in the context of the
70. As background, Honeywell first submitted a letter to the Office of Engineering and Technology seeking clarification of the rules adopted in the
71. Numerous representatives of the automotive industry as well as Xsight Systems, Inc., filed to oppose the Honeywell petition. These parties raised procedural arguments—that the issue of removing the current prohibition on the use of 76-77 GHz frequency range on aircraft or satellite was not properly raised in the proceeding and is otherwise outside the scope of the decision—as well as claims that there is insufficient evidence that both aircraft-mounted and vehicular radars can co-exist in the 76-77 GHz band. In response, Honeywell claims that the issues it raises are within the scope of the Commission's rulemaking proceeding, that there is no technical reason why aircraft-mounted radar cannot operate in the 76-77 GHz band while the aircraft is on ground, and that there is an urgent and recognized public interest need for the anti-collision benefits its aircraft-mounted radars can provide.
72. The Commission deny Honeywell's petition. Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules provide three ways in which a petition for reconsideration can be granted, and none of these have been met. Honeywell has not shown that its petition relies on facts regarding fixed radar use which had not previously been presented to the Commission, nor does it show that its petition relies on facts that relate to events that changed since Honeywell had the last opportunity to present its facts regarding fixed radar use. Indeed, Honeywell did not previously participate in the proceeding before filing its letter. Moreover, it does not serve the public interest to consider Honeywell's facts and arguments via reconsideration of the existing dockets. The Commission agrees with the commenters who opposed the petition that there may be technical and policy considerations associated with aircraft-mounted radar applications that parties could not have reasonably anticipated nor had an opportunity to address. Any public interest associated with the consideration of Honeywell's arguments will be fully captured and considered within the new docket that the Commission initiates with this rulemaking By doing so, it can ensure that another aspect of the public interest is served—that is, that all interested parties have ample notice and comment opportunities with respect to the
73. Similarly, the Commission agrees with those parties who oppose the Navtech pleading as procedurally defective. The Commission stated in the in the
74. The Commission emphasize that our decision does not address whether there are substantive merits to these claims. Such issues are fully incorporated into the proposals the Commission makes in conjunction with the
75. Finally, because the Commission is considering several different types of radar applications that would share use within the millimeter wave bands, and because it is proposing a consolidated licensing scheme under our part 95 rules, the Commission concludes that it can best promote efficiency and reduce administrative burdens by opening a new docket, ET Docket No. 15-26. Here, the Commission will consider ongoing and future matters pertaining to the entire 76-81 GHz band in a consolidated and comprehensive manner. To that end, and in connection with its decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, the Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 (pertaining to vehicular radar) and WT Docket No. 11-202 (addressing FOD detection radar applications). The Commission concludes that future decisions regarding matters that it previously considered within those dockets can more practically be made within the comprehensive ET Docket No. 15-26 proceeding.
76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
77. This Notice responds to petitions for rulemaking filed by Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) requesting modifications to § 15.253 of the rules to extend operating frequency for vehicular radar systems from 76-77 GHz to the 76-81 GHz band. Vehicular radars can determine the exact distance and relative speed of objects in front of, beside, or behind a car to improve the driver's ability to perceive objects under bad visibility conditions or objects that are in blind spots. Some examples of vehicular radar systems include collision warning and mitigation systems, blind spot detection systems, lane change assist, and parking aid systems. The Notice proposes to extend the operating frequency for unlicensed vehicular radar systems from 76-77 GHz to 76-81 GHz. These modifications to the rules will provide more efficient use of spectrum, and enable the automotive industries to develop enhanced safety measures for drivers and the general public.
78. Airports are challenged with managing increasing congestion on the ground. These rule modification will add to the tools that enhance an airport's ability to determine the location of airplanes and airport ground vehicles that are operating in taxiways and runways. The presence of foreign object debris (FOD) in an airport's air operations area (AOA) poses a significant threat to the safety of air travel. Foreign object debris on taxiways and runways has the potential to damage aircraft during the critical phases of takeoffs and landings, which can lead to catastrophic loss of life and at the very least increased maintenance and operating costs.
79. Our rule modifications also propose to expand the use of radar in the 76-77 GHz band to aircraft-mounted radars. This application, also referred to as “wingtip radar” and used only while aircraft are on the ground, is intended to prevent or mitigate the severity of aircraft wing collisions while the plane is taxiing tarmacs. Mitigating the risk of wingtip collisions can reduce costs and improve safety for both aviation personnel and the travelling public.
80. There is new demand for fixed infrastructure radar applications beyond airport locations. Some of these applications are monitoring tunnels or bridges for stopped vehicles, providing collision warning systems for ship-to-shore cranes and providing train detection for automatic train control.
81. This action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337.
82. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
83.
84. Radars operating in the 76-81 GHz band are required to be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and importation, and the NPRM proposes no change to that requirement.
85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
86. The proposals contained in this NPRM are deregulatory in nature, which we expect will simplify compliance requirements for all parties, particularly small entities, and permit the development of improved radar systems. Extending the frequency for unlicensed vehicular radar from 76-77 GHz to 76-81 GHz will enable global spectrum harmonization of LRRs at 76-77 GHz and SRRs at 77-81 GHz that will reduce prices and encourage deployment of automotive radars in lower-cost vehicles. Consolidating FOD detection radars to operate under part 95 in lieu of current rules will reduce unnecessary burdens for the general public and will provide increased spectrum efficiency.
87. None.
88. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 302, and 303(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302a, and 303(f), that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
89. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 405, the petitions for reconsideration filed by Honeywell and Navtech in ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90
90. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 303, that ET Docket Nos. 10-28 and 11-90 and WT Docket No. 11-202
91. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
Administrative practice and procedure, Radio, Unlicensed services.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 90, and 95 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 79
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular
(ii) Unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
(c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the 76-81 GHz Radar Band Service pursuant to part 95 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if:
(2) Unlicensed personal communications service devices, unlicensed millimeter wave devices and unlicensed NII devices authorized under §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if their ERP is 3 watts or more or if they meet the definition of a portable device as specified in § 2.1093(b) requiring evaluation under the provisions of that section.
(c)(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), and the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service, pursuant to subparts H, I, and M of part 95 of this chapter, respectively, and unlicensed personal communication service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a and 549.
(i) Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
(j) Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, and 307(e).
(h) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service. The rules for this service are contained in Subpart M of this part. The 76-81 GHz Radar Service applications include, but are not limited to, vehicular radars and aircraft-mounted radars used for collision avoidance and other safety applications, as well as fixed radars used for foreign object debris detection at airports and for other purposes.
This section provides the technical standards to which each transmitter (apparatus that converts electrical energy received from a source into RF (radio frequency) energy capable of being radiated) used or intended to be used in a station authorized in any of the Personal Radio Services must comply. This section also provides requirements for obtaining certification for such transmitters. The Personal Radio Services are the GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service)—subpart A, the Family Radio Service (FRS)—subpart B, the R/C (Radio Control Radio Service)—subpart C, the CB (Citizens Band Radio Service)—subpart D, the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS)—subpart G, the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS)—subpart H, the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio)—subpart I, the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS)—subpart J, Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-OBUs)—subpart L, and the 76-81 GHz Radar Service—subpart M.
(i) Each 76-81 GHz Radar Service transmitter must be certified.
Any entity may request certification for its transmitter when the transmitter is used in the GMRS, FRS, R/C, CB, 218-219 MHz Service, LPRS, MURS, or MedRadio Service following the procedures in part 2 of this chapter. Dedicated Short-Range Communications Service On-Board Units (DSRCS-OBUs) must be certified in accordance with subpart L of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. 76-81 GHz Radar Service transmitters must be certified in accordance with subpart M of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.
Transmitters in the 76-81 GHz Radar Service may operate within the 76-81 GHz frequency band. Specific frequency and bandwidth limitations are specified in subpart M of this part.
(l) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.
(h) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.
(b) The power of each unwanted emission shall be less than TP as specified in the applicable paragraphs listed in the following table:
(g) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.
(g) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.
(j) The 76-81 GHz Radar Service is governed under subpart M of this part.
Sections 95.643 through 95.655 do not apply to certification of vehicular radar devices and fixed radar devices operating in the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service. These devices must be certified in accordance with subpart M of this part and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.
This subpart sets out the regulations governing the operation of vehicular and fixed radars operating within the band 76.0-81 GHz. The following uses are permitted:
In the 76-81 GHz band: vehicle-mounted field disturbance sensors used as vehicular radar systems; and mobile and fixed radar systems used at airport locations for foreign object debris detection on runways and for monitoring aircraft and service vehicles on taxiways and other airport vehicle service areas that have no public vehicle access. In the 76-77 GHz band: Fixed radars (other than the type described above), and radars that are mounted on aircraft and that are operated only while the aircraft is on the ground.
The transmission of data is permitted provided the primary mode of operation is as a field disturbance sensor. Voice and video transmissions are prohibited.
A station is not required to transmit a station identification announcement.
All 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service equipment must be made available for inspection upon request by an authorized FCC representative.
The operation of a 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service transmitter under this part is authorized anywhere CB station operation is permitted under § 95.405 of this part.
The user's manual or instruction manual for an intentional or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment. In cases where the manual is provided only in a form other than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the information required by this section may be included in the manual in that alternative form, provided the user can reasonably be expected to have the capability to access information in that form.
(a) The frequencies authorized to 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service systems by this part are available on a shared basis only and will not be assigned for the exclusive use of any entity. Users should select and use frequencies in a manner that mitigates the risk of potential interference between authorized services.
(a) The fundamental radiated emission limits within the band 76-81 GHz provided in this section are expressed in terms of Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) and are as follows:
(1) The maximum power (EIRP) within the bands specified in this section shall not exceed 50 dBm based on measurements employing a power averaging detector with a 1 MHz RBW.
(2) The maximum peak power (EIRP) within the bands specified in this section shall not exceed 55 dBm based on measurements employing a peak detector with a 1 MHz RBW.
(b) The unwanted emissions outside the operating band, 76-81 GHz, shall consist solely of spurious emissions and shall not exceed the following:
(1) Radiated emissions below 40 GHz shall not exceed the field strength as shown in the following emission table:
(i) In the emission table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the tighter limit applies at the band edges.
(ii) The limits in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are based on the frequency of the unwanted emission and not the fundamental frequency. However, the level of any unwanted emissions shall not exceed the level of the fundamental frequency.
(iii) The emission limits shown in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are based on measurements employing a CISPR quasi-peak detector except for the frequency bands 9.0-90.0 kHz, 110.0-
(2) The power density of radiated emissions outside the operating band above 40.0 GHz shall not exceed the following employing an average detector with a 1 MHz RBW:
(i) For radiated emissions between 40 and 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the band 76-81 GHz: 600 pW/cm
(ii) For radiated emissions above 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band: 1000 pW/cm
(3) For field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band, the spectrum shall be investigated up to 231.0 GHz.
(c) Fundamental emissions must be contained within the frequency bands specified in this section during all conditions of operation. Equipment is presumed to operate over the temperature range −20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage, unless justification is presented to demonstrate otherwise.
Regardless of the power density levels permitted under this subpart, devices operating under the provisions of this subpart are subject to the radiofrequency radiation exposure requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of advisory committee public meetings.
FMCSA announces the meeting schedule for the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), established to complete a negotiated rulemaking on Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) for individuals who want to operate Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs). ELDTAC is a negotiated rulemaking committee established to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement section 32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) concerning ELDT standards for individuals applying for a commercial driver's license (CDL) or CDL upgrade. The meetings will be held Thursday-Friday, March 19-20, April 9-10 and 23-24, and May 14-15 and 28-29, 2015. The meetings are open to the public for their entirety.
The meetings will be held Thursday-Friday, March 19-20, April 9-10 and 23-24, and May 14-15 and 28-29, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (E.T.), on Thursdays and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., E.T., on Fridays at various locations in Washington, DC, and Arlington, VA. Specific locations and an agenda for each meeting will be posted in advance of the meetings at
Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2551,
Section 32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012)) requires FMCSA to establish new regulations concerning ELDT. MAP-21 requires “that the training regulations address knowledge and skills for motor vehicle operation, specific requirements for hazmat and passenger endorsements, create a certificate system for meeting requirements, and require training providers to demonstrate that their training meets uniform standards.” The new requirements would apply to individuals seeking a CDL to operate CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5.
On August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49044), FMCSA announced that the Agency would explore the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking concerning entry-level driver training for drivers of CMVs. The Agency announced the hiring of a convener to speak with interested parties about the feasibility of conducting an ELDT negotiated rulemaking and requested public comments by September 18, 2014. As part of the first step in this process, the convener conducted these interviews and submitted a report to the Agency on November 26, 2014, regarding the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking. The convening report is available both in the rulemaking docket at FMCSA-2007-27748 and on the Internet at
On December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73273), FMCSA announced its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to negotiate and develop proposed regulations to implement the MAP-21 provision concerning ELDT based on the recommendations of the convener. On February 12, 2015 (80 FR 7814), FMCSA announced the appointment of members to the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC) established to complete a negotiated rulemaking on ELDT for individuals who want to operate CMVs.
The ELDTAC is established by charter in accordance with the Federal Advisory committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx signed the ELDTAC charter on January 15, 2015, which provides up to 2 years for the Committee's duration, in accordance with section 14 of FACA. Additionally, as the ELDTAC is a negotiated rulemaking committee (“Reg Neg”), it
In its December 10, 2014,
Oral comments from the public will be heard during the meeting, as managed by the Reg Neg facilitator.
Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting one week prior to each meeting to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2007-27748. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2007-27748). You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
DOT posts comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
In coordination with the Reg Neg facilitator, FMCSA has developed this schedule of committee meetings, running through May 2015.
FMCSA intends to complete the Reg Neg process for the proposed rule within the first half of 2015 and to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) this year, followed by a Final Rule in 2016. After the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Agency will draft the NPRM, which is expected to take approximately 6-8 weeks, depending on the degree of consensus on the issues and the supporting data developed by the committee. The NPRM will then be reviewed by DOT's Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Agency will then publish the NPRM for public comment.
Following the close of the public comment period the Agency will evaluate and respond to public comments as it drafts a final rule, which will also undergo Departmental and OMB review. Although the time needed to address public comments to an NPRM that has been developed through a successful negotiated rulemaking process is typically shorter than for rules conducted through the ordinary informal notice and comment process, the Agency must nonetheless address substantive public comments in the final rule, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. While the Agency cannot state with certainty the time required to complete the Reg Neg process and notice and comment rulemaking, the target date for publication of an NPRM is October 15, 2015.
Farm Service Agency and Commodity Credit Corporation.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection that supports the FSA and CCC Debt Settlement Policies and Procedure regulations.
We will consider comments that we receive by May 5, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include the date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Thomas F. Harris at the above address.
Thomas F. Harris II, (202) 772-6014. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice only).
During the past two years, $13,930,548.07 in debt collection for Farm Programs and for the Commodity Office was facilitated by the use of this requested information. Eighty four (84) Promissory Notes were established between debtors and FSA and CCC from 10/01/2013 to 10/01/2014. Total active Note amount for the past two years is presently 305 total Promissory Notes (includes beginning outstanding notes (213); total notes established (84); notes defaulted (1), notes paid off in full (25); notes paid, small balance loans (-25); notes written off (07) and notes discharged in Bankruptcy (00)) with a beginning outstanding amount in 2014 of $31,131,509.78, and an ending outstanding amount of $13,930,584.07. Collections for FSA and CCC from FSA/CCC offices, DOJ actions, and Voluntary Payments totaled $3,416,702.42. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) requires the head of an agency to take all appropriate steps to collect delinquent debts before discharging the debts. The current information collection forms and formats have been successfully used for the past several years and have become familiar tools for both agency employees and producers. Thus, adequate forms and formats already exist and are in use. Developing new forms and formats would be costly and is not required to meet the demands of the DCIA. Public comment is requested on how the forms and process may be improved, as specified below. There are no changes to the information collection since the last OMB approval.
The formula used to calculate the total burden hour is estimated average time per responses hours times total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 6, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, is preparing the Flathead National Forest's revised land management plan (forest plan) and an amendment to provide relevant direction from the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy into the forest plans for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark and Lolo National Forests. The Forest Service will prepare a single environmental impact statement (EIS) for its revised forest plan and the amendment.
This notice briefly describes the proposed action based on the need to change the existing plans, the nature of the decision to be made, and information concerning public participation. This notice also provides estimated dates for filing the EIS, the name and address of the responsible agency officials, and the individuals who can provide additional information. Finally, this notice identifies the applicable planning rule that will be used for completing the plan revision and amendment.
The revised Flathead forest plan will supersede the existing forest plan that was approved by the Regional Forester in 1986, and amended more than 20 times since. The existing Flathead forest plan will remain in effect until the revised forest plan takes effect. The management direction pertaining to grizzly bear within the current forest plans of the Helena National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in 1986; Kootenai National Forest, approved by the Regional Forester in
In response to this notice, we are asking for comments on the proposed action so we may refine the proposed action and identify possible alternatives to the proposed action.
Comments concerning the scope of the proposed action must be received by May 5, 2015. The draft EIS is expected in January 2016 and the final EIS is expected in June 2017.
Send or deliver written comments to the Flathead National Forest Supervisor's Office, Attn: Forest Plan Revision, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901. Comments may also be sent via email to
Joe Krueger, Forest Planner, Flathead National Forest, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, Montana 59901, (406) 758-5243, or 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 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The Forest Service is preparing the Flathead National Forest revised land management plan (forest plan) and an amendment to provide relevant direction from the North Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy into the forest plans for the Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark and Lolo National Forests. The full proposed action for the Flathead National Forest's revised forest plan includes forest-wide, geographic area, and management area desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and the suitability of lands for specific multiple uses, including, for example, those lands suitable for timber production. The proposed action includes estimates of the long-term sustained yield and planned sale quantity for the forest. The proposed action includes a description of the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, the identification of priority restoration watersheds, and suitability of national forest lands to support a variety of proposed and possible actions that may occur on the plan area over the life of the plan. The proposed action also identifies a monitoring program. The proposed action includes 188,206 acres to be recommended to Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and 22 rivers for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The need for the proposed action is twofold: (1) Significant changes have occurred in conditions and demands since the Flathead's 1986 Forest Plan and (2) to ensure the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms regarding habitat protection across the national forests in the NCDE in support of the de-listing of the grizzly bear. Several areas where changes are needed in the Flathead NF plan were brought to the forefront by the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule for the National Forest System; findings from the development of the Assessment of the Flathead National Forest (a precursor document in the planning process that identified and evaluated the existing condition across the forest landscape); changes in conditions and demands since the 1986 Forest Plan; and public concerns to date.
The 2012 Planning Rule, which became effective May 9, 2012, requires inclusion of plan components, including standards or guidelines, that address social and economic sustainability, ecosystem services, and multiple uses integrated with the plan components for ecological sustainability and species diversity. Social and economic management direction is needed to provide people and communities with a range of social and economic benefits for present and future generations. As an example, since approval of the Flathead's 1986 Forest Plan, the role of timber harvest in meeting ecosystem management and social and economic objectives has changed. The 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest to undertake a process to identify lands within the plan area for timber production suitability, and from this process, the Forest will develop plan components for lands suitable for timber production and for lands where timber harvest is appropriate for purposes other than timber production. To meet the Planning Rule's requirement to provide for ecological sustainability, management direction is needed that addresses ecosystem diversity (including key ecosystem characteristics and their integrity), in light of changes in climate, fuels, vegetation management strategies, and future environmental conditions. Revised plan components are needed that focus on maintaining or restoring vegetation and ecosystems to provide for species diversity including threatened and endangered species, species of conservation concern, and species of public interest. Additionally, comprehensive management direction is needed to address suitability of certain areas for particular uses, address access and sustainable recreation, provide for the management of existing and anticipated uses, as well as protect resources. During the plan revision process, the 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest Service to undertake processes to identify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion on the National Wilderness Preservation System and identify eligible rivers for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, federal agencies are directed to use their authorities to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species. The Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species in 2000. Since that time, the Flathead Forest Plan has been amended with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA FS 2007), the USFWS designated and updated Canada lynx critical habitat (USDI FWS 2009, 2014), and the Lynx Conservation and Assessment Strategy has been updated (Lynx Biology Team 2013). Thus, the Forest Plan needs to integrate recent and relevant information for Canada lynx to its plan.
Habitat conditions and management on the Flathead, Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests have contributed importantly to the increased population size and improved status of the grizzly bear across the NCDE. Supporting a healthy, recovered grizzly bear population will depend on continued, effective management of the NCDE grizzly bear's habitat. In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's announced the availability of a draft Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy for the NCDE population for public review and input. When finalized, the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy will become the post-delisting management plan for the
The Flathead National Forest began public participation when developing the Assessment of the Flathead National Forest. To facilitate local participation, the Forest contracted with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in 2012 to develop a collaborative stakeholder engagement process. The Institute conducted assessments with Forest Service employees and a representative group of key stakeholders to determine their willingness to engage in a collaborative process convened by a neutral, third party. The Meridian Institute was selected to serve in that capacity and facilitated numerous topical work groups, an interagency group, and meetings to bring together all work groups and interested citizens. Also, as part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service led field trips and held open house sessions to discuss existing information and trends related to a variety of conditions found on the forest. The information acquired from the public involvement process was used to help develop the Flathead NF forest plan revision proposed action.
The responsible official who will approve the Record of Decision for the Flathead NF revised forest plan is Sharon Labreque, Acting Forest Supervisor for the Flathead National Forest, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, MT 59901, (406) 758-5208. The responsible officials who will approve the Record of Decision for the Amendment are: William Avey, Forest Supervisor for the Helena and Lewis and Clark National Forests Supervisor's Office, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602, (406) 449-5201; Christopher S. Savage, Forest Supervisor for the Kootenai National Forest, 31374 U.S. Highway 2, Libby, MT 59923-3022, (406) 293-6211; and Timothy Garcia, Forest Supervisor for the Lolo National Forest, 24 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59803, (406) 329-3750.
For the Flathead forest plan revision, the responsible official will decide whether the required plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines) are sufficient to promote the ecological integrity and sustainability of the Flathead National Forest's ecosystems, watersheds, and diverse plant and animal communities. In addition, the responsible official will decide if the plan provides sufficient management guidance to contribute to social and economic sustainability, to provide people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses including a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future. Standards, guidelines, and other direction related to conservation of threatened and endangered species, (
For the amendment component of the proposed action, the responsible officials will decide whether desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and monitoring requirements relevant to national forest grizzly bear habitat management in the NCDE are necessary and appropriate to amend the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo forest plans. The Kootenai National Forest Plan spans two grizzly bear ecosystems and the Lolo National Forest Plan spans three. The proposed action applies only to the NCDE. No changes in forest plan direction are being considered within the Cabinet-Yaak or Bitterroot recovery areas.
This proposed action is programmatic in nature and guides future implementation of site-specific projects. Additional NEPA compliance would be required for site-specific projects as part of a two-stage decision making process (Council of Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA; 40 CFR 1508.23, 42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(C)), 36 CFR 219.7(f)).
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. We are seeking your input to continue to develop the Flathead NF revised plan and for NCDE grizzly bear habitat management for the four amendment forests. In addition to requesting comments specific to the Flathead NF proposed action, we are also seeking comments regarding the potential list of species of conservation concern, the identified recommended wilderness acres and eligible wild and scenic rivers, as well as other significant issues.
The following community meetings are planned to provide additional information and address questions related to the revision and amendment proposed action:
• March 17, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Flathead National Forest Supervisors Office, 650 Wolfpack Way, Kalispell, MT 59901.
• March 19, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Riverstone Family Lodge, 6370 US Hwy 93N, Eureka, MT 59917.
• April 7, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Seeley Lake Community Center, Seely Lake, MT 59868.
• April 8, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Fort Missoula Pavilion, Missoula, MT 59804.
• April 9, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Superior Ranger Station Conference Room, Superior, MT 59872.
• April 14, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Lincoln Community Hall, 404 Main St., Lincoln, MT 59639.
• April 15, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m., Stage Stop Inn, 1005 Main Ave. North, Choteau, MT 59422.
Changes to the meeting schedule will be communicated on the Flathead Forest Plan revision Web page at
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the
Only those individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to the Flathead NF plan revision and the four amendments during the opportunities provided for public comment (beginning with this NOI), will be eligible to file an objection (36 CFR 219.53(a)). The decision to approve the revised forest plan for the Flathead National Forest and the amendment for the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 subpart B (219.50 to 219.62).
The Flathead National Forest plan revision Web site (
The 2012 Planning Rule is explained in more detail on the Forest Service's Web site at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Additional information concerning the Committee, including the meeting agenda, supporting documents and minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at
The teleconference will be held on March 17, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST). The meeting is subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the
Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-1190. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Finalize April meeting agenda—topics, presentations and logisitics, and
2. National Association of Conservation Districts presentation on their national survey results.
The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing 10 days before the planned meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250 or by email to
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request a new information collection for a survey of consumers about safe food handling instructions.
Submit comments on or before May 5, 2015.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Lee W. Puricelli, Program Analyst, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6073, South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Education (USDA, FSIS, OPACE) ensures that all segments of the farm-to-table chain receive valuable food safety information. The consumer education programs developed by OPACE's Food Safety Education Staff informs the public on how to safely handle, prepare, and store meat, poultry, and egg products to minimize incidence of foodborne illness.
Safe-handling instructions are required on a product if the product's meat or poultry component is raw or partially cooked (
In response to inquiries from consumer groups and other stakeholders for more information about potential changes to the safe-handling instructions regulations, FSIS sent a letter, in November 2013, to consumer groups, industry groups and academia posing questions about the current safe-handling instructions and how to revise them. The stakeholder comments supported the need for consumer testing of any changes to safe-handling instructions. FSIS presented a summary of the stakeholders suggestions to the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) in January 2014.
The feedback FSIS received from the NACMPI meeting echoed the stakeholders' emphasis of the necessity for consumer testing. In addition, NACMPI recommended that FSIS should consider requiring crucial endpoint temperatures on the label. The current safe-handling instructions use “Cook Thoroughly” as a simple, single statement appropriate to all products. This statement was used because, at the time of development, product label size limitations and many varying endpoint temperatures prevented an easy to understand label with endpoint cooking temperatures. Instead of multiple endpoint temperatures, FSIS now recommends only three internal minimal temperatures: one for all poultry (165 °F), one for ground red meat (160 °F), and one for all whole-muscle red meat (145 °F and hold for 3 minutes). With only three temperature recommendations, the endpoint temperature information could be more easily incorporated into the safe-handling instructions through rulemaking than when the current instructions were finalized in 1994. Other possible changes to the safe-handling instructions might include incorporating new icons developed and branded under USDA's Food Safe Families campaign and providing a Web link or phone number for more information on food safety.
The NACMPI Subcommittee on Food Handling Labels recommended that FSIS pursue changes in the existing safe-handling instructions in the regulations and conduct consumer testing to determine the effectiveness of any revisions to the instructions.
To inform decisions about possible modifications to the safe-handling instructions, FSIS is requesting approval for a new information collection to conduct consumer focus groups. These focus groups will help FSIS understand what information in the instructions could better enable consumers to safely handle and prepare raw and partially cooked meat and poultry at home.
FSIS has contracted with RTI International to conduct six consumer focus groups to gather information on consumers' understanding and use of the current safe-handling instructions and responses to possible revisions to the instructions. To provide geographic diversity, FSIS will conduct two focus groups in three different geographic locations each with two focus groups (for a total of six). Locations will be representative of three of the four main geographical areas of the country (East Coast, South, Midwest, and West Coast). In each location, FSIS will conduct one focus group with English-speaking adults and one focus group with Spanish-speaking adults. The focus groups will include individuals at-risk for foodborne illness (
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence, SW., Room 6077, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, (202)690-6510.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which is available online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
(202) 690-7442.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make this
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 6, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of hearing testimony from a balanced panel of interested parties on seclusion and restraint of children with disabilities in Kansas schools. An open session will be available at the end of the meeting for members of the public who call in to make a statement.
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-572-7033, conference ID: 8127019. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by April 25, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at 12:00 p.m.
Public Call Information:
Dial: 888-572-7033.
Conference ID: 8127019.
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of availability.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the adoption of a Final Endangered Species Act recovery plan for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. The Final Recovery Plan (Plan) for Elkhorn Coral (
Electronic copies of the Plan are available on the NMFS Web site at
A copy of the Plan can be obtained by writing to: Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Acropora Recovery Plan.
Alison Moulding (727-824-5312), email
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Recovery plans describe actions beneficial for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the ESA. Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable: (1) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the Plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for each listed species unless a recovery plan would not promote a species' conservation.
The purpose of the Plan is to rebuild and assure the long-term viability of elkhorn and staghorn coral populations in the wild, allowing ultimately for the species' removal from the federal list of endangered and threatened species. The goal of the Plan is to increase the abundance and to protect the genetic diversity of elkhorn and staghorn coral populations throughout their geographical ranges while sufficiently abating threats to warrant delisting of both species. Elkhorn and staghorn coral populations should be large enough to include numerous groups of successfully reproducing individuals, including thickets, across the historical range of these species. These groups should be large enough to protect genetic diversity and maintain ecosystem function. The recovery approach includes research and monitoring to identify, reduce, or eliminate threats so the recovery objectives outlined in the Plan have the greatest likelihood of being achieved. Because some threats to elkhorn and staghorn corals cannot be directly managed (
The recovery criteria in the Plan are based on the current literature and expert consensus. In some cases, the current best available information is so limited that it is not practicable to identify recovery criteria. Instead, interim criteria are identified to gather and obtain the information necessary to establish final recovery criteria. Recovery criteria can be viewed as targets, or values, by which progress toward achievement of recovery objectives can be measured. In the Plan we frame recovery criteria both in terms of population parameters (Population-based Recovery Criteria) and the five ESA listing factors (Threat-based Recovery Criteria). The Plan also includes the projected timeframe to recover elkhorn and staghorn corals and the cost of implementing actions.
NMFS has reviewed the Plan for compliance with the requirements of ESA section 4(f), determined that it does incorporate the required elements, and is therefore adopting it as the Final Recovery Plan for elkhorn and staghorn corals.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Marta Nammack, (301) 427-8469 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
On March 28, 2003, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Services) announced a final policy on the criteria the Services will use to evaluate conservation efforts by states and other non-Federal entities (68 FR 15100). The Services take these efforts into account when making decisions on whether to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The efforts usually involve the development of a conservation plan or agreement, procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan or agreement, and an annual report.
NMFS does not require, but will accept, plans and reports electronically. NMFS has not developed a form to be used for submission of plans or reports. In the past, NMFS has made plans and annual reports from states available through the Internet and plans to continue this practice.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India. The review covers 211 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination, Devi Fisheries Limited (Devi Fisheries)
Stephen Banea or Blaine Wiltse, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0656, or (202) 482-6345, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014, as follows:
Review-Specific
The Department
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Devi Fisheries and Falcon reported the entered value for all of their U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Devi Fisheries or Falcon for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops; correction.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in April, May, and June of 2015. Also, due to inclement weather, NMFS cancelled the Atlantic Shark Identification workshop scheduled for February 26, 2015, in Norfolk, VA. NMFS has rescheduled this workshop to March 26, 2015, to be held at the same time and location, 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 1387 North Military Highway, Norfolk, VA 23502. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2015 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on April 9, May 7, and June 3, 2015. The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop scheduled for February 26, 2015, has been rescheduled to March 26, 2015. See
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on April 13, April 28, May 19, May 27, June 23, and June 26, 2015.
See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Wilmington, NC; Bohemia, NY; and Manahawkin, NJ. The rescheduled workshop will be held in Norfolk, VA.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Port St. Lucie, FL; Kenner, LA; Charleston, SC, Manahawkin, NJ; Revere, MA; and Ocean City, MD.
See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.
1. April 9, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 124 Old Eastwood Road, Wilmington, NC 28403.
2. May 7, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 10 Aero Road, Bohemia, NY 11706.
3. June 3, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 202 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. April 13, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 10120 South Federal Highway, Port St. Lucie, FL 34952.
2. April 28, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Inn, 901 Airline Drive Kenner, LA 70062.
3. May 19, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 678 Citadel Haven Drive, Charleston, SC 29414.
4. May 27, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
5. June 23, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hampton Inn, 230 Lee Burbank Highway Revere, MA 02151.
6. June 26, 2015, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Princess Royale Hotel, 9100 Coastal Highway, Ocean City, MD 21842.
To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth
In the
2. March 26, 2015, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 1387 North Military Highway, Norfolk, VA 23502.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Chris Wright, (301) 427-8570 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) [16 U.S.C. 1801
The respondent provides written notice. No form is used.
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, March 26, 2015, at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The items of discussion on the agenda are:
The committee will discuss and make recommendations to the Council regarding Amendment 18 (A18) (fleet diversity and accumulation limits). They will review the Alternatives included in A18, and review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for A18 including impacts analysis. The committee will also review the Groundfish Advisory Panel's
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 5, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Jason Blackburn, (301) 427-8555 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
Fishery regulations do not generally affect scientific research activities conducted by a scientific research vessel. Persons planning to conduct such research are encouraged to submit a scientific research plan to ensure that the activities are considered research and not fishing. The researchers are requested to submit reports of their scientific research activity after its completion. Eligible researchers on board federally permitted fishing vessels that plan to temporarily possess fish in a manner not compliant with applicable fishing regulations for the purpose of collecting scientific data on catch may submit a request for a temporary possession letter of authorization. The researchers are requested to submit reports of their scientific research activity after its completion. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) may also grant exemptions from fishery regulations for educational or other activities (
Information may be submitted on paper or electronically, and in some cases by telephone.
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The items of discussion on the agenda are:
The panel will discuss and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee regarding Amendment 18 (A18) (fleet diversity and accumulation limits). They will review the Alternatives included in A18, and review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for A18 including impacts analysis. The panel will receive an overview of the Council's Groundfish priorities for 2015. They will also discuss other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
On November 3, 2014, the City of Mobile, Alabama, grantee of FTZ 82, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of MH Wirth, Inc., within FTZ 82, in Theodore, Alabama.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to furnish the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).
Notice.
CNCS is submitting the below information for future CNCS
Comments must be submitted April 6, 2015.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for CNCS, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for CNCS; and
(2) Electronically by email to:
To request additional information, please contact Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director of Policy, at 202-606-6930 or email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
No comments were received in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number.
Notice.
DoD is publishing the updated annual list of product categories for which the Federal Prison Industries' share of the DoD market is greater than five percent.
Sheila Harris, telephone 703-614-1333.
The Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) issued a memorandum dated February 27, 2015, that provides the current list of product
The DPAP memorandum with the current list of product categories for which FPI has a significant market share is posted at:
The statute as implemented also requires DoD to—
(1) Include FPI in the solicitation process for these items; a timely offer from FPI must be considered; and award procedures must be followed in accordance with existing policy at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.602(a)(4)(ii) through (v);
(2) Continue to be make acquisitions, in accordance with FAR Subpart 8.6, for items from product categories for which FPI does not have a significant market share. FAR 8.602 requires agencies to conduct market research and make a written comparability determination, at the discretion of the contracting officer. Competitive (or fair opportunity) procedures are appropriate if the FPI product is not comparable in terms of price, quality, or time of delivery; and
(3) Section 827 allows modification of the published list if DoD subsequently determines that new data requires adding or omitting a product category from the list.
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), DoD.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel (hereafter referred to as the Panel).
Thursday, March 26, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Mr. William H. Blanche, Alternate DFO, Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101. Telephone: (703) 681-2890. Fax: (703) 681-1940. Email Address:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended) and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended).
Written statements that do not pertain to the scheduled meeting of the Panel may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than 5 business days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all the committee members.
To ensure timeliness of comments for the official record, the Panel encourages that individuals and interested groups consider submitting written statements instead of addressing the Panel.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate.
Take notice that on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Rule 204 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204 (2014), Targa NGL Pipeline Company LLC (Targa) requests that the Commission grant it a temporary waiver of Interstate Commerce Act section 6 and section 20, and the Commission's filing and reporting requirements thereunder at 18 CFR parts 341 and 357, for a natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline located entirely in Texas that only transports NGLs owned by Targa or an affiliate.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
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 February 20, 2015, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056-5310, filed an application in the above referenced docket pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization to construct and operate its Loudon Expansion Project (Project) located in Monroe and Loudon Counties, Tennessee. East Tennessee asserts that the proposed Project will provide 40,000 dekatherms per day to the facilities of Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, LLC in Loudon County, Tennessee. East Tennessee states that the Project involves: (i) Approximately 10 miles of new 12-inch diameter pipeline; (ii) a new meter facility; and (iii) appurtenances. East Tennessee estimates the cost of the Project to be approximately $53.1 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, General Manager Rates and Certificates, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by telephone at (713) 627-4102, or by email at
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 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 EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
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 commenters 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 commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters 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 in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 23, 2015.
Take notice that on February 26, 2015, the City of Alexandria, Louisiana submitted a petition for approval of revenue requirement for reactive power and voltage control from Generation Sources Service.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on March 5, 2015 members of its staff will attend the following teleconferences to be conducted by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other documents for the teleconferences are available on the CAISO's Web site,
Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences are open to all market participants and staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.
For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at
On February 27, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL15-42-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation concerning the justness and reasonableness of the Fortis MBR Sellers' market-based rates in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-42-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n. The proposed project consists of: (1) An upper reservoir located within the upper portion of the mine between elevations 495 and 1,095 feet above mean sea level (msl), with a surface area of 4 acres and a storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet; (2) a lower reservoir in the lower portion of the mine between elevations -1,075 and -1,555 feet msl, with a surface area of 5.1 acres and a storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet; (3) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-foot-long upper reservoir shaft connecting the upper reservoir to the high-pressure penstock located below the powerhouse chamber floor; (4) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-foot-long lower reservoir shaft connecting the lower reservoir and the lower reservoir ventilation tunnel; (5) two 6-foot-diameter emergency evacuation shafts located between the powerhouse chamber and the electrical equipment chamber; (6) a 25-foot-diameter main shaft extending 2,955 feet from the surface down to the powerhouse chamber; (7) 15-foot-diameter high- and low-pressure steel penstocks embedded beneath the powerhouse chamber floor; (8) a 320-foot-long by 80-foot-wide powerhouse chamber, containing 100 reversible pump-turbine units, each with a nameplate generating capacity of 2.4 megawatts; (9) a 274-foot-long by 36-foot-wide underground electrical equipment chamber adjacent to the powerhouse chamber; (10) an inclined electrical tunnel connecting the electrical equipment chamber to a new 115-kilovolt (kV) substation constructed adjacent to an existing single circuit 115-kV transmission line located about one horizontal mile from the underground powerhouse chamber; and (11) appurtenant facilities. The project would operate as a closed-loop system to meet energy demands and grid control requirements. The project would
o. A copy of the application 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
p.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Supply Header Project (SHP) involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project (ACP Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The environmental impacts of both projects will be considered in one EIS, which will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the projects are in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the projects. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 28, 2015.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on the SHP or ACP Projects to the Commission before the opening of the dockets on October 31, 2014, you will need to file those comments under Docket No. PF15-5-000 or PF15-6-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend any of the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:
The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide an opportunity to verbally comment on the projects. If a significant number of people are interested in commenting at the meetings, we
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for these projects. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of these
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the projects, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
The SHP would involve the construction and operation of approximately 38.7 miles of pipeline loop
In addition to the planned pipelines, Dominion plans to modify four existing compressor stations in Westmoreland and Green Counties, Pennsylvania and Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. Dominion would install new gas-fired turbines that would provide for a combined increase of 75,700 horsepower of compression. Dominion would also install new valves, pig launcher/receiver sites,
The ACP Project would involve the construction and operation of 554 miles of variable diameter natural gas pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The pipeline facilities associated with the ACP Project would be comprised of four main components as follows:
• Approximately 295.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia; Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville Counties, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina;
• approximately 179.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina;
• approximately 75.7 miles of 20-inch-diameter lateral pipeline in Northampton County, North Carolina; and Greensville, Southampton, Suffolk, and Chesapeake Counties, Virginia; and
• approximately 3.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter natural gas lateral pipeline in Brunswick County, Virginia.
In addition to the planned pipelines, Atlantic plans to construct and operate three new compressor stations totaling 108,275 horsepower of compression. These compressor stations would be located in Lewis County, West Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina. Atlantic would also install metering stations, valves, pig launcher/receiver sites, and associated appurtenances along the planned pipeline system.
The SHP and ACP Projects would be capable of delivering 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to seven planned distribution points in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. If approved, construction of the projects is proposed to begin in September 2016. The general location of the projects' facilities and a number of alternatives under consideration are shown in the maps in appendix 1.
Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 12,972 acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. The typical construction right-of-way for pipeline facilities would vary between 125 feet wide for the 42-inch-diameter pipeline and 75 feet wide for the 16-inch-diameter lateral pipeline, with additional workspace needed in some locations due to site-specific conditions. Following construction, approximately 4,370 acres of land would be retained for permanent operation of the facilities. Land affected by construction but not required for operation would generally be allowed to revert to former uses.
The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is participating as a cooperating agency because the ACP Project would cross the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests in West Virginia and Virginia. As a cooperating agency, the USFS intends to adopt the EIS per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1506.3 to meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding Atlantic's planned application for a Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit for crossing federally administered lands. The USFS additionally will assess how the planned pipeline conforms to the direction contained in the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests' Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP). Changes in the LRMP could be required if the pipeline is authorized across the National Forests. The EIS will provide the documentation to support any needed amendments to the LRMPs.
NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned projects under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• socioeconomics; and
• public safety.
We will present our recommendations in the EIS on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas, as applicable.
Dominion and Atlantic are evaluating several route alternatives that were developed through the company's route selection and constraint analysis processes or identified by stakeholders during public outreach efforts. Major route alternatives that have been identified by Dominion and Atlantic are presented in appendix 1. More detailed maps of these, and other, potential alternative routes can be found on the FERC Web site at
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 8.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by lawand/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to these projects to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Dominion and Atlantic. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
• Land use impacts, including the exercise of eminent domain and future land use restrictions;
• impacts on property values, tourism, and recreational resources;
• safety issues, such as construction and operation of the planned facilities near existing residences, schools, businesses, and military training facilities, and in karst and steep slope terrain;
• alternatives, including routing within existing linear corridors, avoiding private property, National Forests, National Parkway lands, National Wildlife Refuge land, and other sensitive environmental features;
• impacts on local emergency management systems;
• impacts on forested areas and other vegetation;
• impacts on surface water resources including springs, seeps, and wetlands;
• impacts on groundwater resources and wells;
• impacts on protected species and habitat;
• impacts on cultural resources including battlefields, cemeteries, and historic properties; and
• concerns regarding construction and operational noise, especially related to compressor stations.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the projects. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April 28, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the appropriate project docket number(s) (PF15-5-000 for the SHP and PF15-6-000 for the ACP Project) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, as well as anyone who submits comments on the projects. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned projects.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Once Dominion and Atlantic file applications with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives formal applications for the projects.
Additional information about the projects 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
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on February 13, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authority to abandon, construct and operate certain mainline pipeline facilities located in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio, all as more completely described in the Application. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to John E. Griffin, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 420-3624, facsimile: (713) 420-1601, email:
Specifically, Tennessee requests authorization to abandon one of its multiple looped parallel pipelines that comprise approximately 964 miles of mainline pipeline facilities between Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, and Columbiana County, Ohio (Abandoned Line) by sale to Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline LLC (UMTP), its affiliate. UMTP intends to use this pipeline, in part, for conversion to natural gas liquids service. In order to replace the capacity that would otherwise be lost by the sale of the Abandoned Line, Tennessee proposes to construct and operate approximately 7.6 miles of new pipeline looping in Kentucky and a total of 124,771 horsepower of compression at four new compressor stations in Ohio and two stations in Kentucky (collectively, the Replacement
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.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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 in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on February 19, 2015, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans), 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-3111, filed a prior notice application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210, and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the NGA, and Equitrans' blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP96-352-000. Equitrans seeks authorization to abandon and replace a segment of its TP-7911 pipeline located in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be Paul Diehl, Senior Counsel—Midstream, EQT Corporation, 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, or phone (412) 395-5540, or by email
Specifically, Equitrans proposes to replace approximately 3.0 miles of 12-inch diameter pipe with 20-inch diameter pipeline and install pig launchers and receivers to maintain system integrity by providing Equitrans with the ability to perform in-line inspections for assessing the condition of the pipeline, as well as increase the operational reliability of the TP-7911 pipeline.
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 pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. 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
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 commenters 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 commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter 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 in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Ozark Abandonment Project proposed by Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC (Ozark) in the above-referenced docket. Ozark requests authorization to abandon in-place approximately 159 miles of existing 10- to 20-inch-diameter mainline natural gas pipeline and auxiliary and associated facilities located between Sebastian and White Counties, Arkansas. Ozark would also abandon by removal 29 minor aboveground facilities at 27 sites.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the abandonment activities associated with the Ozark Abandonment Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before March 30, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP14-539-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
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 which 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
As announced in a Notice issued on December 30, 2014, and Supplemental Notice issued January 30, 2015, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a workshop on Thursday, March 5, 2015 to discuss standards for calculating Available Transfer Capability (ATC) for wholesale electric transmission services. The workshop will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
As clarified in the attached Updated Agenda, the workshop will commence at 12:00 p.m. and conclude by 4:15 p.m., EST. The specific times of the session discussions, as well as the list of speakers, may be subject to further change. This workshop is free of charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in the workshop.
Those who plan to attend the workshop are encouraged to complete the registration form located at:
Transcripts of the workshop will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646). Additionally, there will be a free webcast of the workshop. Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the workshop can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at
While this workshop is not convened for the purpose of discussing specific cases, the workshop may address matters that are at issue in the following pending Commission proceeding:
Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For further information on this workshop, please contact:
Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8368,
Christopher Young, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6403,
Richard Wartchow, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8744,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final decision on a request by ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC of Burns Harbor, Indiana to reissue its exemption from the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) that an exemption to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has been granted to ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC (AMBH) of Burns Harbor, Indiana, for four Class I injection wells located in Burns Harbor, Indiana. As required by 40 CFR part 148, AMBH has demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents out of the injection zone or into an underground source of drinking water (USDW) for at least 10,000 years. This final decision allows the continued underground injection by AMBH of a specific restricted waste, Spent Pickle Liquor (SPL) into one Class I hazardous waste injection well specifically identified as SPL #1; and of waste ammonia liquor (WAL) into three Class I hazardous waste injection wells specifically identified as WAL #1, WAL #2 and WAL #3 at the AMBH facility. This decision constitutes a final EPA action for which there is no administrative appeal.
This action is effective as of March 6, 2015.
Stephen Roy, Lead Petition Reviewer, EPA, Region 5, Water Division, Underground Injection Control Branch, WU-16J, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590; telephone number: (312) 886-6556; fax number (312) 692-2951; email address:
AMBH submitted a request for reissuance of its
EPA issued a draft decision, which described the reasons for granting this exemption in more detail, a fact sheet, which summarized these reasons, and a public notice on November 14, 2014, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.10. The public comment period ended on December 16, 2014. EPA received no comments but during the comment period, EPA realized that the volume limitation identified in section I.B was inadvertently shown as gallons per month instead of gallons per year. The same mistake was made in Condition #8. Therefore, EPA is issuing the final exemption with this condition corrected to be consistent with the language in the AMBH UIC permits.
This exemption is subject to the following conditions. Non-compliance with any of these conditions is grounds for termination of the exemption:
(1) All regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 148.23 and 148.24 are incorporated by reference;
(2) The exemption applies to the existing injection wells, Spent Pickle Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #2, and Waste Ammonia Liquor #3, located at the ArcelorMittal facility at 250 West U.S. Highway 12, Burns Harbor, Indiana;
(3) Injection is limited to that part of the Lower Mount Simon Sandstone and the upper portion of the Precambrian rocks at depths between 2722 and 4286 feet below ground level;
(4) Hazardous wastes denoted by the waste codes D010, D018, and D038 may only be injected into Waste Ammonia Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #2, and Waste Ammonia Liquor #3. Hazardous waste denoted by waste code K062 may only be injected into Spent Pickle Liquor #1. Other fluids necessary for well testing, stimulation, etc. may be injected when approved by EPA;
(5) The chemical properties of the injectate that will be monitored are limited according to the table below:
(6) The annual average of the specific gravity of the injected spent pickle liquor must be no greater than 1.31; the annual average of the specific gravity of the waste ammonia liquor must be no less than 0.99;
(7) The chemical properties of the injectate that defined the edge of the plume in the demonstration are benzene for waste ammonia liquor and pH for the spent pickle liquor;
(8) The monthly average injection rate for SPL must not exceed 175 gallons per minute and the monthly average injection rate for WAL must not exceed 300 gallons per minute, plant-wide, cumulatively covering all WAL injection wells.
(9) This exemption is approved for the 21-year modeled injection period, which ends on December 31, 2027. ArcelorMittal may petition EPA for a reissuance of the exemption beyond that date, provided that a new and complete no-migration petition is received at EPA, Region 5, by July 1, 2027;
(10) ArcelorMittal shall submit monthly reports to EPA containing a fluid analysis of the injected waste which shall indicate the chemical and physical properties upon which the no-migration demonstration was based, including the physical and chemical properties listed in Conditions 5 and 6 of this exemption approval;
(11) ArcelorMittal shall submit an annual report containing the results of a bottom hole pressure survey (fall-off test) performed on Spent Pickle Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #1, Waste Ammonia Liquor #2, or Waste Ammonia Liquor #3 to EPA. The survey shall be performed after shutting in the well for a period of time sufficient to allow the pressure in the injection interval to reach equilibrium, in accordance with 40 CFR 146.68(e)(1). The annual report shall include a comparison of reservoir parameters determined from the fall-off test with parameters used in the approved no-migration demonstration;
(12) The petitioner shall fully comply with all requirements set forth in Underground Injection Control Permits IN-127-1W-0001, IN-127-1W-0003, IN-127-1W-0004, and IN-127-1W-0007 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and
(13) Whenever EPA determines that the basis for approval of a petition may no longer be valid, EPA may terminate this exemption and may require a new demonstration in accordance with 40 CFR 148.20.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
EPA is making available a document that announces and implements several important changes to EPA's Safer Product Labeling Program (SPLP), as well as a number of conforming changes to the program's Standard for Safer Products, including: New label designs and a new name for the EPA SPLP; an associated fragrance-free label; and related changes to the standard that qualifies products for the label.
Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0047, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be affected by this action if you participate in or applying for certification under the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program and use or hope to use the program's logo on your products. Also potentially affected are consumers, institutional purchasers, retailers, and distributors of DfE-labeled products who use the logo to identify products that have met the Agency's safer-product criteria. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturing (NAICS codes 31-33).
• Construction (NAICS code 23).
• Wholesale trade (NAICS code 42).
• Retail trade (NAICS codes 44-45).
• Professional, scientific and technical services (NAICS code 54).
• Accommodations and food Services (NAICS code 72).
• Other services, except public administration (NAICS code 81).
• Public administration (NAICS code 92).
1.
2.
EPA is issuing a document, “Changes to the Standard to Implement the Safer Choice Label” (
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
New York has scheduled a Special General Election on May 5, 2015, to fill the U.S. House seat in the Eleventh Congressional District vacated by Representative Michael G. Grimm.
Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special General Election on May 5, 2015, shall
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the New York Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on April 23, 2015, and a 30-day Post-General Report on June 4, 2015. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Political committees filing on a semi-annual basis in 2015 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the New York Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the New York Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the New York Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $17,600 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v),
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Election Commission.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)
This meeting will be open to the public.
80 FR 11202, March 2, 2015.
The meeting has been rescheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Election Commission.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
80 FR 10482, February 26, 2015.
The meeting will be continued at the conclusion of the open meeting on Tuesday, March 10, 2015.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 23, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 2, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer), P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
2.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President), 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 23, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
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 March 31, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Victor DeFrancis, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-3495, 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 February 27, 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 March 31, 2015. Write “AmerFreight, Inc.- Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3249” 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 “AmerFreight, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 142 3249” 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, an agreement containing a consent order from AmeriFreight, Inc. (“AmeriFreight”) and Marius Lehmann, an officer of AmeriFreight (“Respondents”).
The proposed consent order (“proposed 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
AmeriFreight is an automobile shipment broker—that is, it arranges shipment of consumers' automobiles through third-party freight carriers. This matter involves AmeriFreight's online advertising for those services. The Commission's complaint alleges that the Respondents violated Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act by misrepresenting that AmeriFreight was a highly rated or top-ranked automobile shipment broker based on its customers' unbiased reviews. The complaint also alleges that AmeriFreight failed to disclose that it paid consumers to post reviews.
The proposed order includes injunctive relief that prohibits these alleged violations and fences in similar and related violations.
Part I of the Order prohibits the Respondents from misrepresenting that their products or services are highly rated or top-ranked based on unbiased customer reviews or that their customer reviews are unbiased.
Part II of the Order requires the Respondents, when using an endorsement to advertise any product or service, to clearly and prominently disclose a material connection, if one exists, between the person providing the endorsement and Respondents.
Part III contains recordkeeping requirements for advertisements and other documents relevant to the order.
Parts IV through VII of the proposed order require Respondents to: Deliver a copy of the order to principals, officers, directors, managers, employees, agents, and representatives having responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of the order; notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure, discontinuance of current business or employment, or affiliation with any new business or employment that might affect compliance obligations under the order; and file compliance reports with the Commission.
Part VIII provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC intends to ask OMB to extend for an additional three years the current PRA clearance for the FTC's enforcement of the information collection requirements in its Fair Packaging and Labeling Act regulations (“FPLA Rules”). That clearance expires on May 31, 2015.
Comments must be filed by April 6, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Megan Gray, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-3405, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 9541, Washington, DC 20580.
On December 16, 2014, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the FPLA Rules (December 16, 2014 Notice
As detailed in the December 16, 2014 Notice, the FTC estimates cumulative annual burden on affected entities to be 8,015,140 hours and $185,149,734 in labor costs. Commission staff believes that the FPLA Rules impose negligible capital or other non-labor costs, as the affected entities are likely to have the necessary supplies and/or equipment already (
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 6, 2015.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 6, 2015. Write “FPLA Rules, PRA Comment, P074200” 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 doesn't 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 doesn't 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
If you want the Commission to treat your comment as confidential, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidentiality, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 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 “FPLA Rules, PRA Comment, P074200” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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 J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 6, 2015. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Annual Survey of Colorectal Cancer Control Activities Conducted by States and Tribal Organizations—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In July 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) for a 5-year period. The purpose of the CRCCP is to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to increase population-level screening rates to 80% and, subsequently, to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. The current awardees are 25 states and 4 tribal organizations.
The CRCCP includes two program components: (1) CRC screening of low-income, uninsured and underinsured people (screening provision) and (2) implementation of interventions to increase population-level screening rates (screening promotion).
As a comprehensive, organized screening program, the CRCCP supports activities including program management, partnership development, public education and targeted outreach, screening and diagnostic services, patient navigation, quality assurance and quality improvement, professional development, data management and utilization, and program monitoring and evaluation. For clinical service delivery, grantees fund health care providers in their state/territory/tribe to deliver colorectal cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment referrals for those diagnosed with cancer.
An annual survey of CRCCP grantees was fielded from 2011-2013 through the
Questions are of various types including dichotomous and multiple response. All information is to be collected electronically through the web-based survey. The estimated burden per response is 75 minutes.
This assessment will enable CDC to gauge its progress in meeting CRCCP program goals, identify implementation activities, monitor program transition to efforts aimed at impacting population-based screening, identify technical assistance needs of state, tribe and territorial health department cancer control programs, and identify implementation models with potential to expand and transition to new settings to increase program impact and reach. The assessment will identify successful activities that should be maintained, replicated, or expanded as well as provide insight into areas that need improvement.
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary for CRCCP awardees and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 36.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
OMB No. 0915-0212—Extension.
Partner surveys to be conducted by HRSA might include, for example, online or telephone surveys of grantees to determine satisfaction with grant processes or technical assistance provided by a contractor, or in-class evaluation forms completed by providers who receive training from HRSA grantees, to measure satisfaction with the training experience. Results of these surveys will be used to plan and redirect resources and efforts as needed to improve services and processes.
Focus groups may also be used to gain partner input into the design of mail and telephone surveys. Focus groups, in-class evaluation forms, mail surveys, and telephone surveys are expected to be the preferred data collection methods.
A generic approval allows HRSA to conduct a limited number of partner surveys without a full-scale OMB review of each survey. If generic approval is approved, information on each individual partner survey will not be published in the
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer April 6, 2015.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 or Email:
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
We find that the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) Registry, one registry overseen by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, meets the requirements specified in the NCD on TMVR. The TVT Registry will support a national surveillance system to monitor the safety and efficacy of the TMVR technologies for the treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR). The data will also
The conduct of the STS/ACC TVT Registry and the KCCQ-10 is pursuant to section 1142 of the Social Security Act (the ACT) that describes the authority of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Under section 1142, research may be conducted and supported on the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures to identify the manner in which disease, disorders, and other health conditions can be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically. Section 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Act allows Medicare to cover under coverage with evidence development (CED) certain items or services for which the evidence is not adequate to support coverage under section 1862(a)(1)(A) and where additional data gathered in the context of a clinical setting would further clarify the impact of these items and services on the health of beneficiaries.
The data collected and analyzed in the TVT Registry will be used to determine if TMVR is reasonable and necessary (
3.
The interim final regulations titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act” (79 FR 51092) continue to allow eligible organizations that have religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage to notify an issuer or third party administrator using EBSA Form 700, as set forth in the 2013 final regulations. In addition, these interim final regulations permit an alternative process under which an eligible organization may notify HHS of its religious objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by May 5, 2015.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ___, Room C4-26-05, 7500
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is requesting nominations to fill eleven upcoming vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages (ACICBL).
42 U.S.C. 294f, section 757 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Advisory Committee is governed by the Federal Advisory Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
The Agency must receive nominations on or before May 1, 2015.
All nominations are to be submitted either by mail to Joan Weiss, Ph.D., RN, CRNP, FAAN, Designated Federal Official, ACICBL, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Parklawn Building, Room12C-05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 or email to Dr. Joan Weiss at
For additional information, contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, BHW, by email at
Under the authorities that established the ACICBL and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, HRSA is requesting nominations for eleven committee members. The ACICBL provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) concerning policy, program development, and other matters of significance related to interdisciplinary, community-based training grant programs authorized under sections 750-759, title VII, part D of the PHS Act, as amended. The ACICBL prepares an annual report describing the activities conducted during the fiscal year, identifying findings and developing recommendations to enhance these title VII programs. The annual report is submitted to the Secretary and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. The ACICBL develops, publishes, and implements performance measures for programs under this part; develops and publishes guidelines for longitudinal evaluations (as described in section 761(d)(2)) for programs under this part; and recommends appropriation levels for programs under this part.
The Department of Health and Human Services is requesting a total of eleven nominations for members of the ACICBL from schools that have administered or are currently administering awards from the following programs/areas: Area Health Education Centers (3); Education and Training Relating to Geriatrics (2); Rural Interdisciplinary Training (2); Chiropractic Demonstration Program (1); Preventive and Primary Care Training for Podiatric Physicians (1); and Social Work (2). Among these nominations, students, residents, and/or fellows from these programs are encouraged to apply.
HRSA has a special interest, and the legislation requires a fair balance between the health professions and members from urban and rural areas, a broad geographic distribution, and the adequate representation of women and minorities. HRSA encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups as well as individuals with disabilities.
To allow the Secretary to choose from a highly qualified list of potential candidates, more than one nomination is requested per open position. Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of materials submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
Members will receive a stipend for each official meeting day of the Committee, as well as per diem and travel expenses as authorized by section 5 U.S.C. 5703 for persons employed intermittently in Government service.
Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Qualified candidates will be invited to serve a 3-year term.
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.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The COGME members will discuss topics and issues for the 23rd report. The COGME's reports are submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate; and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.
• What are examples of innovations in streamlining the GME architecture to increase the throughput and cost efficiencies of GME, in order to reduce the overall length and cost of training?
• How can medical education technology be leveraged in the transformation and innovation in GME?
• What are the potential regulatory and licensing challenges from such changes, and how can they be mitigated?
The official agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site at
Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the COGME should be sent to Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, using the address and phone number below. Individuals who plan to participate on the conference call or webinar should notify Dr. Weiss at least 3 days prior to the meeting, using the address and phone number below. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Interested parties should refer to the meeting subject as the HRSA Council on Graduate Medical Education.
The conference call-in number is (800) 369-1867. The passcode is: 8803797. The webinar link is
As this meeting will be a combined format of both in-person, webinar, and conference call members of the public, and interested parties who wish to participate “in-person” should make an immediate request by emailing their first name, last name, and contact email to the Designated Federal Official for the committee, Dr. Joan Weiss, using the address and phone number below. Space is limited. Due to the fact that this meeting will be held within a federal government building and public entrance to such facilities require prior planning, access will be granted upon request only and will be on a first come, first served basis. The logistical challenges of scheduling this meeting hindered an earlier publication of this meeting notice.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 5, 2015.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-new-60D for reference.
(1) Increased the knowledge of providers,
(2) Facilitated the integration of pregnancy planning into the care of HIV-positive women/women with HIV-positive partners, and
(3) Increased access to innovative HIV prevention options in communities with high HIV prevalence.
Likely Respondents:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee will meet to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. This meeting will be open to the public.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working groups are scheduled to meet on March 18, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., and the full Committee is scheduled to meet on March 19, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Written comments for distribution to Committee members and for inclusion on the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee Web site must be submitted on or before March 11, 2015. Please note that this meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. These meetings will be held as scheduled subject to the availability of funds. Anyone interested in attending this meeting may want to contact the Coast Guard before making their travel and hotel reservations. Please contact either Mr. Davis Breyer at
The Committee will meet in the St. Charles Ballroom B of the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, 739 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. For further information about the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, contact Ms. Angela Eckles at 504-962-0500 ext. 8004 or via email at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, please contact Mr. Davis Breyer as indicated in the
If you plan on attending the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee meeting being held March 16-17, 2015 immediately before the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting, a separate hotel reservation will need to be made under a different block. To make a reservation for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee meeting please visit the following Web site:
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee and working groups as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be identified by Docket No. USCG-2015-0049 and submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Public oral comment periods will be held each day. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral comment periods may end before the prescribed ending time following the last call for comments. Contact Mr. Davis Breyer as indicated below to register as a speaker.
This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG-2015-0049, at
Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, telephone 202-372-1445, or at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix).
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under the Secretary's authority in section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on matters relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including but not limited to training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards. The Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
A copy of all meeting documentation is available at
The agenda for the March 18, 2015, meeting is as follows:
(1) The full Committee will meet briefly to discuss the working groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 2(a)-(d) below.
(2) Working groups will address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program, as it Relates to the National Maritime Center;
(c) Task Statement 84, Correction of Merchant Mariner Credentials issued with Clear Errors; and
(d) Task Statement 87, Review of Policy Documents Providing Guidance on the Implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and Changes to National Endorsements Rulemaking.
(3) Public comment period.
(4) Reports of working groups. At the end of the day, the working groups will report to the full Committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full Committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of this working group meeting will be taken on day 2 of the meeting.
(5) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 19, 2015, full Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction;
(2) Remarks from Coast Guard Leadership;
(3) Designated Federal Officer announcements;
(4) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum;
(5) Reports from the following working groups;
(a) Task Statement 30, Utilizing Military Education, Training and Assessment for the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications;
(b) Task Statement 58, Communication between External Stakeholders and the Mariner Credentialing Program, as it Relates to the National Maritime Center;
(c) Task Statement 76, Review of Performance Measures (Assessment Criteria);
(d) Task Statement 77, Development of Performance Measures (Assessment Criteria);
(e) Task Statement 78, Consideration of the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention, 2006;
(f) Task Statement 80, Develop training guidelines for mariners employed aboard vessels subject to the IGF Code;
(g) Task Statement 81, Development of Competency Requirements for Vessel Personnel Working Within the Polar Regions;
(h) Task Statement 84, Correction of Merchant Mariner Credentials issued with Clear Errors; and
(i) Task Statement 87, Review of Policy Documents Providing Guidance on the Implementation of the December 24, 2013 International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping and Changes to National Endorsements Rulemaking.
(6) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on the Implementation of the 2010 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping;
(b) Report on National Maritime Center activities from the National Maritime Center Commanding Officer, such as the net processing time it takes for mariners to receive their credentials after application submittal;
(c) Report on Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division activities, such as its current initiatives and projects;
(d) Report on International Maritime Organization (IMO)/International Labor Organization (ILO) issues related to the merchant marine industry; and
(e) Briefings about on-going Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including a draft task statement concerning job descriptions for the various billets on merchant vessels.
(7) Public comment period.
(8) Discussion of working group recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working groups and approve/formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(9) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(10) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation is available at
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee will meet to discuss matters relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, merchant mariners' documents, medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and medical research. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, March 16 and Tuesday, March 17, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. This meeting will be held as scheduled subject to the availability of funds. Anyone interested in attending this meeting may want to contact the Coast Guard before making their travel and hotel reservations. Please contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, to confirm that the meeting will be held on these dates or if the meeting has been re-scheduled. All submitted written materials, comments, and requests to make oral presentations at the meeting should reach Lieutenant Ashley Holm no later than March 13, 2015. For contact information, please see the
The meeting will be held at the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, St.
For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the
If you plan on attending the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting being held March 18-19, 2015 following the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, a separate hotel reservation will need to be made under a different block. To make a reservation for the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee meeting please visit the following Web site:
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be submitted no later than March 13, 2015, in order for committee members to review comments before the meeting, and must be identified by docket number USCG-2011-0138 and submitted by
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held on March 16, 2015, from approximately 11 a.m.-11:30 a.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Additionally, public comment will be sought throughout the meeting as specific issues are discussed by the committee. Contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm as indicated below to register as a speaker.
Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, at telephone 202-372-1128 or email
Notice of this meeting is given under the
A copy of all meeting documentation is available at
The agenda for the March 16, 2015 meeting is as follows:
(1) Opening remarks from Coast Guard leadership.
(2) Opening remarks from the Designated Federal Officer.
(3) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum.
(4) Review of last full committee meeting's minutes.
(5) Public comments.
(6) Introduction of new task(s).
(7) Working Groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate—
(a) Task Statement 1, Revision of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 04-08. The Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular can be found at
(b) The Committee will receive new task statements from the Coast Guard, review the information presented on each issue, deliberate and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.
(8) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the March 17, 2015 meeting is as follows:
(1) Continue work on Task Statements.
(2) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if applicable, make recommendations for the full committee to consider for presentation to the Coast Guard. The committee may vote on the working group's recommendations on this date. The public will have an opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full committee takes any action on each report.
(3) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(4) Adjournment of Meeting.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
Revision is being requested specifically for two forms: the HUD form 52768 (ROSS SERVICE COORDINATORS—FUNDING REQUEST) has been revised to add clarifying questions regarding two application types: resident associations and nonprofit organizations and the form has been somewhat reformatted. Minor formatting changes were made to the HUD form 52769 (ROSS SERVICE COORDINATORS—NEEDS and SERVICE PARTNERS). The FSS Funding Request form (Form 52651) was removed from the collection.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Allen Villafuerte, Managing Attorney, Office of Litigation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10258, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone (202 708-0300) (this is not a toll-free number).
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Section 15.203 of HUD's regulations in 24 CFR specify the manner in which demands for documents and testimony from the Department should be made. Providing the information specified in 24 CFR 15.203 allows the Department to more promptly identify documents and testimony which a requestor may be seeking and determine whether the Department should produce such documents and testimony.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the technical amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances, to clarify the authority of the Community Regulatory Agency to share information with the Arizona Department of Safety and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of conducting criminal background checks on liquor license applicants and holders. The amended Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alcohol Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances was last published in the
This Amendment is effective 30 days after March 6, 2015.
Ms. Sharlot Johnson, Tribal Government Services Officer, Western Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2600 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, Phone: (602) 379-6786; Fax: (602) 379-4100; or Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Chief, Division of Tribal Government Services, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., MS-4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 513-7641.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Community Council duly adopted this amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alcohol Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances on March 5, 2014.
The amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Alcohol Beverage Control Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances reads as follows:
Section 14-5(b) of the Community Code of Ordinances shall be amended to include a clarifying provision at 14-5(b)(9) at the end of that subsection, which shall be enacted:
Sec. 14-5(b)(9)
(9) To conduct a state and federal criminal history check pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 41-1750 and Public Law 92-544 on all applicants for a license under this Chapter; and that all applicants must submit a full set of fingerprints to the Office who shall submit the fingerprints to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, who may then exchange the fingerprint data with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP) for the West Mojave (WEMO) Planning Area of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft Land Use Plan Amendment/Draft Supplemental EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of the Draft Land Use Plan Amendment/Draft SEIS in the
You may submit comments related to the WMRNP by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Copies of the WMRNP Draft Plan Amendment and Draft Supplemental EIS are available in the California Desert District Office at the above address; the Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S. Richmond Rd., Ridgecrest, CA 93555; and the Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow CA 92311. Copies are also available online at the above address.
Edy Seehafer, WMRNP Manager, telephone 760-252-6021; address 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311; email
The West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP) will adopt transportation and travel strategy and designate routes on public lands in the WEMO Planning Area. The WEMO Planning Area covers 9.4 million acres of the CDCA in the western portion of the Mojave Desert in southern California, including parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern, and Inyo Counties. The WMRNP applies to the 3.1 million acres of public lands within the WEMO Planning Area. In March, 2006, the BLM signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the WEMO Plan/Amendment to the CDCA Plan. In January 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California partially remanded the 2006 WEMO Plan Amendment ROD to the BLM and directed the BLM to amend the CDCA Plan for travel management and reconsider route designation throughout the WEMO Planning Area, as well as other specified issues in the 2006 WEMO Plan (Center for Biological Diversity v. US Bureau of Land Management Order Re: Remedy [N.D. Cal. Jan 28, 2011]). The Court's decision identified issues with (1) the invalidation of the “decision tree” instrument used to evaluate and designate routes, (2) the authorization of OHV routes that were not in existence in 1980, which was inconsistent with the governing land use plan, (3) the lack of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action, including an inadequate discussion of the No Action alternative, and (4) the inadequate analysis of impacts from the route network and the grazing program to specific resource values, including soils, cultural resources, certain biological resources, and air quality.
On September 13, 2011, the BLM issued a Notice of Intent (amended May 13, 2013), inviting comments on the proposed scope and content of the WMRNP. The WMRNP includes a land-use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan for Livestock Grazing, Recreation, and Motor Vehicle Access Elements for the WEMO Planning Area, an associated travel management framework, and activity-plan level route designations and implementation strategies. The lands covered in the WMRNP are those that are within livestock grazing allotments or designated as “Limited” to designated routes for motorized access. Areas “Closed” to motorized access are not proposed for change in this plan amendment, and are not within the scope of the planning effort.
The 9.4 million-acre WEMO Planning Area includes several large Department of Defense facilities covering almost 3 million acres, a portion of one National Park, 3 million acres of private lands, and approximately 100,000 acres of State lands, including Red Rock Canyon State Park. The planning area is also adjacent to three other National Parks/Preserves and four National Forests. Much of the planning area is managed as part of the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, including 18 wilderness areas, three wilderness study areas and portions of the Pacific Crest Trail and the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. The planning area also includes 41 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), seven National Register Archaeological or Historic Districts, and four Critical Habitat Units for the federally-listed desert tortoise. Four of the ACECs were established as Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs), covering most of the desert tortoise critical habitat units, for the express purpose of conservation of desert tortoise.
The planning area also includes eight OHV Open Areas covering 271,661 acres. No changes are proposed to these OHV Open Areas or their boundaries; however, the OHV Open Areas provide major points of ingress to and egress from adjacent areas “Limited” to designated routes access public lands.
The BLM used a public scoping process to determine relevant issues, impacts, and possible alternatives that could influence the scope of the environmental analysis, and to help guide the agency from plan level decision-making to route designation in order to comply with the court order.
The public raised the following transportation and travel management concerns:
• The need for a good inventory and accurate information related to the existing environment;
• documentation and use of the regulatory criteria for route minimization;
• mitigation for loss of access;
• sensitive resource protection;
• maintenance of access for various types of recreational, scientific and other uses;
• access to private lands;
• trespass;
• regional connectivity;
• improving GIS and on-the-ground information for the public; and
• other implementation strategies such as signing, monitoring and law enforcement.
In addition, a substantial number of comments indicated issues and needs associated with specific routes and route areas in the WEMO transportation system, and included recommendations on the designation of specific routes. A few comments were also received on grazing issues and the scope of the supplemental grazing program analysis.
In response to court concerns and on-the-ground changes since 2006, NEPA considerations focused on cumulative effects of the transportation system alternatives to resource values, particularly air quality, soils, cultural resources, certain biological resources, and certain sensitive species, cumulative effects of grazing, and potential cumulative loss of recreational access opportunities. In response to public input, access considerations focused on maintaining a viable transportation network, diverse recreational opportunities, providing access for specific users, (including rock-hounders, motorcyclists, scientific and educational activities, and non-motorized users), dealing with conflicts between users, and maintaining commercial access needs.
Plan amendments would address specific CDCA Plan inconsistencies with regulation and BLM policies in the WEMO Planning Area; including amending language that limits the route network to routes that existed in 1980 and travel management guidance for route designations. Changes are proposed to the existing land-use plan to address stopping, parking, and camping adjacent to routes in Limited Access Areas within the WEMO Planning Area, and to establish a regional minimization strategy for the travel route network. Changes are also proposed to the grazing program that would reallocate forage from livestock use to wildlife use and ecosystem function in desert tortoise habitat for inactive allotments or allotments that become vacant. In addition, the Draft considers plan level decisions modifying motorized use on four specific lakebeds, including Cuddeback Lake and competitive motorized use of routes. The Draft also considers various travel management implementation frameworks. Four alternatives are evaluated, including a No Action alternative.
Finally, the Draft includes activity-level specific route designation alternatives, based on the 43CFR 8342.1 criteria and different thresholds for minimization or closure. The preferred alternative would designate approximately 10,300 miles of routes within the WEMO Planning Area as available for motorized use, approximately130 miles of routes would be available for either non-motorized or non-mechanized use, and approximately 4,400 miles of routes would be closed.
The preferred alternative also includes a regional mitigation strategy that would limit the extent of off-route stopping and parking throughout the planning area to minimize impacts to undisturbed habitat, enhance watersheds, and protect adjacent sensitive resources. Other measures are based on proximity to sensitive resources, such as riparian systems, that would enhance these resources throughout the planning area.
The preferred alternative provides for a limited number of designated camping and staging areas to direct intensive use to manageable locations. Finally, the preferred alternative proposes an integrated, community-based implementation strategy that addresses outreach, compliance and enforcement strategy in which partnerships with adjacent communities, users, local Friends and other interest groups, national and State recreational and conservation coalitions, and other interested citizens are a central component.
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, BLM cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office, Palm Springs, California, together with Riverside County, California, intend to prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which may include an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, for the Desert Quartzite Solar Project (Project). By this notice, the BLM is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues related to the EIS/EIR and Plan Amendment (PA).
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS/EIR and PA. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until April 6, 2015. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the Project by any of the following methods:
• email:
• fax: (951) 697-5299.
• mail: ATTN: Cedric C. Perry, Project Manager, BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553-9046
Documents pertinent to this project may be examined at the BLM California Desert District Office at the above address Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Cedric C. Perry; telephone—(951) 697-5388; address—BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553-9046; Email—
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800)-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The applicant, Desert Quartzite Solar, LLC has requested a right-of-way (ROW) authorization to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a 300 MW alternating current (AC) solar photovoltaic energy-generating facility along with the necessary ancillary facilities including a project substation, access road, transmission lines, realignment of an existing route, operations and maintenance buildings, and lay down areas. The project is proposed on 4,845 acres of public land with the solar field occupying approximately 2,453 acres on lands within the Riverside East Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), southwest of Blythe, California.
This document provides notice that the BLM Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office and the County of Riverside California intend to jointly prepare an EIS/EIR, which may include a potential CDCA Plan Amendment, for the Project. It also announces the beginning of the scoping process for this effort and seeks public input on environmental issues and potential planning criteria relevant to the Project and any potential plan amendments. The purpose of the public scoping process is to guide the planning process and determine the relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives and mitigation measures.
Preliminary issues for the environmental analysis and potential plan amendment have been identified by BLM; Federal, State, and local agencies; and, other stakeholders. These issues include: Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources, including special status species; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; lands with wilderness characteristics; noise; recreation; traffic; visual resources; cumulative effects; areas with high potential for renewable energy development; and, identification of opportunities to apply mitigation hierarchy strategies for on-site, regional, and compensatory mitigation, and, appropriate to the size of the project, landscape-level conservation and management actions to achieve resource objectives.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or by using one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed.
The BLM withdrew public lands, including those where the proposed Project is located, in the State of California on July 5, 2013, under Public Land Order 7818 for a period of 20 years for future solar energy development, subject to valid existing rights, from location and entry under the United States mining laws. The lands are open to mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral material sales.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources. The BLM will also consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
With respect to the potential land use plan amendment, the BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in any potential plan amendment, and will place those issues into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft EIS and PA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the potential plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology and economics.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of rate adjustments.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns, or has an interest in, irrigation projects located on or associated with various Indian reservations throughout the United States. We are required to establish irrigation assessment rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate these projects. We are notifying you that we have adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of our irrigation projects and facilities to reflect current costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.
For details about a particular BIA irrigation project or facility, please use the tables in the
A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the
Yes. The proposed notice indicated that Proposed 2014 rate for Duck Valley and Fort Yuma Irrigation Projects was “To Be Determined.” A final rate has been determined and is reflected in the Rate Table. The final rates established here differ from the proposed rates for the following Irrigation projects:
Yes. Written comments were received from the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD), by letter dated October 31, 2013, to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, related to the proposed rate adjustment for FY 2015 for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. A letter from the Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs dated December 12, 2013, responded to SCIDD's letter.
Comments received relate specifically to one component of the San Carlos Irrigation Project proposed FY 2015 rate: The planned expenditure for repair of the Coolidge Dam Cylinder Gates.
The BIA's summary of SCIDD's issue and the BIA's response are provided below.
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.
You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet site for the Government Publishing Office at
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities.
The rate table below contains the current rates for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the final rates for the 2014 season and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk immediately following the name of the project notes the irrigation projects where 2014 rates are different from the 2013 rates.
* Notes irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment.
To fulfill its consultation responsibility to tribes and tribal organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, and costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is accomplished at the individual irrigation project by Project, Agency, and Regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice to, and request comments from, these entities when we adjust irrigation assessment rates.
The rate adjustments will have no adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increase use of foreign supplies) should the proposed rate adjustments be implemented. This is a notice for rate adjustments at BIA-owned and operated irrigation projects, except for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation with a portion serving the Fort Yuma Reservation.
These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
These rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
These rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $130 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, the Department is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not have significant “takings” implications. The rate adjustments do not deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not have significant Federalism effects because they will not affect the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.
In issuing this rule, the Department has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires March 31, 2016.
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(d)).
In developing this notice, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
BOEM has prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas Lease Sales 246 and 248, which are tentatively scheduled to be held in August 2015 and 2016, respectively, in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Western Planning Area (WPA) offshore the States of Texas and Louisiana. This Final Supplemental EIS updates the environmental and socioeconomic analyses for proposed WPA Lease Sales 246 and 248 evaluated in the
Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Office of Environment (GM 623E), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, by telephone at 504-736-3233 or email at
BOEM developed this Final Supplemental EIS for proposed WPA Lease Sales 246 and 248 to consider new information made available since completion of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS, WPA 233/CPA 231 Supplemental EIS, and WPA 238/246/248 Supplemental EIS, and to consider new information on the
BOEM has printed and will be distributing a limited number of paper copies of the Final Supplemental EIS. In keeping with the Department of the Interior's mission of the protection of natural resources and to limit costs while ensuring availability of the document to the public, BOEM will primarily distribute digital copies of the Final Supplemental EIS on compact discs. However, if you require a paper copy, BOEM will provide one upon request if copies are still available.
1. You may obtain a copy of the Final Supplemental EIS from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Public Information Office (GM 335A), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 250, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF).
2. You may download or view the Final Supplemental EIS on BOEM's Web site at
Several libraries along the Gulf Coast have been sent copies of the Final Supplemental EIS. To find out which libraries have copies of the Final Supplemental EIS for review, you may contact BOEM's Public Information Office or visit BOEM's Web site at
This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1503) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of additional public scoping meetings for the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the 2017-2022 Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is announcing three additional public scoping meetings for the EIS on the 2017-2022 Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
○ March 16, 2015; Ramada Plaza Nags Head Oceanfront, 1701 S. Virginia Dare Trail, Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina; 3:00-7:00 p.m.; free parking.
○ March 18, 2015; Sheraton Atlantic City, 2 Convention Blvd., Atlantic City, New Jersey; 3:00-7:00 p.m.; validated participant parking at hotel.
○ March 24, 2015; Hyatt Regency Savannah, Two West Bay St., Savannah, Georgia; 3:00-7:00 p.m.; validated participant parking at hotel.
Comments should be submitted by March 30, 2015. Please see
For information on the EIS, the submission of comments, or BOEM's policies associated with this Notice, please contact Mr. Geoffrey L. Wikel, Acting Chief, Division of Environmental Assessment, Office of Environmental Programs, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (HM 3107), 381 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170-4817, telephone (703) 787-1283.
On January 29, 2015, BOEM published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
This Notice is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) implementing the provisions of NEPA.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 12) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation.
Amanda Pitcher Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2737. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on August 4, 2014, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Macronix International Co., Ltd. of Taiwan and Macronix America, Inc., of Milpitas, California. 79 FR 45221 (Aug. 4, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain devices containing non-volatile memory and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,998,826; U.S. Patent No. 6,031,757; U.S. Patent No. 8,341,324; and U.S. Patent No. 8,341,330. The notice of investigation named Spansion Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; Spansion LLC of Sunnyvale, California; Spansion (Thailand) Ltd. of Nonthaburi, Thailand; Aerohive Networks, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; Ciena Corporation of Hanover, Maryland; Delphi Automotive PLC of Kent, United Kingdom; Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC of Troy, Michigan; Polycom, Inc. of San Jose, California; Ruckus Wireless, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; ShoreTel Inc. of Sunnyvale, California; Tellabs, Inc. of Naperville, Illinois; Tellabs North America, Inc. of Naperville, Illinois; TiVo Inc. of San Jose, California; and Allied Telesis, Inc. of Bothell, Washington as respondents. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation.
On January 29, 2015, the private parties filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement. On January 30, 2015, OUII filed a response in support of the motion.
On February 6, 2015, the ALJ granted the joint motion to terminate. The ALJ found the parties included confidential and public versions of the settlement agreement and that the parties represented that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied concerning the subject matter of the investigation. The ALJ also found that termination of the investigation is not contrary to the public interest. No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Youth CareerConnect Impact and Implementation Evaluation,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 6, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OASAM, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Youth CareerConnect (YCC) Impact and Implementation Evaluation information collection. In spring 2014, the DOL awarded 24 grants to implement the YCC program. The program is a high school based initiative aimed at improving students' college and career readiness in particular employment sectors. The programs are redesigning the high school experience through partnerships with colleges and employers to provide skill-developing and work-based learning opportunities
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Name: Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering (#25104).
Date & Time: March 26-27, 2015 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford I, Suite 1235, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
To facilitate entry into the building, contact Diane Drew (
Virtual attendance will be supported. For detailed instructions, visit the meeting Web site at
Type of Meeting: Open.
Contact Person: Kelsey Cook, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II, Suite 1155, Arlington, Virginia 22230; 703-292-7490.
Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to international programs and activities.
The National Coordination Office (NCO) for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD).
Notice.
The Wireless Spectrum R&D Senior Steering Group (WSRD SSG) has been conducting a series of workshops on understanding the fundamental issues involved in Federal and Commercial Spectrum Sharing. The seventh workshop in this series will focus on incentives. This workshop titled, “Federal-Commercial Spectrum Sharing: Models, Applications, and Impacts of Incentives for Sharing”, will be held on March 19, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ. The workshop will be Webcast and the link will be made available at:
March 19, 2015.
Rich and multidisciplinary research questions arise when considering incentives for bi-directional spectrum sharing. Sharing between government and commercial entities will require innovations in technology as well as in business, administrative, and market institutions and practices. Federal, public safety, and commercial users confront different constraints and strategic options, and can be expected to respond differently to opportunities and incentives. This workshop will discuss what research is needed to get a better understanding of these factors, including lessons learned, in order to identify incentives that will work.
Submitted by the National Science Foundation for the National Coordination Office (NCO) for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) on February 25, 2015.
Wendy Wigen at 703-292-4873 or
Pursuant to Title 10 of the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within thirty days after publication of this notice in the
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with NRC's E-Filing rule promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007. Information about filing electronically is available on the NRC's public Web site at
In addition to a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, written comments, in accordance with 10 CFR 110.81, should be submitted within thirty days after publication of this notice in the FR to Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications.
The information concerning this export license application follows.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
March 9, 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 9, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 16, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 30, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
9:30 a.m.—Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (Public Meeting) Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-415-5775)
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice; correction.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) published a document in the
Grace Kraemer, Attorney, or Catherine B. Klion, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
In the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice and Request for Comments.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension without change of a currently approved collection, information collection request (ICR) 3206-0250, Certificate of Medical Examination. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 6, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Employee Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Phil Spottswood or via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Hiring Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Phil Spottswood or via electronic mail to
The Optional Form (OF) 178, Certificate of Medical Examination, is used to collect medical information about individuals who are incumbents of positions which require physical fitness/agility testing and/or medical examinations, or who have been selected for such a position contingent upon meeting physical fitness/agility testing and medical examinations as a condition of employment. This information is needed to ensure fair and consistent treatment of employees and job applicants, to adjudicate the medically-based passover of a preference eligible, and to adjudicate claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
A
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, to update the names of certain products to align with recent changes made to the names of the same products in the Exchange's fee schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, to update the names of certain products to align with recent changes made to the names of the same products in the Exchange's fee schedule. On February 3, 2015, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change with the Commission that, among other things, amended the Exchange's fee schedule to rename “BZX Exchange PITCH Feed” as the “BZX Depth”,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by providing consistency amongst the naming conventions used for the Exchange market data products.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written 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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 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.
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 text of the proposed rule change consists of certain rule changes that have been proposed by ICE Clear Europe. The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to specify the clearing and other fees to be charged by ICE Clear Europe in respect of the clearing of equity contracts traded on the LIFFE Administration and Management market which have transitioned to trading on ICE Futures Europe (“Migrating Contracts”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is for ICE Clear Europe to adopt a new fee schedule in respect of the clearing of the Migrating Contracts following the transition of trading in such contracts to ICE Futures Europe. The new fee schedule specifies certain exchange and clearing fees, as well as certain assignment, delivery and other fees applicable to the Migrating Contracts. The new fee schedule will replace the fee schedule previously published by ICE Futures Europe in respect of equity contracts. The combined exchange and clearing fees under the new fee schedule are the same as those being charged prior to the transition of trading in such contracts to ICE Futures Europe.
ICE Clear Europe has determined that the clearing fees in the new schedule continue to be appropriate to charge Clearing Members in connection with the clearing of the Migrating Contracts by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe notes in this regard that the fees are the same as those currently charged for such contracts. ICE Clear Europe believes that imposing such clearing fees is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The fees in the revised fee schedule are the same as those being charged prior to the transition in trading of the Migrating Contracts to ICE Futures Europe.
Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing 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.
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-ICEEU-2015-001 and should be submitted on or before March 27, 2015.
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 Discovery Oil, Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2010.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of I/O Magic Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Maydao Corporation because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of NX Global, Inc because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended October 31, 2011.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of SensiVida Medical Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended May 31, 2011.
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-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on March 4, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 17, 2015.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 1-E (17 CFR 239.200) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
The Commission uses the information provided in the notification on Form 1-E and the offering circular to determine whether an offering qualifies for the exemption under Regulation E. The Commission estimates that, each year, one issuer files one notification on Form 1-E, together with offering circulars,
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of China Infrastructure Investment Corp. (“CIIC”) because, among other things, it: (1) Has not filed any periodic reports since the Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011, filed on November 14, 2011; and (2) filed a Form 8-K on December 16, 2011, stating that the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) whose signature appears on Forms 10-K and 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2011, and on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2011, had resigned from CIIC on September 21, 2011, and had not prepared, reviewed, signed or authorized these filings.
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-listed company.
Therefore,
By the Commission.
On November 12, 2014, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2014-09 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FICC filed the proposed rule change to amend the clearing rules of the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) and of the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) concerning a default by FICC.
The existing FICC Default Rules cover three general types of default: Voluntary proceedings defaults; involuntary proceedings defaults; and non-insolvency related defaults. Under the existing FICC Default Rules, FICC states that it is considered in default with respect to voluntary proceedings defaults (i) immediately upon the dissolution of FICC, (ii) the voluntary institution of proceedings by FICC seeking a judgment of insolvency or bankruptcy or other similar relief, or (iii) the voluntary presentation by FICC of a petition for its winding up or liquidation.
Under the existing FICC Default Rules, FICC is considered in default
The existing FICC Default Rules exclude the following from the scope of what is considered a non-insolvency related default: (i) The failure on the part of FICC to satisfy obligations to members in wind-down, members in default, or members for whom FICC has ceased to act pursuant to either GSD Rule 22A or MBSD Rule 17, as applicable; (ii) the satisfaction of any payment or delivery obligation by FICC through alternate means as provided in GSD or MBSD rules, as applicable; (iii) the failure of the other division of FICC to satisfy a payment or delivery obligation to a clearing member; and (iv) the failure to satisfy any payment or delivery obligation required to be made to a clearing member that is solely the result of an operational, technological, or administrative error or impediment, provided that FICC possesses sufficient funds or assets to satisfy the obligation.
Additionally, according to FICC, the grace period can be extended beyond 90 calendar days under the existing FICC Default Rules in a non-insolvency related default situation where a payment or delivery deadline has been suspended under GSD Rule 42 or MBSD Rule 33, as applicable, in which case the 90 calendar day grace period would commence on the date FICC receives notice from a clearing member of its failure to make an undisputed payment or delivery on the later due date determined pursuant to the suspension.
Pursuant to this rule change, as approved, FICC is now amending its FICC Default Rules in order to more closely align such rules with those of its peer central counterparties and to facilitate the participation of market participants, including registered investment companies, in FICC's services by providing members with further legal certainty regarding their rights with respect to a default by FICC. First, FICC is amending its FICC Default Rules to add the voluntary making by FICC of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors as an additional type of voluntary proceeding. Second, FICC is eliminating the 90 calendar day grace period for involuntary proceeding defaults. According to FICC, this change will result in FICC being considered in default immediately upon the judgment of insolvency or bankruptcy or the entry of an order for relief (or similar order) for FICC's winding-up or liquidation, or the appointment of a receiver, trustee or other similar official for FICC or substantially all of FICC's assets, provided that such receiver, trustee or other similar official is appointed pursuant to the federal securities laws, particularly Section 19(i) of the Act, or Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Third, FICC is reducing the grace period from 90 to 7 calendar days for non-insolvency related defaults. According to FICC, this change will result in it being in a non-insolvency related default on the 8th calendar day after it receives notice from a member of its failure to make an undisputed payment or delivery to such member that is required under the rules of GSD or MBSD, as applicable, provided that such failure has not been remedied during the 7 calendar days, and does not fall within the category of exclusions that are enumerated in clause (b)(i), sub-clauses (A), (B) and (C) of the GSD Default Rule or the MBSD Default Rule, as applicable.
Fourth, FICC is removing the provisions that provide for a potential extension of the grace period in a non-insolvency default situation where the deadline for a payment or delivery obligation of FICC has been suspended by FICC under either GSD Rule 42 or MBSD Rule 33, as applicable. As a result, the grace period will commence on the date FICC receives notice from a member of its failure to make an undisputed payment or delivery on the later due date determined pursuant to the suspension.
Fifth, FICC is removing the provisions that exclude from the scope of what can be considered a non-insolvency related default the failure to satisfy any payment or delivery obligation required to be made to a clearing member that is the result of an operational, technological, or administrative error or impediment.
Sixth, is adding language to the FICC Default Rules to clarify that no other provision within the rules of GSD or MBSD, respectively, including FICC's authority under GSD Rule 42 and MBSD Rule 33, as applicable, can override the definition of what constitutes a default by FICC.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
After careful review, the Commission finds that FICC's rule change to amend the FICC Default Rules is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 29, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”)
Pursuant to this advance notice, OCC is implementing a Capital Plan under which the Stockholder Exchanges will make an additional capital contribution and commit to replenishment capital (“Replenishment Capital”) in circumstances discussed below, and will receive, among other things, the right to receive dividends from OCC. In addition to the additional capital contribution and Replenishment Capital, the main features of the Capital Plan include: (i) A policy establishing OCC's clearing fees at a level that would be sufficient to cover OCC's estimated operating expenses plus a “business risk buffer” as described below (“Fee Policy”), (ii) a policy establishing the amount of the annual refund to clearing members of OCC's fees (“Refund Policy”), and (iii) a policy for calculating the amount of dividends to be paid to the options exchanges owning equity in OCC (“Dividend Policy”). OCC stated that it intends to implement the Capital Plan on or about February 27, 2015, subject to all necessary regulatory approvals.
OCC states in its proposal that it is implementing this Capital Plan, in part, to increase significantly OCC's capital in connection with its increased responsibilities as a systemically important financial market utility. OCC's proposal includes an infusion of substantial additional equity capital by the Stockholder Exchanges to be made prior to February 27, 2015, subject to regulatory approval, that when added to retained earnings accumulated by OCC in 2014 will significantly increase OCC's capital levels as compared to historical levels. Additionally, the proposed change includes the Replenishment Capital commitment, which will provide OCC with access to additional equity contributed by the Stockholder Exchanges should OCC's equity fall close to or below the amount that OCC determines to be appropriate to support its business and manage business risk.
OCC is a clearing agency registered with the Commission and is also a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) regulated in its capacity as such by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). OCC is a Delaware business corporation and is owned equally by the Stockholder Exchanges, five national securities exchanges for which OCC provides clearing services.
According to OCC, it has devoted substantial efforts during the past year to: (1) Develop a 5-year forward looking model of expenses; (2) quantify maximum recovery and wind-down costs under OCC's recovery and wind-down plan; (3) assess and quantify OCC's operational and business risks; (4) model projected capital accumulation taking into account varying assumptions concerning business conditions, fee levels, buffer margin levels and refunds; and (5) develop an effective mechanism that provides OCC access to replenishment capital in the event of losses. Incorporating the results of those efforts, the Capital Plan is intended to provide OCC with the means to increase its stockholder equity.
According to OCC, using the methods described in detail below, OCC will annually determine a target capital requirement consisting of (i) a baseline capital requirement equal to the greatest of (x) six months operating expenses for the following year, (y) the maximum cost of the recovery scenario from OCC's recovery and wind-down plan, and (z) the cost to OCC of winding down operations as set forth in the recovery and wind-down plan (“Baseline Capital Requirement”), plus (ii) a target capital buffer linked to plausible loss scenarios from operational risk, business risk and pension risk (“Target Capital Buffer”) (collectively, “Target Capital Requirement”). OCC determined that the appropriate Target Capital Requirement is $247 million, reflecting a Baseline Capital Requirement of $117 million, which is equal to six months of projected operating expenses, plus a Target Capital Buffer of $130 million. This Target Capital Buffer would provide a significant capital cushion to offset potential business losses.
According to OCC, it had total shareholders' equity of approximately $25 million as of December 31, 2013,
According to OCC, various measures were used in determining the appropriate level of capital. An outside consultant conducted a “bottom-up” analysis of OCC's risks and quantified the appropriate amount of capital to be held against each risk. The analysis was comprehensive across risk types, including credit, market, pension, operation, and business risk. Based on internal operational risk scenarios and loss modeling at or above the 99% confidence level, OCC's operational risk was quantified at $226 million and pension risk at $21 million, resulting in the total Target Capital Requirement of $247 million. Business risk was addressed by taking into consideration that OCC has the ability to fully offset potential revenue volatility and manage business risk to zero by adjusting the levels at which fees and refunds are set and by adopting a Business Risk Buffer of 25% when setting fees. Other risks, such as counterparty risk and on-balance sheet credit and market risk, were considered to be immaterial for purposes of requiring additional capital based on means available to OCC to address those risks that did not require use of OCC's capital. As discussed in more detail below in the context of OCC's Fee Policy, the Business Risk Buffer of 25% is achieved by setting OCC's fees at a level intended to achieve target annual revenue that will result in a 25% buffer for the year after paying all operating expenses.
Additionally, OCC determined that its maximum recovery costs would be $100 million and projected wind-down costs would be $73 million. OCC projected its expenses for 2015 will be $234 million, so that six months projected expenses are $234 million/2 = $117 million. The greater of recovery or wind-down costs and six months of operating expenses is therefore $117 million, and OCC's Baseline Capital Requirement (minimum regulatory requirement) is therefore $117 million. According to OCC, it then computed the appropriate amount of a Target Capital Buffer from operational risk, business risk, and pension risk, resulting in a determination that the current Target Capital Buffer should be $130 million. Thus, the Target Capital Requirement is $117 million + $130 million = $247 million.
According to OCC, in order to meet its Target Capital Requirement, and after consideration of alternatives, OCC's Board of Directors approved a proposal from OCC's Stockholder Exchanges pursuant to which OCC would meet its Target Capital Requirement of $247 million in early 2015 as follows:
The additional
Upon reaching the Target Capital Requirement, the Capital Plan requires OCC to set its fees at a level that utilizes a Business Risk Buffer of 25%. The purpose of this Business Risk Buffer is to ensure that OCC accumulates sufficient capital to cover unexpected fluctuations in operating expenses, business capital needs, and regulatory capital requirements. Furthermore, the Capital Plan requires OCC to maintain Fee, Refund, and Dividend Policies, described in more detail below, which are designed to ensure that OCC's shareholders' equity remains well above the Baseline Capital Requirement.
The required Business Risk Buffer of 25% is below OCC's 10-year historical pre-refund average buffer of 31%. The target will remain 25% so long as OCC's shareholders' equity remains above the Target Capital Requirement amount. The reduction in buffer margin from OCC's 10-year average of 31% to 25% reflects OCC's commitment to operating as an industry utility and ensuring that market participants benefit as much as possible from OCC's operational efficiencies in the future. This reduction will permit OCC to charge lower fees to market participants rather than maximize refunds to clearing members and dividend distributions to Stockholder Exchanges. OCC will review its fee schedule on a quarterly basis to manage revenue as closely to this target as possible.
The Capital Plan will allow OCC to refund approximately $40 million from 2014 fees to clearing members in 2015 and to reduce fees in an amount to be determined by OCC's Board of Directors, effective in the second quarter of 2015. OCC will announce new fee levels early in 2015 and will make such fees effective following notification to clearing members, making any necessary filings, and receiving any necessary approvals from the Commission. OCC will endeavor to provide clearing members with no less than 60-day notice in advance of the effectiveness of changes to fee levels, particularly those that result in increases to fee levels. No dividends will be declared until December 2015 and no dividends will be paid until 2016.
Changes to the Fee, Refund or Dividend Policies will require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the directors then in office and approval of the shareholders of all of OCC's outstanding Class B Common Stock. The formulas for determining the amount of refunds and dividends under the Refund and Dividend Policies, respectively, which are described in more detail below, are based on, among other things, the current tax treatment of refunds as a deductible expense. The Refund and Dividend Policies will provide that in the event that refunds payable under the Refund Policy are not tax deductible, the policies would be amended to restore the relative economic benefits between the recipients of the refunds and the Stockholder Exchanges.
Under the Fee Policy, in setting fees each year, OCC will calculate an annual revenue target based on a forward twelve months expense forecast divided by the difference between one and the Business Risk Buffer of 25% (
Under the advance notice proposal, OCC will use the following formula to calculate its annual revenue target as follows:
Annual Revenue Target = Forward 12 Months Expense Forecast/(1-.25).
Because OCC's clearing fee schedules typically reflect different rates for different categories of transactions, fee projections will include projections as to relative volume in each such category. The clearing fee schedule will therefore be set to achieve a blended or average rate per contract sufficient, when multiplied by total projected contract volume, to achieve the Annual Revenue Target. Under extraordinary circumstances, OCC will add any amount determined to be necessary for additional reserves or surplus and divide the resulting number by the projected contract volume to determine the applicable average fee per cleared contract needed to achieve the additional amounts required. Consistent with past practice, OCC will notify its clearing members of the fees OCC determines it will apply for any particular period by describing the change in an information memorandum distributed to all clearing members. Consistent with past practice, OCC also will notify regulators of the fees it determines would apply for any particular period by filing an amendment to its schedule of fees as a proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.
Under the Refund Policy, except at a time when Replenishment Capital is outstanding as described below, OCC will declare a refund to clearing members in December of each year, beginning in 2015, in an amount equal to 50% of the excess, if any, of (i) the pre-tax income for the year prior to the refund over (ii) the sum of (x) the amount of pre-tax income after the refund necessary to produce after-tax income sufficient to maintain
The Dividend Policy provides that, except at a time when Replenishment Capital is outstanding, OCC will declare a dividend on its Class B Common Stock in December of each year in an aggregate amount equal to the excess, if any, of (i) after-tax income for the year, after application of the Refund Policy (unless the Refund Policy has been eliminated, in which case the refunds shall be deemed to be $0) over (ii) the sum of (A) the amount required to be retained in order to maintain total shareholders' equity at the Target Capital Requirement for the following year, plus (B) the amount of any additional reserves or additional surplus not already included in the Target Capital Requirement. Such dividend will be paid in the year following the declaration after the issuance of OCC's audited financial statements, provided that (i) the payment does not result in total shareholders' equity falling below the Target Capital Requirement, and (ii) such payment is otherwise permitted by applicable Delaware law and applicable federal laws and regulations. If Replenishment Capital has been contributed and remains outstanding, OCC would not pay dividends until such time as the Target Capital Requirement is restored.
According to OCC, OCC has always been operated on an “industry utility” model. The Stockholder Exchanges have contributed only minimal capital to OCC.
According to OCC, given the very large increase in capital that OCC has determined to be appropriate and to meet the increased responsibilities imposed upon it as a systemically important financial market utility, OCC has decided that the best alternative available to it is to obtain a substantial further capital contribution from the Stockholder Exchanges. OCC believes that this cannot be accomplished without modification of the past practice of not providing dividends to stockholders. Accordingly, OCC is establishing a new Fee Policy, Refund Policy, and Dividend Policy. Because of the Business Risk Buffer being set at 25%, the combination of the Fee, Refund and Dividend Policies will effectively cap the dividends to be paid to the Stockholder Exchanges at a level that OCC's Board of Directors (with the advice of outside financial experts) has determined results in a reasonable rate of return on contributed capital, particularly in comparison to the implied cost of capital to the clearing members and their customers of an alternative approach considered by the Board of Directors that would require the accumulation of retained earnings through higher fees and no refunds for several years. OCC will continue to refund a percentage of excess clearing fees to clearing members, thereby benefiting both clearing members and their customers.
OCC believes that the Capital Plan therefore effectively preserves OCC's industry utility model of providing its services in an efficient manner, while also enhancing the benefits to the end user customers by charging lower initial fees due to the decrease in the buffer margin from OCC's 10-year average of 31% to 25%. OCC states that it believes clearing members and customers will benefit from the proposed Capital Plan because the plan will allow OCC to continue to provide clearing services at low cost, including through a significant refund of 2014 fees, a reduction of fees beginning in 2015 and projected continuing refunds and lower fees for the foreseeable future.
According to OCC, it believes that Stockholder Exchanges will benefit from the dividend they receive and, perhaps more importantly, they will be assured that OCC is in a position to provide clearing services for their markets on an on-going basis within the same basic structure that has served these markets well since their inception and without the need to radically change the structure to address potential demands of outside equity investors. Non-Stockholder Exchanges also will benefit by continuing to receive OCC's clearing services for their products on the same basis as they presently do.
OCC also believes that the Capital Plan will better align the interests of Stockholder Exchanges and clearing members with respect to expenses, because changes to the level of operating expenses directly affect the Target Capital Requirement. In short,
OCC is establishing a Replenishment Capital Plan whereby OCC's Stockholder Exchanges are obligated to provide on a
Replenishment Capital contributed to OCC under the Replenishment Capital Plan will take the form of a new class of common stock (“Class C Common Stock”) of OCC to be issued to the Stockholder Exchanges solely in exchange for Replenishment Capital contributions.
The Replenishment Capital Plan is a component of OCC's overall Capital Plan. In implementing the Replenishment Capital Plan, OCC's management would monitor OCC's levels of shareholders' equity to identify certain triggers, or reduced capital levels, that might require action. OCC has identified two key triggers—a soft trigger and a hard trigger—and proposes that OCC will take certain steps upon the occurrence of either. The “soft trigger” for re-evaluating OCC's capital will occur if OCC's shareholders' equity falls below the sum of (i) the Baseline Capital Requirement and (ii) 75% of the Target Capital Buffer. The soft trigger will be a warning sign that OCC's capital had fallen to a level that requires attention and responsive action to prevent it from falling to unacceptable levels. Upon a breach of the soft trigger, OCC's senior management and OCC's Board of Directors will review alternatives to increasing capital, and take appropriate action as necessary, including increasing fees or decreasing expenses, to restore shareholders' equity to the Target Capital Requirement.
The “hard trigger” for making a mandatory Replenishment Capital call will occur if shareholders' equity falls below 125% of the Baseline Capital Requirement (“Hard Trigger Threshold”). OCC considers that a breach of the Hard Trigger Threshold is a sign that significant corrective action, with a more immediate impact than increasing fees or decreasing expenses, should be taken to increase OCC's capital, either as part of a recovery plan or a wind-down plan for OCC's business. OCC's shareholders' equity will have to fall more than $100,000,000 below the fully funded capital amount described above in order to breach the Hard Trigger Threshold. As a result, OCC views the breach of the Hard Trigger Threshold as unlikely and occurring only as a result of a significant, unexpected event. In the event of such a breach, OCC's Board of Directors must determine whether to attempt a recovery, a wind-down of OCC's operations, or a sale or similar transaction, subject in each case to any necessary stockholder consent.
While Replenishment Capital is outstanding, no refunds or dividends will be paid and, if any Replenishment Capital remains outstanding for more than 24 months or the Target Capital Requirement is not restored during that period, changes to how OCC calculates refunds and dividends may be necessary (as described in more detail in OCC's Refund Policy and Dividend Policy). In addition, while Replenishment Capital is outstanding, OCC will first utilize the entire amount of available funds to repurchase, on a
According to OCC, the capital base described above will permit OCC to hold at all times cash and other assets of high quality and sufficiently liquid to allow OCC to meet its current and projected operating expenses under a range of scenarios, including adverse market conditions. OCC expects it will hold at all times liquid net assets funded by equity sufficient to cover potential general business losses so that OCC can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, which assets will always be greater than either (x) six months of the covered clearing agency's
The Commission received five comment letters on OCC's proposal and three comment letters from OCC responding to the issues raised by the commenters.
One commenter, however, raised the issue that the Replenishment Capital Plan may create a misalignment of interests between the exchanges and clearing members, which could in turn create an imbalance in the management of certain risks.
OCC asserts in its response that these concerns regarding Replenishment Capital are misplaced.
Although the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
• Promote robust risk management;
• promote safety and soundness;
• reduce systemic risks; and
• support the stability of the broader financial system.
After carefully considering OCC's proposal, the comments received, and OCC's responses thereto, the Commission finds that OCC's Capital Plan is consistent with the objectives and principles described in Section 805(b) of the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act.
While most of the issues raised by the commenters do not relate to the nature or level of risks presented by OCC, one commenter raised a specific concern with respect to OCC's Replenishment Capital Plan. The Commission, however, believes that OCC's Capital Plan, when considered in its totality, does not adversely change the nature or level of risks presented by OCC. Although this commenter alleged a potential misalignment of interests between the Stockholder Exchanges and clearing members when Replenishment Capital is outstanding, decisions made regarding the capitalization of OCC are made by the Board of Directors. OCC's By-Laws address the use of capital to cover clearing member defaults in lieu of using the clearing fund and address the power of the Board of Directors to make decisions in such circumstances. Further, the Board of Directors' obligations under corporate law will require the Board of Directors to revisit on a periodic basis material provisions of the Capital Plan in the future, including those related to decisions regarding Replenishment Capital, and to review any credible new capital proposals that may be brought forward by management or members of the Board of Directors from time to time. The Commission believes such processes create a reasonable expectation that the potential concerns described by the commenter can be controlled by OCC, and therefore the Commission agrees with OCC that the commenter's contentions regarding the purpose and use of the Replenishment Capital are misplaced.
The Capital Plan will provide OCC with an immediate injection of capital
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to specify in Exchange rules the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled “Enhancing Our Market Equity Structure,” Mary Jo White, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) requested the equity exchanges to file with the Commission the data feeds used for purposes of (1) order handling and execution (
On July 18, 2014, in response to the above request, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change that clarified the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance.
SEC staff has requested that the Exchange file a supplemental proposed rule change to specify in Exchange rules which data feeds the Exchange uses for the above-described purposes. Accordingly, the Exchange is filing this proposed rule change.
At the time of the July 2014 Data Feed Filing, the Exchange used only the SIP data feeds for BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., and NYSE MKT LLC and uses a combination of Direct Feeds and the SIP data feeds for the other exchanges trading NMS stocks,
• Determine protected quotations on markets other than the Exchange for purposes of compliance with Rule 611 and Rule 610(d), including identifying where to route ISOs, to calculate the protected best bid or offer (“PBBO”) or national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) for purposes of order types that are priced based on the PBBO or NBBO;
• Route interest pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37(d)(2);
• Determine the national best bid (“NBB”) for purposes of complying with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.16(f).
The Exchange notes that when it routes interest to a protected quotation, the Exchange adjusts the PBBO. In addition, when calculating the PBBO or NBBO, the Exchange aggregates odd-lot interest available on Direct Feeds at a single price level into round lot quotations.
The Exchange proposes to add new Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37, which would state the following:
(a) The Exchange uses the following data feeds for the handing, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance:
As noted above, at the time of the July 2014 Data Feed Filing, the Exchange was using the SIP Data Feed for BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC. The Exchange has since changed its data sources for those markets, and as reflected above, now uses the Direct Feed as the primary source for those markets.
The Exchange further proposes to specify in new Commentary .02 to Rule 7.37 that the Exchange receives data feeds directly from broker dealers for purposes of routing interest pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37(d)(2).
The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would provide the public and investors with information about which data feeds the Exchange uses for execution and routing decisions.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The collection of information is entitled: “Form N-4 (17 CFR 239.17b) under the Securities Act of 1933 and (17 CFR 274.11c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, registration statement of separate accounts organized as unit investment trust.” Form N-4 is the form used by insurance company separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts that offer variable annuity contracts to register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The purpose of Form N-4 is to meet the filing and disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and the Investment Company Act and to enable filers to provide investors with information necessary to evaluate an investment in a security. The information required to be filed with the Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability and dissemination of the information.
The estimated annual number of filings on Form N-4 is 210 initial registration statements and 1,443 post-effective amendments. The estimated average number of portfolios per filing is one, both for initial registration statements and post-effective amendments on Form N-4. Accordingly, the estimated number of portfolios referenced in initial Form N-4 filings annually is 210 and the estimated number of portfolios referenced in post-effective amendment filings on Form N-4 annually is 1,443. The estimate of the annual hour burden for Form N-4 is approximately 278.5 hours per initial registration statement and 197.25 hours per post-effective amendment, for a total of 343,116.75 hours ((210 initial registration statements x 278.5 hours) + (1,443 post-effective amendments × 197.25 hours)).
The current estimated annual cost burden for preparing an initial Form N-4 filing is $23,013 per portfolio and the current estimated annual cost burden for preparing a post-effective amendment filing on Form N-4 is $21,813 per portfolio. The Commission estimates that, on an annual basis, 210 portfolios will be referenced in initial Form N-4 filings and 1,443 portfolios will be referenced in post-effective amendment filings on Form N-4. Thus,
Providing the information required by Form N-4 is mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
On November 18, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-ICC-2014-19 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC is proposing to update and formalize ICC's Operational Risk Management Framework. According to ICC, the Operational Risk Management Framework is designed to create a program of risk assessment and oversight to identify, monitor, and manage plausible sources of operational risk,
Under the Operational Risk Management Framework, the Operational Risk Manager has the responsibility and authority to develop and enforce, in consultation with the ICC Board and appropriate members of senior management, the operational risk program, which applies to all ICC activities, groups, functions and locations. The Operational Risk Management Framework further provides that the Operational Risk Manager is the owner of the Operational Risk Management Framework document, that the initial document and any material amendments require review and approval by the appropriate members of senior management and the ICC Board, and that the Operational Risk Manager reports to the Chief Compliance Officer who reports directly to the ICC Board.
There are several components to the ICC Operational Risk Management Framework. ICC states that the Operational Risk Management Framework establishes clearly defined operational performance objectives that serve as benchmarks to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness, promote confidence among management and participants, and evaluate operational performance against expectations. The Operational Risk Management Framework states ICC's goals of identifying, monitoring, and managing all plausible sources of operational risk and establishing clear policies and procedures to address presented risk scenarios. For example, the Operational Risk Management Framework incorporates ICC's risk assessment methodology to identify and evaluate potential operational risks in each of its major clearing processes, as well as procedures for recommending controls to mitigate risks identified in the risk assessment. The Operational Risk Management Framework also contains information regarding how ICC leverages certain shared infrastructures within the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. family as part of its operational risk management program.
Additionally, the Operational Risk Management Framework details the Operational Risk Manager's responsibilities in terms of business continuity planning, vendor risk management, and the release of new products, processes, and initiatives. Under the Operational Risk Management Framework, the Operational Risk Manager is responsible for operational risk reporting, which includes reporting and addressing significant operational risk weaknesses or failures timely and appropriately (including escalation to the appropriate members of senior management and the ICC Audit Committee and the Board when necessary), and providing ongoing reporting to appropriate members of senior management and periodic reporting to the ICC Board and the ICC Audit Committee on the operational risk program and significant control matters.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to specify in Exchange rules the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled “Enhancing Our Market Equity Structure,” Mary Jo White, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) requested the equity exchanges to file with the Commission the data feeds used for purposes of (1) order handling and execution (
On July 18, 2014, in response to the above request, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change that clarified the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance.
SEC staff has requested that the Exchange file a supplemental proposed rule change to specify in Exchange rules which data feeds the Exchange uses for the above-described purposes. Accordingly, the Exchange is filing this proposed rule change.
As set forth in its July 2014 Data Feed Filing, the Exchange uses only the SIP data feeds to determine protected quotations on markets other than the Exchange
The Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 19—Equities, which would state the following:
.01 The Exchange uses the following data feeds for the handing, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance:
The Exchange notes that it does not trade any securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange LLC.
The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Spriza, Inc. because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by Spriza, Inc., including assertions regarding business relationships in a company press release dated February 6, 2015, a Form 8-K and in a video created by the company. Spriza, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business located in El Segundo, California.
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-listed company.
By the Commission.
On August 15, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) revise credits applicable to certain Designated Market Maker transactions, and (2) revise the credits for Supplemental Liquidity Providers. The Exchange also proposes to amend its Price List to remove certain trading license fees that expire on February 27, 2015. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) revise credits for certain Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) transactions, and (2) revise the credits for Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLPs”). The Exchange also proposes to amend its Price List to remove certain trading license fees that expire on February 27, 2015.
The Exchange proposes to implement these fee changes effective March 1, 2015.
Currently, for securities with an ADV of less than 1 million per month in the previous month (“Less Active Securities”), DMMs receive all of the market data quote revenue (the “Quoting Share”) received by the Exchange from the Consolidated Tape Association under the Revenue Allocation Formula of Regulation NMS (regardless of whether the stock price exceeds $1.00) in any month in which the DMM quotes at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) in the applicable security at least 15% of the time (the “Less Active Securities Quoting Requirement”).
The Exchange proposes to increase the DMM's quoting requirement at the NBBO to 20% in each applicable security in order for the DMM to receive 100% of the Quoting Share. The Exchange also proposes that if the DMM meets the Less Active Securities Quoting Requirement but quotes less than 20% of the time in an applicable month, the DMM would receive 50% of the Quoting Share. The Exchange also proposes to re-locate the text describing Quoting Share allocation to a stand-alone paragraph.
The current monthly rebate payable to DMMs for securities with an ADV of less than 250,000 shares during the billing month (regardless of whether the stock price exceeds $1.00) in any month in which the DMM meets the Less Active Securities Quoting Requirement is $200.
The Exchange proposes to introduce different rebate amounts depending on the ADV of the security and the DMM quoting percentage. In particular, for securities with an ADV of 100,000 up to 250,000 shares in the previous month, the Exchange proposes a monthly rebate of $250 when the DMM quotes at the NBBO 20% of the time or more in an applicable security in any month in which the DMM meets the Less Active Securities Quoting Requirement. If the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15% and up to 20% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security, the Exchange proposes a $200 rebate.
For securities with an ADV of less than 100,000 shares in the previous month, the Exchange proposes a monthly rebate of $175 when the DMM quotes at the NBBO 20% of the time or more in an applicable security in any month in which the DMM meets the Less Active Securities Quoting Requirement. If the DMM quotes at the NBBO at least 15% and up to 20% of the time in an applicable month in an applicable security, the Exchange proposes a $125 rebate.
The Exchange proposes to specify that the ADV would be calculated based on the previous month in order to make the ADV calculation consistent with how ADV is calculated for Less Active Securities for purposes of the Quoting Share rebate.
No other changes to the DMM Tier or the corresponding credits would result from this proposed change.
Currently, when adding liquidity to the NYSE in securities with a share price of $1.00 or more, if an SLP (1) meets the 10% average or more quoting requirement in assigned securities pursuant to Rule 107B and (2) adds liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate
Similarly, a SLP adding liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.35% of NYSE CADV is eligible for a per share credit of $.0026. In the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, the credit is $0.0021 and in the case of MPL Orders, the credit is $0.0020.
Finally, a SLP adding liquidity for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.55% of NYSE CADV is eligible for a per share credit of $.0029. In the case of Non-Displayed Reserve Orders, the credit is $0.0024 and in the case of MPL Orders, the credit is $0.0020.
The Exchange proposes to lower the ADV percentage requirement for SLPs that are also DMMs and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A)
For each of these three categories of SLP credits, the Exchange also proposes to increase the credit for securities with an ADV in the previous month of 500,000 shares or less per month (“Less Active SLP Securities”) by $.0005, as follows:
• For assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.20% of NYSE CADV or, if also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A), more than 0.15% of NYSE CADV, increase the credit from $.0023 to $.0028 and increase the credit for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders from $0.0018 to $.0023. The credit applicable for MPL Orders would not change.
• for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.35% of NYSE CADV or, if also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A), more than 0.30% of NYSE CADV, increase the credit from $.0026 to $.0031 and increase the credit for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders from $0.0021 to $.0026. The credit applicable for MPL Orders would not change.
• for assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of an ADV of more than 0.55% of NYSE CADV or, if also a DMM and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A), more than 0.050% of NYSE ADV, increase the credit from $.0029 to $.0034 and increase the credit for Non-Displayed Reserve Orders from $0.0024 to $.0029. The credit applicable for MPL Orders would not change.
No other changes to SLP Tier or the corresponding credits would result from this proposed change.
On December 23, 2014, the Exchange filed to amend its Price List related to fees for trading licenses to extend the fee schedule to February 27, 2015 and to implement new trading license fees effective March 1, 2015.
In particular, for the period between January 2, 2015 and February 27, 2015, the Exchange retained an annual fee of $40,000 per license for the first two trading licenses held by a member organization and $25,000 for each additional trading license. The Exchange also retained a fee relief scheme whereby fees for trading licenses issued after July 1, 2013 were prorated for the portion of the calendar year that the trading license was outstanding but if a member organization was issued additional trading licenses between July 1, 2013 and February 27, 2015, and the total number of trading licenses held by the member during that time was greater than the total number of trading licenses held by the member organization on July 1, 2013, the member organization would not be charged a prorated fee for the period from July 3, 2013 to February 27, 2015 for those additional trading licenses above the number the member organization held on July 1, 2013.
The Exchange's filing also proposed that, effective March 1, 2015, the Exchange would charge an annual fee of $50,000 for the first license held by a member organization and $15,000 for each additional license. The Exchange also proposed to eliminate the existing fee relief for additional licenses and delete the relevant text from current footnote 15 effective March 1, 2015.
The Exchange accordingly proposes to amend the Price List to reflect the elimination of the fees in effect through February 27, 2015 and the fee relief for additional licenses by deleting the text describing those fees and corresponding footnote 15 from the Price List. The Exchange also proposes to delete the “A” from footnote 15A in the current Price List so that footnote 15A would become footnote 15 to the new annual fee and regulated only member annual administration fee effective March 1, 2015.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend current footnote 15A to the Price List (proposed footnote 15) to change the number of calendar days a trading license is charged a flat fee. Currently, footnote 15A provides that for a trading license in place for 15 calendar days or less in a calendar month, proration for that month is at a flat rate of $100 per day with no tier pricing involved. For a trading license in place for 16 calendar days or more in a calendar month, proration for that month is computed based on the number of days as applied to the applicable annual fee for the trading license.
The Exchange proposes to lower the number of calendar days charged the flat rate of $100 per day with no tier pricing from 15 to 10 and make a corresponding change from 16 to 11 calendar days for licenses that would be held beyond the period subject to the flat rate and that would be prorated based on the number of days as applied to the applicable annual fee for the trading license. The Exchange has determined this change is necessary once the fee for additional licenses becomes $15,000 effective March 1, 2015 in order to avoid charging a fee to license holders at a flat rate ($1500/$100 per day for 15 calendar days) that would exceed the monthly cost of the license ($1,250/$15,000 divided by 12). The Exchange believes that lowering the calendar days during which license holders are charged the flat rate to 10 days ($1,000/$100 per day for 10 calendar days) would avoid this result and be more equitable for license holders.
The above proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed higher monthly credit of $250 for each security that has a consolidated ADV of more than 100,000 and less than 250,000 shares during the month when the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security at least 20% of the time in the applicable month is reasonable because of the proposed higher quoting requirement associated with this increase in the credit. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to retain a $200 credit for each security that has a consolidated ADV of more than 100,000 and less than 250,000 shares during the month when the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security at least 15% and up to 20% of the time in the applicable month as this is the rate currently charged and it would apply equally to all DMM firms. The Exchange believes that the proposal would increase the incentive to add liquidity across thinly-traded securities where there may be fewer liquidity providers.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed lower monthly credits of $175 for each security that has a consolidated ADV 100,000 shares or less during the month when the DMM quotes at the NBBO in the applicable security at least 20% of the time in the applicable month is reasonable in light of lower trading volumes in the applicable securities relatively to those securities that have a consolidated ADV of more than 100,000 and less than 250,000 shares. The Exchange further believes it is reasonable to provide a lower rebate of $125.00 for each security that has a consolidated ADV of 100,000 shares or less if the DMM does not meet the proposed 20% quoting requirement. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all DMM firms.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed higher DMM quoting requirement at the NBBO of 20% in order to receive in each applicable security 100% of the Quoting Share is reasonable because the higher proposed requirement would improve quoting and increase adding liquidity across thinly-traded securities where there may be fewer liquidity providers. Under the proposal, DMMs that do not meet the proposed quoting requirement of 20% but still meet the Less Active Securities Quoting Requirement of 15% would still receive 50% of the Quoting Share. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all DMM
In addition, the Exchange believes that proposal to lower the ADV percentage requirement for SLPs that are also DMMs and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A) is reasonable because the current ADV requirement is more difficult for such market participants to meet given that the pool of stocks they are allowed to trade is smaller. Pursuant to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A), a DMM unit may not act as an SLP in the same securities in which it is a DMM. Accordingly, a SLP that is also a DMM subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A) would not be eligible to be assigned securities in which the affiliated DMM is registered, thereby reducing the number of securities available to such an SLP to meet the adding liquidity requirement, which is expressed as a percentage of NYSE CADV. The Exchange further believes that the proposed lower ADV percentage for such SLPs is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would be applied equally to all SLPs that are also DMMs subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A). SLPs that are not DMMs do not have the same restrictions on which securities they may be assigned as a SLP and would not be harmed by the proposal for those firms that are also DMMs.
Further, increasing the credit for SLP transactions providing liquidity in Less Active SLP Securities by $0.0005 is reasonable because it will encourage greater liquidity and competition in such securities on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that increasing the SLP credit is reasonable because it will increase the incentive to add liquidity across thinly traded securities where there may be fewer liquidity providers. Once again, the Exchange believes that the proposed higher credit is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all SLPs.
Finally, amending the Price List to remove fees that are expiring on February 27, 2015 provides greater clarity and transparency to the Price List and avoids confusion as to what trading license fees would apply after that date. Further, amending the Price List to change the number of calendar days a trading license is charged a flat fee is reasonable because it would avoid charging a fee to license holders at a flat rate that would exceed the monthly cost of the license, which is scheduled to begin on March 1, 2015. This proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply the unchanged flat rate equally to all license holders over the same number of days.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 13, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-OCC-2014-21 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
OCC proposed this Proposed Rule Change to permit OCC to collect additional financial resources from its clearing members by increasing the size of its clearing fund on an intra-month basis when OCC determines that such action should be taken to ensure the clearing fund has sufficient resources to protect OCC against potential losses under simulated default scenarios. Specifically, OCC's Proposed Rule Change proposes to amend Rule 1001(a) to delete the second sentence, which states, “[s]uch [clearing fund resizing calculations] shall be made on a daily basis, and the size of the Clearing Fund shall be readjusted monthly based upon the average of such daily calculations performed during the preceding month.”
In emergency circumstances and subject to certain conditions, Article IX, Section 14, of OCC's By-Laws permit OCC's Board of Directors, Executive Chairman, or President to waive or suspend its by-laws, rules, policies and procedures, or any other rules issued by OCC, or extend the time fixed thereby for the doing of any act or acts for up to thirty calendar days. To extend such a wavier or suspension for more than thirty calendar days, OCC's by-laws require it to submit a proposed rule change to the Commission seeking approval of such waiver.
Although OCC monitors the sufficiency of its clearing fund on a daily basis, OCC Rule 1001(a) provides that it may only readjust the size of the clearing fund on a monthly basis. On October 15, 2014, in order to address certain unanticipated intra-month market volatility OCC's Executive Chairman, pursuant to emergency authority, temporarily waived the OCC Rule 1001(a) requirement that OCC readjust the size of its clearing fund on a monthly basis, allowing OCC to resize the clearing fund intra-month. OCC was concerned that its current financial resources might not meet the total financial resources required to cover the default of its largest participant family. The waiver permitted OCC to increase the size of the clearing fund for the remainder of October 2014, prior to the next monthly resizing scheduled for the first business day of November 2014. As a result of the emergency action, OCC's clearing fund for October 2014 was increased by $1.8 billion to a total amount of $5.8 billion.
OCC submitted the Proposed Rule Change, which amends its Rule 1001(a) by deleting the provision that requires OCC to readjust the size of its clearing fund on a monthly basis, allowing OCC to continue to collect additional financial resources from its clearing membership by increasing the size of its clearing fund on an intra-month basis when OCC determines such action should be taken so that the clearing fund is sufficient to protect OCC against potential loss under simulated default scenarios.
OCC stated in its filing that it believes that the proposed rule change is appropriate: (i) To permit OCC to resize the clearing fund more frequently than monthly; and (ii) to determine the clearing fund's size in an amount sufficient to protect OCC from loss by relying on a broader range of sound risk management practices than only the average daily calculations under Rule 1001(a) that are performed during the preceding calendar month. OCC stated that it would use this authority to adjust the size of its clearing fund on an intra-month basis only to increase the size of the Clearing Fund where appropriate, not to decrease the size of the Clearing Fund. In continued reliance on the emergency rule waiver and the emergency notice, OCC set the November 2014 clearing fund size at $7.8 billion, which included an amount determined by OCC to be sufficient to protect OCC against loss under simulated default scenarios (
On December 1, 2014, OCC filed an Advance Notice pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act and Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i)) and a corresponding proposed rule change, to establish procedures regarding the monthly resizing of the clearing fund and the addition of financial resources through intra-day margin calls and/or an intra-month increase of the clearing fund to ensure adequate financial resources.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
Here, the Proposed Rule Change is proposing to eliminate the currently waived second sentence of Rule 1001(a), which would result in the elimination of the monthly resizing requirement. In the absence of an alternative, OCC's rules are devoid of any timeframes within which OCC would be required to resize its clearing fund. OCC's clearing fund reinforces OCC's ability to protect against a clearing member's default, and as such, OCC's clearing fund size (and calculation thereof) would correlate directly with OCC's ability to protect the clearing agency and its members against default.
With only pending proposals before the Commission for determining the clearing fund's size,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the Proposed Rule Change. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on or before March 27, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal on or before April 10, 2015. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2014-21 and should be submitted on or before March 27, 2015. If comments are received, any rebuttal comments should be submitted on or before April 10, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 4, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend section 802.01E of its Listed Company Manual (the “Late Filer Rule”) to: (i) Expand the rule to impose a maximum period within which a company must file a late quarterly report on Form10-Q in order to maintain its listing, and (ii) clarify the Exchange's treatment of companies whose annual or quarterly reports are defective at the time of filing or become defective at some subsequent date.
Currently, the Late Filer Rule deems a listed company to be delinquent in filing its annual report on Forms 10-K, 20-F, 40-F or N-CSR with the Commission if it fails to submit the filing by the date such report was required to be filed by the applicable form, or if a Form 12b-25 was timely filed with the Commission, the extended filing due date for the annual report. During the six-month period from the date of such delinquency, the Exchange monitors the company and the status of the delinquent annual report, including through contact with the company, until the filing delinquency is cured. If the company fails to cure such delinquency within the initial six-month period, the Exchange may, in its sole discretion, allow the company's securities to be traded for up to an additional six-month period depending on the company's specific circumstances. The Exchange will commence suspension and delisting procedures in accordance with Section 804.00 of the Listed Company Manual if the Exchange determines that an additional trading period of up to six months is not appropriate, or if the Exchange determines that an additional trading period of up to six months is appropriate and the company fails to file its annual report by the end of the additional period.
A company is not currently subject to the compliance periods set forth in the Late Filer Rule in connection with a failure to timely file a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC.
Specifically, the Exchange has proposed to amend its Late Filer Rule to explicitly state that, for purposes of remaining listed on the Exchange, a company would incur a filing delinquency and be subject to the procedures set forth in the amended rule on the date on which any of the following occurs:
• The company fails to file its annual report or its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Commission by the date such report was required to be filed by the applicable form (or extended due date if a Form 12b-25 is timely filed with the Commission) (the “Filing Due Date,” and the failure to file a report by the applicable Filing Due Date, a “Late Filing Delinquency”);
• The company files its annual report without an audit report from its independent auditor for any or all of the periods included in such annual report (a “Required Audit Report” and the absence of a Required Audit Report, a “Required Audit Report Delinquency”);
• The company's independent auditor withdraws a Required Audit Report or the company files a Form8-K with the Commission pursuant to Item 4.02(b) thereof disclosing that it has been notified by its independent auditor that a Required Audit Report or completed interim review should no longer be relied upon (a “Required Audit Report Withdrawal Delinquency”); or
• The company files a Form 8-K with the Commission pursuant to Item 4.02(a) thereof to disclose that previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon because of an error in such financial statements or, in the case of a foreign private issuer, makes a similar disclosure in a Form6-K filed with the Commission or by other means (a “Non-Reliance Disclosure”) and, in either case, the company does not refile all required corrected financial statements within 60 days of the issuance of the Non-Reliance Disclosure (an “Extended Non-Reliance Disclosure Event” and, together with a Late Filing Delinquency, a Required Audit Report Delinquency and a Required Audit Report Withdrawal Delinquency, a “Filing Delinquency”) (for purposes of the cure periods described in the rule, an Extended Non-Reliance Disclosure Event would be deemed to have occurred on the date of original issuance of the Non-Reliance Disclosure); if the Exchange believes that a company is unlikely to refile all required corrected financial statements within 60 days after a Non-Reliance Disclosure or that the errors giving rise to such Non-Reliance Disclosure are particularly severe in nature, the Exchange may, in its sole discretion, determine earlier than 60 days that the applicable company has incurred a Filing Delinquency as a result of such Non-Reliance Disclosure.
Upon the occurrence of a Filing Delinquency, the Exchange would promptly send written notification to a company of its procedures relating to late filings (the “Filing Delinquency Notification”).
During the six-month period from the date of the Filing Delinquency (the “Initial Cure Period”), the Exchange would monitor the company and the status of the Delinquent Report and any subsequent annual report or quarterly report on Form 10-Q the company fails to file by the applicable Filing Due Date (a “Subsequent Report”), through contact with the company, until the Filing Delinquency is cured.
The Exchange may also commence suspension and delisting procedures if it believes, in its sole discretion, that it is advisable to do so based on an analysis of all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:
• Whether there are allegations of financial fraud or other illegality in relation to the company's financial reporting;
• The resignation or termination by the company of the company's independent auditor due to a disagreement;
• Any extended delay in appointing a new independent auditor after a prior auditor's resignation or termination;
• The resignation of members of the company's audit committee or other directors;
• The resignation or termination of the company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer or other key senior executives;
• Any evidence that it may be impossible for the company to cure its Filing Delinquency within the cure periods otherwise available under the Late Filer Rule; and
• Any past history of late filings.
In determining whether an Additional Cure Period after the expiration of the Initial Cure Period is appropriate, the Exchange would, as is currently the case, consider the likelihood that the Delinquent Report and all Subsequent Reports can be filed or refiled, as applicable, during the Additional Cure Period, as well as the company's general financial status, based on information provided by a variety of sources, including the company, its audit committee, its outside auditors, the staff of the SEC and any other regulatory body.
As proposed, if the Exchange determines that an Additional Cure Period is appropriate and the company fails to file the Delinquent Report and all Subsequent Reports by the end of such additional period, suspension and delisting procedures would commence immediately in accordance with the procedures set out in section 804.00.
The Exchange has proposed that its amended Late Filer Rule become operative on March 1, 2015.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the goal of ensuring that listed companies have filed accurate, up-to-date reports under the Act is of critical importance so that investors have reliable information upon which they can make informed investment decisions. For the same reason, it is also important that companies with stale or defective publicly filed financial information do not remain listed on a national securities exchange if such information is not brought up-to-date or the deficiency cured in a timely manner. The Commission previously stated its view that the NYSE should consider shortening the timeframes within which a company would be delisted for failing to file annual reports as well as extending such requirements to issuers that are late in filing their quarterly reports with the Commission.
The Commission also believes that the proposed changes to section 802.01E of the Manual should help to ensure that companies cannot continue to trade for extended periods of time without making their annual and interim reports publicly available.
Additionally, by clearly stating that the Exchange's Late Filer Rule applies not only to companies that file late or defective annual reports but also broadening the delisting procedures to include listed companies that file late or defective quarterly reports, the Commission believes that the proposal should benefit the public interest and protect investors by helping to assure that a larger segment of the financial information investors may rely upon when deciding whether to invest in a company listed on the Exchange is up-to-date and accurate. Further, by detailing what the Exchange considers to be a defective annual or quarterly report and how the Exchange treats listed companies whose filed reports suffer from a deficiency, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing additional transparency to listed companies as to what could cause them to become subject to the section 802.01E delisting procedures for a late or deficient filing. For example, as noted above, Exchange rules will be clear that a company that files an 8-K pursuant to Item 4.02(b) thereof and has a Required Audit Report Withdrawal Delinquency will be subject to the procedures in section 802.01E and can only be extended a maximum of 12 months to cure the delinquency. Moreover, and importantly, this additional transparency, as well as the more stringent requirements set forth in the amended rule, could encourage listed companies to take extra care to ensure that their filed reports are timely and accurate, which would protect investors and the public interest. To the extent this occurs, the Commission believes that the proposal also has the potential to enhance the reliability of reports filed by companies listed on the Exchange as well as investor confidence in such reports, which should help to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market.
The new rules also give the Exchange discretion in certain areas when a filing fails to include an element required by the applicable Commission form and the Exchange determines in in its sole discretion that such deficiency is material in nature. The rule filing provided a non-exclusive list of elements that, if missing from a filing, would cause the Exchange to deem the company to have incurred a Filing Delinquency. The Exchange stated in its rule filing that, in making this determination, it would not be making any judgments as to the sufficiency of the filing in question for purposes of compliance with Commission rules, but rather only for purposes of compliance with Exchange rules. The Commission emphasizes that any determination by the Exchange that a missing element is not material for purposes of a Filing Delinquency has no effect on the company's compliance with Commission rules. The Commission further notes that while there is a provision in the new rules concerning a listed company that files an 8-K or 6-K announcing a Non-Reliance Disclosure having 60 days to correct its financial statements, the proposal makes clear that the Filing Delinquency will date from the original announcement of the Non-Reliance Disclosure if it is not cured within 60 days. This will ensure that the period for curing a Non-Reliance Disclosure will not extend past the 12 month period given to listed companies that have had another type of Filing Delinquency.
Finally, the Commission notes that the time periods allowed to cure a Filing Delinquency are maximums for purposes of continued listing. The new provisions being adopted provide additional transparency to investors and the marketplace but also give the Exchange discretion to analyze the particular case and consider whether it is appropriate to commence suspension and delisting procedures immediately based on the particular facts, as well giving the Exchange discretion to grant an additional six month cure period, or shorten any time periods previously given. The new rules provide additional transparency by setting forth certain factors that may cause immediate delisting or shortened periods, such as resignation of a company's chief executive officer, financial officer or members of the audit committee; allegations of fraud or other illegality in relation to financial reporting; and past history of late filings. We expect the Exchange to carefully review each Filing Deficiency and ensure that the public interest is being served by continued trading. As noted above, the importance of timely and complete Commission filings to ensure that investors and the marketplace have accurate and up-to-date information about publicly traded companies is of extreme importance for confidence in our public markets.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of February 2015. A copy of each 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
The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Diane L. Titus at (202) 551-6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 30e-2 (17 CFR 270.30e-2) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
Rule 30e-2, however, permits, under certain conditions, delivery of a single shareholder report to investors who share an address (“householding”). Specifically, rule 30e-2 permits householding of annual and semi-annual reports by UITs to satisfy the delivery requirements of rule 30e-2 if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in the rule, the UIT has obtained from each applicable investor written or implied consent to the householding of shareholder reports at such address. The rule requires UITs that wish to household shareholder reports with implied consent to send a notice to each applicable investor stating that the investors in the household will receive one report in the future unless the investors provide contrary instructions. In addition, at least once a year, UITs relying on the rule for householding must explain to investors who have provided written or implied consent how they can revoke their consent. The purpose of the notice and annual explanation requirements associated with the householding provisions of the rule is to ensure that investors who wish to receive individual copies of shareholder reports are able to do so.
The Commission estimates that the annual burden associated with rule 30e-2 is 121 hours per respondent, including an estimated 20 hours associated with the notice requirement for householding and an estimated 1 hour associated with the explanation of the right to revoke consent to householding. The Commission estimates that there are currently approximately 700 UITs. Therefore, the Commission estimates that the total hour burden is approximately 84,700 hours. In addition to the burden hours, the Commission estimates that the annual cost of contracting for outside services associated with rule 30e-2 is $20,000 per respondent, for a total annual cost of approximately $14,000,000.
Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 30e-2 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 30e-2 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to specify in Exchange rules the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled “Enhancing Our Market Equity Structure,” Mary Jo White, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) requested the equity exchanges to file with the Commission the data feeds used for purposes of (1) order handling and execution (
On July 18, 2014, in response to the above request, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change that clarified the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance.
SEC staff has requested that the Exchange file a supplemental proposed rule change to specify in Exchange rules which data feeds the Exchange uses for the above-described purposes. Accordingly, the Exchange is filing this proposed rule change.
As set forth in its July 2014 Data Feed Filing, the Exchange uses only the SIP data feeds to determine protected quotations on markets other than the Exchange
The Exchange proposes to add new Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 19, which would state the following:
.01 The Exchange uses the following data feeds for the handing, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance:
The Exchange notes that it does not trade any securities listed on the NYSE MKT LLC.
The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, to update the names of certain products to align with recent changes made to the names of the same products in the Exchange's fee schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, to update the names of certain products to align with recent changes made to the names of the same products in the Exchange's fee schedule. On February 3, 2015, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change with the Commission that, among other things, amended the Exchange's fee schedule to rename “BZX Exchange PITCH Feed” as the “BZX Depth”, “BZX Exchange Top Feed” as “BZX Top”, “BZX Exchange Historical TOP” as “BZX Historical Top”, and “Historical PITCH” as “Historical Depth.” The Exchange now proposes to rename the following data products under Rule 11.22 to align with these changes: (i) “TCP PITCH” under subparagraph (a) would be renamed “TCP Depth”; (ii) “Multicast PITCH” under subparagraph (c) would be renamed “Multicast Depth”; and (iii) “TOP” under subparagraph (d) would be renamed “Top”. The Exchange does not propose to amend the content or any other aspect of these market data products.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather avoid investor confusion by providing consistency amongst the naming conventions used for the Exchange market data products.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written 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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that C3 Capital Partners III, L.P., 1511 Baltimore Ave., Suite 500, Kansas, MO 64108, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the “Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 13 CFR 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest, of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations. C3 Capital Partners III, L.P., provided a loan to Green Compass f/k/a Santa Clara Waste Water Company and California Living Waters, Inc. (“Green Compass”), 2775 North Ventura Road, Suite 209, Oxnard, CA 93036. The financing was contemplated to provide capital that contributes to the growth and overall sound financing of Green Compass.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) because C3 Capital Partners II, L.P., an Associate of C3 Capital Partners III, L.P., as defined in § 107.50, owns a ten percent or greater equity interest in Green Compass. Accordingly, Green Compass is considered an Associate of C3 Capital Partners III, L.P.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Joshua Miller, U.S. Department of State, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20037, who may be reached on 202-632-3251 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Department of State will be surveying the general populations of select foreign
Surveys will be administered by experienced in-country data collection subcontractors who will also clean and weight the data and then transfer the final data file to Department of State for analysis. Sampling strategies will vary by country/data collection subcontractor, but all surveys will employ a sampling and weighting strategy so that the surveys genuinely represent the general populations in terms of their geographic distribution and their demographic characteristics. For each country, the data should have an aggregate margin of error of no more than ±5% at a 95% level of confidence and should be free of any bias.
The Committee follows the procedures prescribed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Meetings will be open to the public unless a determination is made in accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) that a meeting or portion of the meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will be published in the
For further information, please contact: Commander Marc A. Zlomek, Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, U.S. Department of State, Office of Oceans Affairs, at
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2151
Any act, executive order, regulation or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation or procedure as reenacted or amended from time to time.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App section 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on April 16, 2015, at the Department of State, Washington, DC
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App section 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
For more information, contact Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act and by the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 113-66 (NDAA), I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security the authority to provide concurrence on Department of Defense security assistance activities pursuant to Section 1203 of the NDAA.
The duties, functions and responsibilities delegated may be re-delegated to the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. Any act or other authority cited herein is considered to be such act or other authority as amended from time to time.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Under Secretary for Political Affairs may exercise any authority or function delegated herein.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including lists of the exhibit objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6469). The
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.
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 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of 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 March 26, 2015.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2015-0232 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Forseth, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, phone 425-306-7134, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Eric Bickleman and Robert Lowe (collectively, applicants) have jointly filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad LLC (EZR), upon EZR's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
This transaction may be consummated on March 20, 2015 (the effective date of this notice).
Applicants currently control one Class III rail carrier, Clinton Terminal Railroad Company, which operates in the State of North Carolina.
Applicants certify that: (1) The rail lines to be operated by EZR do not connect with any other railroads operated by the carriers in the applicants' corporate family; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the rail lines to be operated by EZR with any other railroad in applicants' corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35903, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on John K. Fiorilla, Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions, request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 27 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0302 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 27 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Bailey, 60, has had a macular scar in his left eye since 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “He has
Mr. Bradley, 47, has had macular scarring in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/40, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Bradley has sufficient vision to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Bradley reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 2.4 million miles. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Bruchman, 31, has had a globe laceration with retinal detachment in his left eye since 2002. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Through my testing, the patient exhibits sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Bruchman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Compton, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, he has sufficient enough vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Compton reported that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating 494,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Curtis, 71, has had enucleation due to cancerous choroid in his left eye since 1996. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion Mr. Curtis has sufficient stable vision with his right eye to perform the driving taks [
Mr. Dalling, 46, has had Coats' Disease in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Dalling has sufficient vision in his left eye to perform the driving test required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Dalling reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating 576,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Dornbusch, 68, has had macular degeneration in his left eye since 2002. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I certify that in my opinion Mr. Dornbusch has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Dornbusch reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 48 years, accumulating 2.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Drake, 53, has had alternating esotropia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “He has a stable decrease in vision with a vision of 20/30 in the right eye and 20/200 in the left eye . . . He does have an ability to recognize traffic control signals and has not shown a noted decrease in his ability to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Drake reported that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating 380,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and buses for five years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He holds a Class C CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Emmons, 62, has had optic nerve atrophy in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion he has sufficient vision to operate commercial vehicles.” Mr. Emmons reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Rhode Island. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Fitzsimmons, 51, has had esotropia and amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In summary, Mr. Fitzsimmons has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Fitzsimmons reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 396,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Frisby, 56, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that Mr. Frisby has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Frisby reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 4.38 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 4.38 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gibson, 45, has had a degenerated optic nerve in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light
Mr. Goodrich, 48, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Pt [
Mr. Green, 45, has retinal scarring in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Ii [
Mr. Hess, 61, has had a full-thickness macular hole in his left eye since 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “US Department of Transportation Federal Vision Exemption Program . . . In my medical opinion, I do believe he has sufficient vision to perform the required driving tasks.” Mr. Hess reported that he has driven straight trucks for 41 years, accumulating 307,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Jeans, 35, has had Behcet's panuveities, primary open angle glaucoma, and a retinal detachment in his right eye since 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “In our medical opinion, Mr. Jeans has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Jeans reported that he has driven straight trucks for one year, accumulating 11,000 miles, and buses for 13 years, accumulating 2.15 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Kauffman, 26, has enucleation in his right eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion I do believe he has adapted to monocular vision very well and does meet the requirements necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Kauffman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 4,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lewis, 42, has had band keratopathy and keratectomy in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Patient has normal 20/20 Vision with full visual field in his left eye sufficient to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Lewis reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 112,700 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Mayo, 46, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye since 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, “pt [
Mr. McCleary, 38, has optic nerve compression in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I certify that because of the stability of the visual condition, which has been long standing, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.”
Mr. McCleary reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 100,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. McCrady, 27, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “I believe he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks requirec [
Mr. Michael, 48, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Stacy Michael has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
Mr. Morgan, 75, has had a retinal vascular occlusion in his right eye since 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Morgan appears to have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.”
Mr. Morgan reported that he has driven buses for 50 years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Swanson, 56, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “Patient has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle without restriction.” Mr. Swanson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating 1.05 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 15 MPH.
Mr. Temple, 58, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Temple reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 624,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tucker, 60, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since 2001. The visual acuity in his right eye is20/30, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Tucker's visual abilities are adequate to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tucker reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 750,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. White, 32, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I found no reason to believe he does not have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. White reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6.5 years, accumulating 243,750 miles. He holds an operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 7 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective April 4, 2015. Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0021], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 7 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 7 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 7 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 10251; 78 FR 20379). Each of these 7 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2013-0021), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Notice of submission deadline.
Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) has planned runway resurfacing and Runway Safety Area (RSA) construction at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) beginning in March of 2015 until mid-2018. During this timeframe, a runway will be either shortened or closed, which could increase delays throughout much of the period of construction. In response to the varying capacity changes and forecasted scheduled demand over the duration of the project, the FAA announces the designation of LAX as a Level 2 airport under International Air Transport Association (IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines effective June 28, 2015. The focus hours are daily from 0600 through 2259 local time (1300—0559 UTC). The deadline for carriers to submit schedule information for the later part of the Summer 2015 scheduling season (June 28 through October 24, 2015) is March 20, 2015. The submission deadline for the Winter 2015 scheduling season will be May 21, 2015, which coincides with the IATA submission deadline. The FAA intends for the Level 2 designation to be temporary and does not anticipate this designation to extend beyond the completion date of construction.
Schedules must be submitted no later than March 20, 2015.
Schedules may be submitted by mail to the Slot Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-267-7277; or by email to:
Susan Pfingstler, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-6462; email:
IATA guidelines state that a Level 2 airport is one where there is the potential for congestion during some periods of the day, week or season, which can be resolved by schedule adjustments mutually agreed between airlines and the facilitator. The FAA has determined that LAX should be designated as Level 2 based on projected capacity reductions and operational delays that are anticipated during the upcoming periods of runway construction. This construction is expected to occur in phases from March 2015 through mid-2018. LAWA plans runway closures or shortened runway lengths for resurfacing, construction of runway safety areas, and other airfield projects for all four runways. LAWA's current proposal indicates that only one runway would be closed or shortened at a time. LAWA projects that Runway 7R/25L will be closed for 33 days in March/April 2015. Runway 6L/24R would close from late June to October 2015. Runway 6R/24L would be shortened beginning December 2015 for ten months. Runway 7L/25R would be shortened for four months beginning October 2016 followed by a four month closure until spring 2017. Runway 7R/25L would close in January 2018 for five months. Specific projects and dates will be determined and announced by LAWA.
LAWA, the FAA, and stakeholders meet regularly to review construction plans, identify ways to improve airport and airspace efficiency, and mitigate construction impacts whenever possible. These and other collaborative efforts will continue to improve and manage operations as efficiently as possible; however, runway capacity and surface operations will be impacted during construction. The specific operational and delay impacts have not been definitively determined for each construction phase and will depend on the final project details, available runways, taxiways, and other operational factors. Surface operations will become more complex during construction and affect taxi times, terminal/gate area operations, and aircraft staging. FAA Design Group VI Aircraft operations present additional challenges. LAX currently has more scheduled Group VI Aircraft operations than any other U.S. airport with more operations planned in summer 2015. Operational restrictions for Group VI Aircraft include additional aircraft separation, runway selection, and taxi constraints.
The FAA recognizes that many summer schedules have been completed or are approaching the final planning stages. The initial schedules published for August 2015 are slightly above the August 2014 schedules. While some carriers have reduced operations compared to last summer, other carriers have increased flights. The FAA modeled delays for the March to early April closure of Runway 7R/25L and the late June to October closure of Runway 6L/24R. Modeling suggests moderate delays for the March/April closure and more extensive delays during the peak July and August months. These projections are based on published schedules and historic unscheduled traffic and projected capacity during the 2015 closures. Capacity rates are expected to be reduced by approximately 25%, decreasing hourly arrivals and departures from about 138 to 104 in visual meteorological conditions. The FAA is continuing to look at potential ways to increase runway throughput during construction and improve operations given the constraints. The FAA, LAWA, operators, and other affected parties expect to improve their operational planning for future construction phases based on the experiences during the March/April closure.
The FAA considered whether it would be optimal to begin the Level 2 review during the Winter 2015 scheduling season. Winter schedules are in earlier stages of development and
Schedule review under Level 2 alone will not resolve the congestion and delays resulting from demand that may exceed capacity. Rather, we expect that delays may be reduced as the FAA and carriers consider the potential impacts of new or retimed flights in peak periods. The success of Level 2 relies on voluntary cooperation by carriers to maintain a reasonable balance between capacity and demand. Carriers should recognize the operational constraints during construction and the potential for lengthy delays, carrier network impacts, flight cancellations, and consumer disruption if planned schedules significantly exceed capacity. The FAA does not expect to confirm, under the Level 2 process, new peak hour flights beyond those published as of the date of this notice.
Accordingly, effective June 28, 2015, the FAA designates LAX as a Level 2 airport daily between the hours of 0600 and 2259 local time (1300 and 0559 UTC) but carriers may submit schedule information for the full day, if preferred. Carriers should submit to the FAA schedule information for all planned operations no later than March 20, 2015. The FAA will reply to carrier schedule submissions within two weeks of the deadline. For future scheduling seasons, the FAA intends to follow the IATA WSG regular slot activity calendar. Runway capacity estimates for the Winter 2015 scheduling season are expected in the spring and will be reviewed during regular meetings with LAWA and stakeholders.
Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail including, at a minimum, the carrier, flight number, scheduled time of arrival or departure, half-hour period, frequency, and effective dates. IATA standard schedule information format and data elements (Standard Schedules Information Manual, Chapter 6) may be submitted and would provide additional information that could be beneficial in assessing operational impacts.
LAX is designated by LAWA as Level 2 for flights at the Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT). This notice does not replace that process, which is done separately by LAWA based on terminal constraints. Schedule submissions and discussions with LAWA will continue in addition to FAA's review for runway impacts as described in this notice. Carriers operating at TBIT may copy both LAWA and the FAA on schedule messages.
Finally, the FAA expects that the Level 2 designation will allow all interested parties an opportunity to address any imbalance between demand and capacity, and work cooperatively to reduce delays. The FAA supports the Level 2 process as a preferred and viable alternative to full slot coordination under Level 3 or other administrative actions to address congestion during the runway and RSA construction. Since LAX does not have a history of significant delays and capacity is generally sufficient to meet demand, the FAA anticipates continuing its Level 2 designation only for the planned construction period that is expected to end in 2018. However, the FAA will review the Level 2 designation, at a minimum, in advance of each scheduling season and consider further action as may be necessary if operational data indicates that congestion cannot be mitigated effectively under the Level 2 designation.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 11 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective April 1, 2015. Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0413], using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 11 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 11 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 11 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 13360; 69 FR 64806; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16887; 72 FR 1056; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR 11426; 73 FR 76440; 74 FR 8302; 74 FR 8842; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 80887; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 12215; 76 FR 12216; 76 FR 12408; 78 FR 10250; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 14410). Each of these 11 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0413), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration, is authorized to make determinations permitting the use of foreign-flag anchor handling vessels in certain cases (and for a limited period of time) if no U.S.-flag vessels are found to be suitable and reasonably available.
A request for such a determination regarding anchor handling vessels with a minimum ice class A3 has been received by the Maritime Administration. If the Maritime Administration determines that U.S.-flag vessels are not suitable and reasonably available for the proposed service, a determination will be granted allowing for the conditional use of these vessels, within a set time frame. Those interested in providing the names of suitable and available vessels for the proposed service should refer to the docket number, and identify the U.S.-flag vessels available.
Submit U.S.-flag anchor handling ice class A3 or above vessel nominations on or before April 6, 2015.
U.S.-flag vessel nominations should refer to docket number MARAD 2015-0022. Written nominations may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send documents electronically via the Internet at
All submissions will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document, and all documents entered into this docket, is available on the World Wide Web at
You may contact Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-730 Room W21-304, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
The Maritime Administration has received a request from a company seeking permission to charter a foreign-flag ice-classed A3 anchor handling vessel adjacent to the coast of Alaska. The foreign-flag anchor handling vessel (TOR VIKING II 9199622) would operate in the Beaufort Sea or Chukchi Sea adjacent to Alaska, under certain conditions, and for a limited period of time. Section 306 of Public Law 111-281 allows the use of foreign-flag vessels in this regard if the Maritime Administration determines that U.S.-flag vessels are not suitable or reasonably available.
The Maritime Administration is posting this notice in the
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments and supporting documentation received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT Privacy Act system of records notice for the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) in the
Section 306, Pub. L. 111-281 (Oct. 15, 2010).
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Elizabethtown Industrial Railroad LLC (EZR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to operate a 1.0-mile line of railroad, known as the Conewago Industrial Track, between the connection with the Norfolk Southern Railway Company's (NS) main line at milepost 1.0 in Conewago, and milepost 0.0 in West Donegal Township, in Lancaster County Pa., (the Line), pursuant to an operating agreement with Rail Holdings, Inc. (RH), the owner of the Line.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
EZR states that it will provide common carrier freight service over the Line pursuant to an operating agreement it is negotiating with RH.
EZR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction
The transaction may be consummated on or after March 20, 2015, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35902, must be filed with Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on John K. Fiorilla, Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The DOT is announcing an initiative to permit, on an experimental basis, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recipients and subrecipients to utilize various contracting requirements that generally have been disallowed due to concerns about adverse impacts on competition. This initiative will be carried out as a pilot program for a period of 1 year (unless extended) under the FHWA and FTA's existing authorities. The purpose of this pilot program is to determine whether the use of such requirements “unduly limit competition,” as provided in an August 23, 2013, opinion from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Should DOT find that such restrictions do not unduly limit competition, DOT may provide further guidance regarding their use.
This pilot program is effective March 6, 2015.
For technical information: Mr. Michael Harkins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Office, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-0590 (telephone),
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at
Traditionally, DOT has prohibited its recipients and subrecipients from using certain contracting provisions that do not directly relate to the bidder's performance of work in a competent and responsible manner. An example of such provisions includes local and other geographic-based labor hiring preferences. The DOT's position was reinforced by a 1986 opinion of the OLC, which concluded that 23 U.S.C. 112 (“section 112”) obligated the Secretary of Transportation to withhold Federal funding from highway construction contracts that were subject to a New York City law imposing disadvantages on a class of responsible bidders, where the city failed to demonstrate that its departure from competitive bidding requirements was justified by considerations of cost-effectiveness.
However, in August 2013, at DOT's request, the OLC provided DOT with a memorandum opinion, clarifying its 1986 opinion on section 112.
The 2013 opinion explains that competition would not be unduly limited by “[a] state or local requirement that has only an incidental effect on the pool of potential bidders or that imposes reasonable requirements related to the performance of the necessary work. . . .” 2013 opinion at 2. In contrast, “a requirement that has more than an incidental effect on the pool of potential bidders and does not relate to the work's performance would unduly limit competition unless it promotes the efficient and effective use of federal funds.”
Thus, DOT retains discretion under the statute to evaluate whether a particular State or local law or policy that has more than an incidental effect on the pool of potential bidders is nonetheless compatible with section 112(b)(1)'s competitive bidding requirement. The process used to evaluate whether state and local requirements satisfy section 112 also is a matter of agency discretion.
In 1988, a Transportation Research Board (TRB) task force, comprised of representatives from all segments of the highway industry, was formed to evaluate Innovative Contracting Practices. This TRB task force requested
The innovative practices originally approved for evaluation under SEP-14 were: Cost-plus-time bidding, lane rental, design-build contracting, and warranty clauses. Forty-one States have used at least one of the innovative practices under SEP-14. Based on their collective experiences, FHWA decided that cost-plus-time bidding, lane rental, and warranty clauses were techniques suitable for use as non-experimental, operational practices and in 1995 these were made regular Federal-aid procedures. Design-build contracting in the Federal-aid highway program was conducted under SEP-14 until Congress modified section 112 in section 1307 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to permanently authorize the use of this contracting method. Additionally, the construction manager/general contractor method of contracting in the Federal-aid highway program was originally conducted under SEP-14 until Congress modified section 112 in section 1303 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act to permanently authorize the use of this contracting method. The SEP-14 program continues to be used to test and evaluate experimental contracting practices.
Also, the FTA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 5312 to carry out research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects that will improve public transportation. Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 5314 authorizes FTA to carry out activities that will assist recipients of assistance to administer funds received under Chapter 53 in compliance with Federal law, including the development of voluntary and consensus-based standards and best practices by the public transportation industry, including standards and best practices for procurement.
The DOT is interested in permitting State and local recipients of Federal financial assistance to utilize contracting requirements that traditionally have been prohibited on the basis that they would restrict competition by not directly relating to the bidder's performance of work. Thus, DOT is establishing a pilot program under the existing authorities of the FHWA and FTA grant programs. The objective of this pilot program is to enable DOT to determine which requirements may be used consistently with the 2013 OLC opinion by promoting efficiency in connection with the letting of a particular contract, furthering the efficient and effective use of federal funds in the long run, or protecting the integrity of the competitive bidding process.
In particular, with respect to procurements for which FHWA or FTA funds will be used, recipients and subrecipients may request those agencies to permit the use of a particular contracting requirement that otherwise may be found to be inconsistent with the general requirement for full and open competition. DOT is particularly interested in contracts for which recipients and subrecipients wish to utilize a local or other geographic labor hiring preferences, economic-based labor hiring preferences (
This pilot program will be carried out for a period of 1 year from the date of publication of this notice. As such, DOT is only interested in contracts that will be advertised during this time frame. For any such contracts, the DOT will monitor and evaluate whether contracting requirements that traditionally have been prohibited on the basis that they would restrict competition by not directly relating to the bidder's performance of work have an undue restriction on competition. While DOT's current plan is to conduct this pilot program for 1 year, DOT reserves the right to extend this time period at its discretion.
For contracts to be funded by FHWA, State and local recipients and subrecipients must request prior approval from the FHWA to use a specific contracting requirement under SEP-14. In order to receive SEP-14 approval, States and local recipients and subrecipients would follow the normal process that includes submitting work plans to the appropriate FHWA division office. For more information on the SEP-14 process, please see:
In developing requests to FHWA to use contracting requirements under SEP-14, recipients and subrecipients should address, at a minimum, the following points:
(1) Describe the project, including the amount of FHWA funding involved in the as well as the estimated total project cost.
(2) Describe the contracting requirement that may otherwise be found to be inconsistent with the general requirement for full and open competition.
(3) Describe how they will evaluate the effects of relevant contracting requirements on competitive bidding. In doing so, the recipient or subrecipient should, at a minimum, provide comparisons of bids received for the projects utilizing the relevant contract requirements to other projects of similar size and scope and in the same geographic area not utilizing such requirements. If a reduction in the pool of bidders is evident, explain the potential offsetting benefits resulting from the use of the requirement.
(1) Describe and quantify how the relevant contracting requirement would lead to increases in the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal funds for the project.
(2) Describe and quantify how the experimental contracting technique would protect the integrity of the competitive bidding process either in connection with the particular contract or when considered over the long term for that agency's program.
For contracts involving the use of local and other geographic labor hiring preferences, economic-based labor hiring preferences, and/or labor hiring preferences for veterans, FHWA may approve, at the request of the recipient or subrecipient, the use of such requirements for a specific contract, a specific group of, or on a more general programmatic basis. The use of other contracting requirements may be
For contracts to be funded by FTA (including federal financial assistance under any FTA formula or discretionary program), State and local recipients and subrecipients must request prior approval from the FTA to use a specific contracting requirement pursuant to FTA's research and assistance authorities discussed above. In making such requests, recipients and subrecipients must submit an application to their FTA Regional Office. In their application, recipients should address, at a minimum, the following points:
(1) Describe the contracting opportunity, including the schedule for the type of project and type of asset being constructed and the amount of FTA funding involved in the project as well as the estimated total project cost.
(2) Describe the contracting requirement that may otherwise be found to be inconsistent with the general requirement for full and open competition.
(3) Describe how they will evaluate the effects of relevant contracting requirements on competitive bidding. In doing so, the recipient and subrecipient should, at a minimum, provide comparisons of bids received for the projects utilizing the relevant contract requirements to other projects of similar size and scope and in the same geographic area not utilizing such requirements. If a reduction in the pool of bidders is evident, explain the potential offsetting benefits resulting from the use of the requirement.
(4) Describe how the relevant contracting requirement would lead to increases in the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal funds for the project.
(5) Describe and quantify how the experimental contracting technique would protect the integrity of the competitive bidding process either in connection with the particular contract or when considered over the long term for that agency's program.
An evaluation committee comprised of FTA staff will evaluate applications for inclusion in the pilot program. The evaluation committee reserves the right to evaluate applications it receives and to seek clarification from any proposer about any statement that is made in an application. FTA also may request additional documentation or information to be considered during the evaluation process. The evaluation committee will provide a recommendation to the FTA Administrator regarding each application. The FTA Administrator will provide a final written determination to each applicant, on a rolling basis, regarding whether an application has been accepted into the pilot program.
For projects involving the use of local and other geographic labor hiring preferences, economic-based labor hiring preferences, and/or labor hiring preferences for veterans, FTA may approve, at the request of the recipient or subrecipient, the use of such requirements for a specific contract, a specific group of, or on a more general programmatic basis. The use of other contracting requirements may be approved by FTA after coordination with the DOT Office of General Counsel.
With respect to in-state or local geographic labor hiring preferences, please note that Section 418 of the Consolidated and further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235 (FY 2015 Appropriations Act), prohibits FTA from using FY 2015 funds to implement, administer, or enforce 49 CFR 18.36(c)(2), for construction hiring. Section 18.36(c)(2) prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed in-State or local geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals.
As a result of the enactment of Section 418, recipients and subrecipients do not need to submit applications for participation in the pilot program for the use of in-state or local geographic labor hiring preferences for contracts awarded or advertised on or before September 30, 2015. In other words, prior FTA approval is not required to use such requirements, and FTA recipients and subrecipients may impose such requirements for their contracts at their discretion. Such projects will receive automatic admission into the pilot program. However, in order to assess the effect of such preferences on competition, recipients and subrecipients that plan to utilize in-state or local geographic labor hiring preferences must notify their FTA Regional Office prior to advertising contracts that use such preferences. For in-state or local geographic hiring preferences proposed for inclusion in contracts advertised after September 30, 2015, recipients and subrecipients must request prior approval from the FTA to utilize such hiring preferences through the above-described process unless provisions similar to section 418 are included in a new appropriations or re-authorization act. Requests to use requirements other than in-state or local geographic preferences for construction hiring, including requirements involving the procurement of rolling stock, must request prior FTA approval as described above.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Meeting Notice—National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
The NHTSA announces a meeting of NEMSAC to be held in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. This notice announces the date, time, and location of the meeting, which will be open to the public, as well as opportunities for public input to the NEMSAC. The purpose of NEMSAC, a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services representatives and consumers, is to advise and consult with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) on matters relating to emergency medical services (EMS). Pre-registration is required to attend.
This open meeting will be held on March 31, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT, and on April 1, 2015 from, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. EDT. A public comment
The meeting will be held at DOT Headquarters Building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 in the Conference Center on the ground floor of the West building.
Drew Dawson, Director, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Emergency Medical Services, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone 202-366-9966; email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The NEMSAC is authorized under Section 31108 of the Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012.
The tentative agenda includes the following:
A final agenda as well as meeting materials will be available to the public online through
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2015.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Ms. Aubrey L. McGonigle, Airport Administration Manager, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, Broomfield, Colorado, at the following address: Ms. Aubrey L. McGonigle, Airport Administration Manager, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, 11755 Airport Way, Broomfield, Colorado 80021.
Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
On December 30, 2014, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport submitted by Jefferson County meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than April 6, 2015.
The following is a brief overview of the request: Jefferson County is proposing the release from the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions on a 449 acre parcel of property acquired by Jefferson County on June 2, 1959. This property was transferred to the Jefferson County Airport Authority in April of 1966. With the dissolution of the Airport Authority in 1998, this property ownership was then transferred back to Jefferson County, as the airport sponsor, January 11, 1999. Elevation constraints of this parcel compared to the Runway environment makes it unusable for airport development. The property is currently undeveloped vacant land. The expected future use of the property is for non-aviation development associated with the Verve Innovation Park, as well
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Recordkeeping Requirements for Securities Transactions.”
You should submit comments by May 5, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0142, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
The information collection requirements contained in 12 CFR parts 12 and 151 are as follows:
• 12 CFR 12.3 requires a national bank effecting securities transactions for customers to maintain records for at least three years. The records required by this section must clearly and accurately reflect the information required and provide an adequate basis for the audit of the information.
• 12 CFR 151.50 requires a Federal savings association effecting securities transactions for customers to maintain records for at least three years. 12 CFR 151.60 provides that the records required by 12 CFR 151.50 must clearly and accurately reflect the information required and provide an adequate basis for audit of the information.
• 12 CFR 12.4 requires a national bank to give or send to the customer a written notification of the transaction or a copy of the registered broker/dealer confirmation relating to the transaction at or before completion of the securities transaction and establishes minimum disclosures needed for a customer's securities transactions.
• 12 CFR 151.70, 151.80 and 151.90 establish the minimum disclosures required for a Federal savings association's confirmation of a customer's securities transactions.
• 12 CFR 151.90 requires a Federal savings association to provide its customers with a written notice of each securities transaction, which it must give or send to the customer at or before the completion of the securities transaction.
• 12 CFR 12.5(a), (b), (c), and (e) describe notification procedures that a national bank may elect to use, as an alternative to complying with § 12.4, to notify customers of transactions in which the bank does not exercise investment discretion, trust transactions, agency transactions, and certain periodic plan transactions.
• 12 CFR 151.100 describes notification procedures that a Federal savings association may use, as an alternative to complying with 12 CFR 151.70, 151.80 or 151.90, for an account in which the savings association does not exercise investment discretion, trust transactions, agency transactions, certain periodic plan transactions, collective investment fund transactions, and money market funds.
• 12 CFR 12.7(a)(1) through (a)(3) require national banks to maintain and adhere to policies and procedures that assign responsibility for supervision of employees who perform securities trading functions, provide for the fair
• 12 CFR 151.140 requires Federal savings associations to adopt written policies and procedures dealing with the functions involved in effecting securities transactions on behalf of customers. These policies and procedures must assign responsibility for the supervision of employees who perform securities trading functions, provide for the fair and equitable allocation of securities prices to accounts, and provide for crossing of buy and sell orders on a fair and equitable basis.
• 12 CFR 12.7(a)(4) requires certain national bank officers and employees involved in the securities trading process to report to the bank all personal transactions in securities made by them or on their behalf in which they have a beneficial interest.
• 12 CFR 151.150 requires certain Federal savings association officers and employees to report personal transactions they make or that are made on their behalf in which they have a beneficial interest.
• 12 CFR 12.8 requires a national bank seeking a waiver of one or more of the requirements of §§ 12.2 through 12.7 to file a written request for waiver with the OCC.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection 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.
Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Intent.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, intends to grant to Rubicon Biotechnology, LLC, 26212 Dimension Dr. Suite 260, Lake Forest, CA 92630, USA, an exclusive license to practice the following: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 13/815,829 (“ANTIBODY-MEDIATED TRANSDUCTION OF HEAT SHOCK PROTEINS INTO LIVING CELLS”), filed March 15, 2013, which claimed the priority of U.S. Serial No. 61/618,594, filed March 30, 2012. Copies of the published patent applications may be obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at
Comments must be received 15 days from the date of this published Notice.
Written comments may be submitted through
Dr. Lee A. Sylvers, Technology Transfer Specialist, Office of Research and Development (10P9TT), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20420, (202) 443-5646 (this is not a toll-free number).
It is in the public interest to so license these inventions, as Rubicon Biotechnology, LLC submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, approved this document on March 2, 2015 for publication.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing a final rule for implementing the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (the “2008 ozone NAAQS”) that were promulgated on March 12, 2008. This final rule addresses a range of nonattainment area state implementation plan (SIP) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control measures (RACM), major new source review (NSR), emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. Other issues also addressed in this final rule are the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and anti-backsliding requirements that apply when the 1997 ozone NAAQS are revoked. If the primary or secondary ozone NAAQS are revised in the future, the EPA expects that this rule will help facilitate implementation of any new standards.
This final rule is effective on April 6, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0885. All documents in the docket are listed in
For further general information on this rulemaking, contact Dr. Karl Pepple, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by phone at (206) 553-1778, or by email at
Entities potentially affected directly by this final rule include state, local and tribal governments. Entities potentially affected indirectly by this final rule include owners and operators of sources of emissions [volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this notice will be posted at
The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:
On March 12, 2008,
When the EPA revises a NAAQS for a particular criteria pollutant, it considers the extent to which existing EPA regulations and guidance are sufficient to implement the standard and whether any revisions or updates to those regulations and guidance would be helpful or appropriate in facilitating the implementation of the revised standard by states, tribes, and local agencies. The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) does not require that the EPA promulgate new implementing regulations every time that a NAAQS is revised. Likewise, the CAA does not require the issuance of additional implementing regulations or guidance by the EPA before a revised NAAQS becomes effective. The plain language of the CAA and existing EPA regulations may be sufficient in many cases to enable the EPA and the states to begin working together to implement a revised NAAQS. However, where the nature of revisions to a NAAQS indicate that additional regulations or guidance (or revisions to existing regulations or guidance) may be helpful, the EPA endeavors to provide those regulations and guidance to facilitate preparation of SIPs. It is important to note, however, that the existing EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 51 applicable to SIPs generally and to particular pollutants continue to apply even without such updates. This rule revises existing regulations and guidance as appropriate to aid in the implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Promulgation of a NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA to designate areas as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, and to classify the areas at the time of designation. The EPA has already completed area designations and associated classifications for the 2008 NAAQS, and they were effective July 20, 2012 (May 21, 2012; 77 FR 30088). The EPA also issued a Classifications Rule at the same time which established air quality thresholds for each nonattainment classification (May 21, 2012; 77 FR 30160).
The EPA also undertook notice and comment rulemaking on the CAA nonattainment area provisions as they apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and appropriate rules to implement those provisions, which is complete with this final rule. The public comment period on the June 6, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (78 FR 34178) for the SIP Requirements Rule ran from June 6, 2013, to September 4, 2013. The EPA received 54 comment submissions on the NPRM. The preamble to this final rule discusses the comments received and how they were considered by the EPA in general terms. The Response to Comments document provides more detailed responses to the comments received. The public comments received on the NPRM and the EPA's Response to Comment document are posted in the docket at
We are taking multiple actions in this rule pertaining to submittal deadlines and specific CAA requirements for the content of SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As a general matter, this final rule follows the same basic principles and approach that the EPA applied to interpreting the CAA's part D, subpart 2 ozone nonattainment area requirements in the EPA's development of the implementation rules for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Regarding the format of the following sections of this preamble, on topics where we proposed an action, we include detailed information about what we proposed, what we are finalizing and our rationale, as well as responses to significant comments. With topics where we did not propose any action, we provide guidance on that topic in the preamble. For a comprehensive look at all comments received and responses to those comments, please refer to the Response to Comment document in the docket.
For purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed two alternatives regarding the deadlines for submitting the various elements of an ozone nonattainment area SIP, including emission inventories, RACT SIPs and emission statement SIPs, Ozone Transport Region (OTR) RACT, 15 percent rate-of-progress (ROP) plans and Moderate area attainment demonstrations, and the 3 percent per year RFP plans and attainment demonstrations for Serious and higher areas. The two proposed alternatives for SIP due dates were (1) the period of time provided by CAA section 182, and (2) a state's choice of either submitting all elements in accordance with the timeframe provided by CAA section 182 or submitting all elements under a consolidated approach, no later than 30 months after the effective date of designation. The consolidated SIP approach would provide more time for some SIPs, and less time for others.
The EPA also proposed a timeframe, for Serious and higher areas, of 4 years for states to develop their attainment demonstrations and 3 percent per year RFP plans. This was a proposed change from the approach used in the implementation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but is consistent with the timeframe allowed under CAA section 182.
Additionally, the EPA requested comment on its proposal to align the due date of the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program SIP with the
We proposed that states with areas initially classified as Severe or Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would be required to submit a CAA section 185 SIP no later than 10 years after the effective date of designation and classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Finally, the EPA proposed that all SIP due date timeframes would run from the effective date of nonattainment designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
We are finalizing the approach that the SIP elements listed in the proposal are due based on the timeframes provided in CAA section 182. That is, states with areas designated nonattainment have 2 years from the effective date of nonattainment designation
The EPA is also finalizing the alignment of the vehicle I/M program SIP due date with the due date for the attainment demonstration SIP for the area. This will be achieved by revising 40 CFR 51.372(b)(2) of the vehicle I/M rule
The EPA is also finalizing the due date of the CAA section 185 penalty fee program SIPs from areas initially classified as Severe or Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as 10 years from the effective date of designations. For areas that are reclassified to Severe or Extreme after the original 2008 designations and classifications, the EPA will establish an appropriate fee program SIP submission deadline as part of the reclassification action.
We note that in the proposed SIP Requirements Rule, the EPA did not include a specific due date for nonattainment NSR SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This final rule includes a due date of 3 years from the effective date of designation for states with nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to submit their nonattainment NSR SIPs as a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and the comments submitted. Additional discussion of this due date and our rationale for that date are provided in the following
As proposed, the EPA is finalizing that these various SIP due dates are established based on the effective date of designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For areas initially designated nonattainment, this effective date was July 20, 2012.
After considering comments questioning the legal supportability of the consolidated approach, the EPA has concluded that we do not have a sufficient statutory basis to provide this flexibility.
When implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA provided areas classified as Serious and higher only 3 years to develop and submit attainment demonstration SIPs. The EPA is now providing the maximum of 4 years to develop and submit these SIPs, consistent with the CAA. The policy reasons that existed at the time the Phase 2 rule was developed (
Regarding the alignment of due dates for attainment demonstration SIPs and vehicle I/M program SIPs, the EPA believes this allows the best use of state resources. Areas need to determine together the total amount of emissions reductions needed for attainment and the amount of emissions reductions to achieve from different sectors and strategies (including vehicle I/M), before designing a vehicle I/M program capable of achieving the necessary reductions to demonstrate attainment. Requiring submittal of a vehicle I/M program in advance of an attainment demonstration for the current or future ozone standard could result in significant unnecessary work on modeling and SIP revisions if revisions to the vehicle I/M program are later deemed necessary to integrate with the overall attainment strategy. Although no new vehicle I/M programs are required under the initial designations and classifications for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, this change will apply to any current Marginal areas that may be required to adopt vehicle I/M as a result of missing an attainment deadline and being reclassified to a higher nonattainment classification in the future.
We believe the submittal date for the CAA section 185 penalty fee program SIPs is consistent with section 182(d)(3) of the CAA, which provided slightly more than 10 years for submission of the fee program SIP revision for areas designated as nonattainment and classified as Severe or Extreme by operation of law in 1990 for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
The EPA has historically based the due date of the SIPs discussed previously from the effective date of designations and sees no reason to depart from that practice here.
In the Phase 2 Rule, we indicated that the 3-year SIP deadline facilitates coordination of NSR program changes with the submission of the attainment plan, which was also due within 3 years. We recognize that CAA section 182(a)(2)(C)(i), under the heading “Corrections to the State implementation plans—Permit programs” contains a requirement for states to submit NSR SIP revisions to meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 within 2 years after the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. As explained in our Phase 2 rulemaking, we believe the submission of NSR SIPs due on November 15, 1992, fulfilled this CAA requirement.
For purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed two options for establishing the maximum attainment dates for areas in each nonattainment classification in its separate Classifications Rule issued on May 21, 2012.
For the second option, which the EPA promulgated in the final May 2012 Classification Rule (77 FR 30160), the attainment date would be specified as a certain number of years from the end of the calendar year in which an area's nonattainment designation is effective. In other words, since the effective date of designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is July 20, 2012, the 3-year
The end of calendar year attainment date in the May 2012 Classifications Rule was challenged in NRDC v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 12-1321). On December 23, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion holding that the EPA's decision to run the attainment periods from the end of the calendar year in which areas were designated was unreasonable. While recognizing that there is a “gap” in the statute since the CAA runs the attainment periods from the date of enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Court concluded that nothing in the statute or congressional intent authorized the EPA to establish the attainment dates for designated ozone nonattainment areas as December 31st of the relevant calendar years, but rather that such deadlines are more appropriately calculated as annual periods running from the date of designation and classification as the EPA had done in past ozone implementation rules.
To provide clarity to states after the DC Circuit court decision, the EPA is modifying 40 CFR 51.1103 consistent with that decision to establish attainment dates that run from the effective date of designation,
Under CAA section 182(a), Marginal areas have up to 3 years from the effective date of designation to attain the NAAQS, and are not required to submit an attainment demonstration SIP. The EPA offers assistance to states as they consider the most appropriate course of action for Marginal areas that may be at risk of failing to meet the NAAQS within the applicable 3 year timeframe. States can choose to adopt additional controls for such areas or they can seek a voluntary reclassification to a higher classification category. The EPA believes that voluntary reclassification for areas that are not likely to attain by their attainment date is an appropriate action that will facilitate focus on developing the attainment plans required of Moderate and above areas.
The EPA proposed to continue to require states with an area classified as Moderate to submit an attainment demonstration,
The EPA is finalizing requirements for Moderate areas as proposed. The EPA continues to believe the requirements for Moderate areas are reasonable, primarily because photochemical modeling is generally available and reasonable to employ. However, this requirement also explicitly allows for alternative analytical methods to be substituted for or used to supplement a photochemical modeling-based assessment of an emissions control strategy. Any alternative analysis should be based on technically credible methods and provide for the timely submittal of the attainment demonstration and implementation of SIP controls. States should review the EPA modeling guidance
For Serious and higher-classified areas, CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) states that attainment demonstrations must be submitted within 4 years of the designation date and be based on photochemical grid modeling or an equivalent effective method. We continue to believe that photochemical modeling is the most technically credible method of estimating future year ozone concentrations based on projected VOC and NO
The procedures for modeling ozone as part of an attainment demonstration are well developed and described in the EPA's “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM
Commenters requested that the EPA update its modeling guidance pertinent to ozone and that it be made available in advance of SIP submission deadlines. The EPA agrees with this comment and is therefore currently updating the modeling guidance, and we intend to issue the updated guidance prior to the attainment demonstration SIP deadlines.
In the proposed SIP Requirements Rule, the EPA did not propose changes to modeling requirements for modeling high emissions days. The current modeling guidance addresses, among many other considerations, episode selection and accounting for variability in emissions and meteorology.
The EPA recognizes that there are time periods with relatively higher NO
The EPA did not propose changes in this rule to the emission inventory requirements for capturing high emissions days but received many comments on the rule requirements that should have been directed to EPA guidance documents under development for ozone emission inventories (
The EPA's attainment demonstration modeling guidance addresses the modeled attainment test for ozone, which uses a combination of ambient ozone data and modeled ozone concentrations to estimate future year air quality. The attainment test is applied at each monitor location within or near a designated nonattainment area. Models are used in a relative sense to estimate the response of measured air quality to anticipated future changes in emissions. Future air quality is estimated by adjusting recent monitored values by the modeled relative response to projected future changes in emissions.
The EPA proposed that for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, control measures relied upon to demonstrate attainment should be implemented by the beginning of the last full ozone season prior to the area's attainment date. Accordingly, the future year attainment modeling should not extend beyond that time period.
The EPA is finalizing this action as proposed. The EPA stated in the proposal that the future modeling year should be selected such that all emissions control measures relied on for attainment will have been implemented by that year. This same approach was used for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and we continue to believe it is an appropriate approach for modeling of control measures. To demonstrate attainment, the modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions reductions implemented by the beginning of the last full ozone season preceding the attainment date will result in ozone concentrations that meet the level of the standard.
Because an area must attain “as expeditiously as practicable,” additional considerations are necessary before a future attainment date can be established. For example, although the latest attainment date under the CAA for a Moderate area designated in 2012 would be 6 years after the effective date of designation, July 20, 2018, under the Classifications Rule,
We strongly recommend that the state discuss the selection of the future year(s) to model with the appropriate EPA Regional Office as part of the modeling protocol development process.
Under CAA section 182(j), each state located in a portion of a multi-state ozone nonattainment area is required to use photochemical grid modeling (or any other analytic method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective) and to take all reasonable steps to coordinate, substantively and procedurally, the development, submittal and implementation of SIPs applicable to the various states within the nonattainment area. The EPA interprets CAA section 182(j) to require coordination on all aspects of nonattainment SIPs, including the development of an attainment demonstration. The EPA did not propose any changes to this longstanding policy, and we did not receive adverse comments on this item.
Areas that are designated nonattainment for ozone must achieve RFP toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Part D of the CAA contains three separate provisions regarding RFP. Under CAA subpart 1, section 172(c)(2) contains a general requirement that nonattainment SIPs must provide for reasonable further progress; RFP is defined in CAA section 171(1) as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions” as required by CAA part D or as required by the Administrator for ensuring attainment of the NAAQS. CAA sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) under subpart 2 contain specific percent reduction targets for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate and above and Serious and above, respectively. For Moderate and above areas, CAA section 182(b)(1) requires a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the baseline anthropogenic emissions within 6 years after November 15, 1990. We often refer to this RFP requirement as rate-of-progress (ROP). For Serious and above areas, CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) requires an additional 3 percent per year reduction in VOC emissions, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, starting within 6 years after November 15, 1990 and until the attainment date. CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) allows NO
The EPA previously interpreted the requirements of subpart 2 as they would apply to areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and we proposed to follow essentially the same interpretation with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to RFP requirements, we interpret the 15 percent VOC emission reduction requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1) such that an area that has already met the 15 percent requirement for VOC under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 ozone NAAQS (for the first 6 years after the RFP baseline year for the prior ozone NAAQS) would not have to fulfill that requirement again. Instead, such areas would be treated like areas covered under CAA section 172(c)(2) if they are classified as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and would need to meet the RFP requirements under CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) if they are classified as Serious or above for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
With the intent of providing direction and/or flexibility to states in satisfying RFP requirements, we proposed a number of provisions to address issues relevant to implementing RFP under the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (1) Allowing states the option of selecting either the EPA's recommended baseline year or an alternate baseline year, if justifiable and appropriate; (2) restricting emission reduction measures that can be used to fulfill the RFP requirements; (3) fulfilling ROP/RFP requirements with emission reductions from sources located outside the nonattainment area; (4) removing RFP creditability determination requirements for certain pre-1990 control measures that currently achieve
The baseline year inventory for RFP is used as the starting point from which creditable reductions are determined to meet RFP requirements. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed that states should use as the baseline year for
However, we also proposed that states have the option of selecting an appropriate and justifiable alternate year as a baseline year for RFP. In the proposal, we proposed that if states choose a pre-2011 baseline year, the 6-year period for achieving the 15 percent reduction starts in January of the year following the selected baseline year. When a year prior to 2011 is chosen as the baseline year, the 6-year period thus concludes more than 1 year prior to the start of the attainment year for the area. In this situation, the EPA proposed that the area is responsible for an additional 3 percent emissions reduction each year after the initial 6-year period has concluded up to the beginning of the attainment year.
The EPA also proposed that for a multi-state nonattainment area, all states associated with the nonattainment area must consult and agree on the same year to use as the baseline year for RFP.
For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is providing that states should use as the baseline year for RFP, the calendar year for the most recently available triennial emission inventory at the time ROP/RFP plans are developed, which in the case of areas designated nonattainment in 2012 translates to 2011. We finalized this same interpretation for purposes of implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.910(d). We are also allowing an alternate year to be used. In determining the appropriate alternate years, the EPA recognizes that some states may have initiated certain control strategies between the year the standard was finalized (2008) and the most recently available triennial emission inventory year (2011), and that it would be appropriate to recognize these investments in implementing early reductions to achieve improved air quality. We also believe that allowing alternate baseline years prior to 2008 (
We are also finalizing that for a multi-state nonattainment area, all states associated with the nonattainment area must consult and agree on the same year to use as the baseline year for RFP.
The EPA proposed that for the 2008 ozone NAAQS states may not take credit for VOC or NO
The EPA is finalizing the interpretation that states may not take credit for VOC or NO
The ROP/RFP requirements in CAA sections 182(b)(1)(A)(i) and 182(c)(2)(B) require that nonattainment SIPs provide for emission reductions from “baseline emissions.” CAA section 182(b)(1)(B) defines baseline emissions as “the total amount of actual VOC or NO
The EPA proposed that, except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, all SIP-approved or federally promulgated emissions reductions that occur after the baseline emissions inventory year are creditable for purposes of the ROP/RFP requirements, provided that the reductions meet the standard requirements for creditability. That is, to receive SIP credit, the reductions must be enforceable, quantifiable, permanent and surplus.
We are finalizing, as proposed, that all SIP-approved or federally promulgated emissions reductions that occur after the baseline emissions inventory year from sources located in the nonattainment area are creditable for purposes of the ROP/RFP requirements, provided the reductions meet the standard requirements for creditability and are not prohibited by section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA.
For the reasons provided in the preamble to the proposed rule, 78 FR 34178, at 34187 (June 6, 2013), the EPA believes it is appropriate to credit emissions reductions that actually occur during the relevant ROP/RFP period and after the baseline year. We promulgated a regulatory provision adopting this same interpretation for purposes of implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.910(a)(2). No significant comments were received.
CAA Section 182(b)(1)(D) specifies four categories of control measures that are not creditable toward the 15 percent ROP requirement under CAA section 182(b)(1)(A): (i) Measures related to motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated by January 1, 1990; (ii) regulations concerning Reid vapor pressure (RVP) promulgated by November 15, 1990; (iii) measures to correct previous RACT requirements; and (iv) measures required to correct I/M programs. As noted in the proposal, with the exception of the first category, reductions from these measures were achieved many years ago, so the question of creditability is moot for RFP credits for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Citing an assessment that at this point in history the ongoing emissions reductions from pre-1990 control measures in the first category are
Consistent with the proposal, the EPA is finalizing the approach that eliminates any obligation for states to continue to perform emissions reduction calculations for the pre-1990 control measures listed under CAA section 182(b)(1)(D)(i).
The CAA section 182(b)(1)(D)(i) provides that motor vehicle emission reductions resulting from measures promulgated “by January 1, 1990,” (which can only come from pre-1990 vehicles), are “not creditable.” The EPA is aware that making the calculations necessary to ensure a state does not take credit for these measures would be “a very resource intensive process requiring multiple modeling runs and extensive staff time,” as we stated in the proposal for this rulemaking.
CAA section 182(b)(1)(C) established a general rule
The comment also claims that the EPA has not demonstrated that these circumstances are
We proposed that newly designated 2008 nonattainment areas,
We also proposed that for any 2008 ozone nonattainment area, a state could meet the 15 percent ROP requirement in whole or in part with NO
We also proposed that if we did not finalize the proposal to allow
We are finalizing that the ROP plan for a 2008 nonattainment area that has not previously adopted and implemented a SIP providing for a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions consistent with CAA section 182(b)(1) must provide for a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the area's baseline emissions in the 6 years following the baseline emissions inventory year. This is consistent with the CAA section 182(b)(1) requirement and the prior approach for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(i). The EPA is not finalizing either of the additional approaches that would have allowed areas to meet the 15 percent ROP requirement in whole or in part with NO
We proposed that any 2008 nonattainment area which consists entirely of a nonattainment area, or portions of nonattainment areas, for which we previously approved an RFP plan as meeting the 15 percent ROP plan requirement for VOC in section 182(b)(1) of the CAA would not need to submit such an ROP SIP. Such a 2008 nonattainment area could consist of one or more 1-hour nonattainment areas, one or more nonattainment areas under the 1997 ozone NAAQS, or a combination of nonattainment areas for either the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS.
We are finalizing as proposed, such that 2008 nonattainment areas that have previously met the CAA requirement for a 15 percent ROP VOC reduction plan for the entire area are not required to fulfill that requirement again. This is consistent with the approach we used for the 1997 NAAQS, and the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in
For those areas that include all or part of a nonattainment area under a former ozone NAAQS that fulfilled the 15 percent ROP plan requirement for VOC and all or part of an area that was not subject to or did not meet the 15 percent requirement for a former ozone NAAQS, we proposed that a state may choose between two approaches for addressing the 15 percent ROP requirement. First, the state could choose to treat the entire area as an area that never met the 15 percent requirement and submit a new
We are finalizing the two proposed approaches that a state may choose between for addressing the 15 percent ROP requirement where a portion of the area submitted and implemented a 15 percent ROP plan for a previous ozone NAAQS and a portion did not. First, the state may choose to treat the entire area as an area that never met the 15 percent ROP VOC reduction requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1). Second, the state may choose to treat the 2008 nonattainment area as divided into two portions: The non-ROP plan portion and the former ROP plan portion. For the non-ROP plan portion of the 2008 nonattainment area, the plan would establish a separate 15 percent VOC reduction requirement under CAA section 182(b)(1) of subpart 2. However, divergent from our proposal that would have allowed creditable VOC reductions to come from across the entire 2008 nonattainment area, the final rule requires that VOC emission reductions to satisfy the CAA section 182(b)(1) 15 percent requirement must come entirely from within the non-ROP plan area.
For the former ROP plan portion of the 2008 nonattainment area, the RFP requirements in CAA section 172(c)(2) apply if the 2008 nonattainment area is classified as Moderate. CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements apply if the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area is classified as Serious or higher.
The EPA believes that nonattainment areas with a previously approved 15 percent plan developed to satisfy previous ozone NAAQS standards are not required to adopt a second 15 percent VOC ROP plan under CAA section 182(b)(1) for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes that if a portion of the nonattainment area was not subject to an approved 15 percent plan for previous ozone standards, then CAA section 182(b)(1) applies to that portion of the 2008 nonattainment area. We are offering two options, as described previously, and states can select the appropriate option to meet the RFP requirements. However, due to significant comments received regarding the source of reductions to satisfy the 15 percent requirement for the non-ROP portion of the area, we are requiring that VOC emissions reductions to meet the 15 percent requirement must come from within the boundaries of the non-ROP plan portion rather than from across the entire nonattainment area as we proposed. Additionally, the ROP plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the new non-ROP plan portion must provide for 15 percent VOC reductions.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the statute does not allow areas to be divided into former ROP plan areas and new non-ROP areas. Consistent with the reasoning in the Phase 2 Rule, upheld in
We requested comment on two alternative approaches to achieve RFP: (1) An air quality-based approach that would measure RFP in terms of ambient air quality improvements tied to an area's percent emission reduction; and, (2) an approach that would adjust (or “weight”) the amount of RFP credit given for reductions of individual species (or similar groups) of VOC based
For each of these alternative approaches, the EPA sought comment on the usefulness and practicality of the approach, and specifically on whether there is an adequate legal basis under the CAA to approve SIPs that would employ it.
The EPA is not taking final action on these alternative approaches. The EPA may further consider such alternatives in the future. The EPA believes that more time is needed to better understand the scientific and legal issues involved in allowing and implementing these approaches. In the meantime, use of these approaches may be considered on a case-by-case basis. If states wish to pursue either of these approaches, then we encourage them to work closely on developing such an approach with their respective EPA Regional Offices. If a state submits an alternative approach to achieving RFP, then the EPA will address the submittal in a separate notice and comment rulemaking action.
There were commenters that did not support these alternative approaches, stating that the CAA clearly requires a percentage reduction from baseline emissions for purposes of RFP.
The EPA indicated in the proposal that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT,
The EPA proposed a number of items regarding RACT submittals. First, the EPA proposed that states should use current EPA guidance [including existing control techniques guidelines (CTGs) and alternative control techniques (ACTs)] and any other information available in making RACT determinations.
The EPA proposed that in some cases, states may conclude that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS may not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement.
The EPA proposed to follow the EPA's existing policy with respect to “area wide average emission rates.” This policy recognizes that states may demonstrate as part of their NO
The EPA proposed that as part of their RACT submissions, states have the option of conducting a technical analysis for a nonattainment area considering the emissions controls required by a regional cap-and-trade program, and demonstrating that compliance by certain sources participating in the cap-and-trade program results in actual emission reductions in the particular nonattainment area that are equal to or greater than the emission reductions that would result if RACT were applied to an individual source or source category within the nonattainment area.
The EPA proposed to follow its current policy that for VOC sources subject to MACT standards, states would be allowed to streamline their RACT analysis by including a discussion of the MACT controls and considerations relevant to VOC RACT. Historically, in many cases, states have been able to rely on MACT standards for purposes of showing that a source has met VOC RACT.
The EPA also noted that a state has discretion to require beyond-RACT reductions from any source, and has an obligation to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Thus, states may require VOC and NO
The EPA solicited comment on modifying existing guidance to provide additional flexibility in implementing the CAA section 182(b)(2) RACT requirements. In particular, the EPA solicited comments on whether it would be appropriate for states, as part of their RACT determinations regarding what is “reasonable,” to consider the effect (or lack thereof) of VOC emission reductions on reductions in ozone concentrations when assessing economic feasibility. The EPA solicited comments on this approach because in some nonattainment areas, additional reductions of anthropogenic VOC emissions have been scientifically demonstrated to have a limited impact on reducing ozone concentrations.
The EPA took comments on the following: (1) Whether state RACT determinations could take into consideration, in the evaluation of what is economically feasible, the potential air quality benefit (or lack thereof) of further VOC controls; (2) the specific circumstances and limitations to which an air quality benefit factor would apply; (3) specific examples of where modeling has demonstrated that anthropogenic VOC reductions have “negligible effect, ” (commenters were also asked to provide a defensible threshold for defining “ineffective,” and define a test for concluding that the effect of additional VOC reductions would be “negligible.”); (4) input regarding whether this flexibility should be provided on an individual source basis, or also on a source category basis; (5) that any approaches suggested by commenters should also address how public health and welfare will be impacted; and (6) an explanation as to the specific legal basis for supporting the suggested approach.
Finally, the EPA proposed a specific deadline by which RACT measures are to be implemented for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which is consistent with the timeline specified in CAA section 182(b)(2). For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, we proposed that areas must implement RACT measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of a nonattainment designation. Nonattainment designations for all areas of the country were effective July 20, 2012. RACT measures for areas classified Moderate or above and all areas of the OTC would be required to be implemented by January 1, 2017. This would allow a comparable amount of time for sources to meet RACT requirements as originally anticipated under the 1990 CAA Amendments, consistent with the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018.
The EPA is finalizing the approach where states should refer to the existing CTGs and ACTs for purposes of meeting their RACT requirements, as well as all relevant information (including recent technical information and information received during the public comment period) that is available at the time that they are developing their RACT SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We believe that there is sufficient information available to states to inform their RACT determinations.
The EPA is finalizing the approach allowing in some cases for states to conclude that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS do not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement. We believe that, in some cases, a new RACT determination under the 2008 standard would result in the same or similar control technology as the initial RACT determination under the 1-hour or 1997 standard because the fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still applicable.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach with respect to “area wide average emission rates.” This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing policy.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach, where states have the option of conducting a technical analysis for a nonattainment area considering the emissions controls required by a regional cap-and-trade program, and demonstrating that compliance by certain sources participating in the cap-and-trade program results in actual emission reductions in the particular nonattainment area that are equal to or greater than the emission reductions that would result if RACT were applied to an individual source or source category within the nonattainment area. This approach is consistent with the Court's reasoning in
The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach for VOC sources subject to MACT standards, such that states would be allowed to streamline their RACT analysis by including an assessment of the MACT controls and how they relate to VOC RACT considerations. This approach is consistent with the EPA's current policy.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach to provide states with the discretion to require beyond-RACT reductions from any source, and that states have an obligation to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable. We believe it may be necessary in some cases for states to achieve “beyond RACT” reductions in order to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
The EPA is not modifying existing guidance for meeting the 182(b)(2) RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS through this action. There is scientific information available that indicates that in some locations ozone formation is NO
The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach that areas must implement RACT measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of a nonattainment designation. For the nonattainment designations that were effective July 20, 2012, RACT measures (for areas where they are required) must be implemented by January 1, 2017. This allows a comparable amount of time for sources to meet RACT requirements as originally anticipated under the 1990 CAA Amendments, and ensures that RACT measures are required to be in place no later than the last ozone season prior to the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018.
We appreciate the commenter's request for more information regarding the specific situations where this approach may be reasonable. In cases where controls were applied due to the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement, the incremental emissions reductions from application of updated RACT controls may be small and, therefore, the cost for advancing that small additional increment of reduction may not be reasonable. In contrast, a RACT analysis for uncontrolled or partially controlled sources would be more likely to find that updated RACT-level controls under the 2008 ozone NAAQS are economically and technically feasible.
In portions of 2008 nonattainment areas where control technologies for major sources or source categories were previously reviewed and controls applied to meet the RACT requirement under the 1-hour or the 1997 ozone NAAQS, states should review and, if appropriate, accept the initial RACT analysis as meeting the RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Absent data or public comments indicating that the previous RACT determination is no longer appropriate, the state need not adopt additional SIP controls to meet the new RACT requirement for these sources. In such cases, the state's SIP revision submitted after notice and comment should contain a certification, with appropriate supporting information (including consideration of new data), indicating that these sources are already subject to SIP-approved requirements that still meet the RACT obligation. There are cases where the initial RACT analysis under the 1-hour standard or the 1997 standard for a specific source or source category concluded that no additional controls were necessary. In such cases, a new RACT determination is needed to consider whether more cost effective control measures have become available for sources that were not previously regulated. A re-analysis may determine that controls are now economically and technically feasible and are necessary to meet the RACT requirement. Please refer to the Response to Comments document for additional detail on this topic.
Additionally, the EPA disagrees with the comment that “area-wide averaging is not a legally permissible method for complying with” RACT and that RACT requires reductions from “each and every source” in an area. The EPA believes that the statute, as interpreted by the court in
Other commenters did not support the proposed approach. A few of these commenters expressed concerns that by providing states with an option to rely on trading programs, the EPA is allowing for sources to turn off their controls in upwind states. Commenters additionally suggested that RACT should apply on an individual basis to every affected stationary source in a nonattainment area. Commenters implied that the EPA should specifically require controls to be operational at all times at these sources.
The EPA additionally disagrees with any implication by the commenters that the proposal should address whether controls are required to be operational at all times at sources in the nonattainment area. The EPA's NO
Given the comment received, we wish to provide further clarification regarding the RACT implementation deadline. The EPA notes that the requirement to develop a RACT SIP applies only to nonattainment areas that are classified as Moderate or above (
Additionally, the January 1, 2017, RACT implementation deadline, would not automatically apply to sources covered by future CTGs. If a new CTG is developed, all current Moderate or above areas would be required to revise their SIPs for the sources covered by the CTG within the period set forth by the EPA in issuing the CTG document (
The EPA proposed to continue to apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, existing RACM guidance that interprets the RACM provision to require a demonstration that the state has adopted all reasonable measures (including RACT) to meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and thus that no additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach of continuing to apply existing RACM guidance to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such that we interpret the RACM provision to require a demonstration that the state has adopted all reasonable measures (including RACT) to meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and thus that no additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area. Additionally the EPA is finalizing the interpretation of the CAA requirements that states should consider all available measures, including those being implemented in other areas, and that a state must adopt measures for an area only if those measures are economically and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or are necessary for RFP. This interpretation has been upheld by several courts.
Significant tracts of land under federal management may also be included in nonattainment area boundaries. The role of fire in these areas should be assessed and emissions budgets developed in concert with those federal land management agencies. Where appropriate, states may consider developing plans for addressing wildland fuels in collaboration with land managers and owners. Information is available from the Department of the Interior (DOI) and USDA Forest Service on smoke management programs and
Wildfire emissions are a component of background ozone
If wildfire impacts are significant, contributing to exceedances of the standard, states should consider RACM for this source. Fires play an important ecological role across the globe, benefiting those plant and animal species that depend upon natural fires for propagation, habitat restoration, and reproduction. Fires are one tool that can be used to reduce fuel load, unnatural understory, and tree density, helping to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Some wildfires and the use of prescribed fire can influence the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires which may reduce the probability of fire-induced ozone impacts and subsequent public health effects. RACM for wildfire may include addressing the wildland fuels through fuels management, including the use of prescribed fire and possibly allowing some wildfire to occur naturally, in systems that are ecologically fire dependent. Where appropriate, states, land managers and land owners may consider developing plans to ensure that fuel accumulations are addressed and fuel management efforts are not delayed. RACM for prescribed fires should also be considered. Information is available from DOI and the USDA Forest Service on the ecological role of fire, smoke management programs and basic smoke management practices, and fuels management strategies, and may be considered when determining RACM for prescribed fires. RACM must be determined for each area on a case-by-case basis.
Based on current designations and classifications for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, no new vehicle I/M programs are currently required. In the proposal for this rulemaking, the EPA provided information on potential ways a state could design and implement an I/M program, either because it was required to implement a program due to a future reclassification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as a result of a nonattainment designation and classification under a future standard, or because an area decided to implement an I/M program even though it was not otherwise required. That discussion is not repeated here; therefore, please refer to the proposal (78 FR 34194-34196). Although the EPA is finalizing its proposal to revise the I/M SIP due date to align it with other SIP due dates (
Transportation conformity is required under CAA section 176(c) to ensure that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and federally supported highway and transit projects are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or interim reductions and milestones. Transportation conformity applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and to those former nonattainment areas that have been redesignated to attainment since 1990 and have a CAA section 175A maintenance plan (“maintenance areas”) for transportation-related criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.
The EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, subpart A) establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP. The EPA first promulgated the Transportation Conformity Rule on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and subsequently published several amendments. For example, the EPA published a final rule on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004) that provided transportation conformity procedures for state and local agencies under the 1997 ozone NAAQS, among other things. Parties involved in implementing transportation conformity include state and local transportation and air quality agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (the DOT) (40 CFR 93.102). For further information on transportation conformity rulemakings, policy guidance and outreach materials,
Transportation conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS applied 1 year after the effective date of nonattainment designations for the NAAQS. CAA section 176(c)(6) and 40 CFR 93.102(d) provide a 1-year grace period from the effective date of an initial designation of nonattainment before transportation conformity applies in the area for a particular pollutant and standard. For areas designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012, the 1-year grace period ended on July 20, 2013. For any area subsequently redesignated to nonattainment (from unclassifiable or attainment), the 1-year grace period runs from the effective date of the redesignation. The grace period requirements differ depending on whether the nonattainment area is a metropolitan area or an isolated rural area.
In metropolitan areas, which are defined as urbanized areas that have a population greater than 50,000 and a designated MPO responsible for transportation planning per 23 U.S.C. 134, within 1 year after the effective date of the nonattainment designation, the area's MPO and the DOT must make a conformity determination with regard to the area's transportation plan and TIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under the transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, subpart A). The conformity requirements for “donut areas,”
Isolated rural nonattainment areas are areas that do not contain or are not part of an MPO (40 CFR 93.101). Conformity requirements for isolated rural nonattainment areas can be found at 40 CFR 93.109(g). An isolated rural area would be required to make a conformity determination only at the point when a new transportation project needs funding or approval. This point may occur significantly after the 1-year grace period has ended.
The CAA only requires transportation conformity in areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for a given pollutant and standard. Therefore, transportation conformity would no longer apply for purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS as of the time that standard (and thus an area's designation for that standard) is revoked. Accordingly, existing 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas, regardless of their designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, would no longer be required to demonstrate transportation conformity for the 1997 ozone NAAQS after the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA violated the CAA when it partially revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes only in the Classifications Rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (
States with previously approved Transportation Conformity SIPs should not need to revise those SIPs, unless they need to do so to ensure that existing state regulations apply in areas newly designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, if this is the first time that transportation conformity will apply in a state, such a state is required to submit a SIP revision within 12 months of the effective date of the nonattainment designation that covers the three specific transportation conformity requirements that are delineated in CAA section 176(c)(4)(E). These specific requirements are consultation procedures and written commitments to control or mitigation measures associated with conformity determinations for transportation plans, TIPs or projects. 40 CFR 51.390. Additional information and guidance can be found in EPA's “Guidance for Developing Transportation Conformity State Implementation Plans” (
The EPA did not propose to make revisions to the General Conformity Regulations.
Since we proposed to revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time the final SIP Requirements Rule is published in the
The EPA is taking no action to revise General Conformity Regulations. For reasons explained in section IV of this rule, we are revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS 30 days after publication of this final rule. Accordingly, the general conformity requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will end when the NAAQS is revoked, and the general conformity requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are applicable 1 year after the effective date of nonattainment designations for the 2008 NAAQS.
The EPA proposed that the contingency measures required for Moderate and above areas under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) must provide for the implementation of specific measures if the area fails to attain or to meet any applicable milestone. These measures must be submitted for approval into the SIP as adopted measures that would take effect without further rulemaking action by the state or the Administrator upon a determination that an area failed to attain or to meet the applicable milestone. Per the EPA guidance, contingency measures should represent 1-year's worth of progress, amounting to reductions of 3 percent of the baseline emissions inventory for the nonattainment area, which would be achieved while the state is revising its plans for the area.
Regarding the content of the contingency measures, the EPA's prior guidance specifies that some portion of the contingency measures must include VOC reductions. As explained in the proposal, this previous limitation is no longer necessary in all cases. In particular, Moderate and above areas that have completed the initial 15 percent VOC reduction required by CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), can meet the contingency measures requirement based entirely on NO
The EPA also proposed an implementation approach for Extreme nonattainment areas whereby plan provisions meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(5) (referred to as the “black box”), including the requirements concerning contingency measures, therein, may satisfy the CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency measure requirements for the area provided the state has already adopted all reasonable candidate measures in the applicable SIP to satisfy RACM, RFP, and all other requirements necessary for attainment in the area.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirements that contingency measures must be submitted for approval into the SIP as required by the CAA and must provide for the implementation of specific measures without any further rulemaking action if the area fails to attain or meet any applicable milestone, with limited exceptions for Extreme nonattainment areas relying on plan provisions approved under CAA section 182(e)(5), as discussed below. Regarding content of the 1-year's worth of emissions covered by the contingency measures, the EPA is finalizing its proposal to allow the 3 percent emissions reductions of the contingency measures, to be based entirely on NO
The EPA will continue to allow the use of federal measures providing ongoing reductions into the future to be used meet contingency measure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the EPA's longstanding policy. The EPA has previously approved the use of federal measures to meet contingency measure requirements in actions approving 1-hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs.
With respect to Extreme ozone nonattainment areas, CAA section 182(e)(5) allows the agency to exercise discretion in approving Extreme area attainment plans that rely, in part, on the future development of new control technologies or improvements of existing control technologies, where certain conditions are met. This discretion can be applied as long as the state has demonstrated that: All reasonably available control measures, including RACT, have been included in the plan; the area's RFP demonstration during the first 10 years after designation does not rely on anticipated future technologies; and the state has submitted enforceable commitments to timely develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated future technologies do not achieve planned reductions. The EPA is finalizing its proposal to allow states to submit, for Extreme nonattainment areas, enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures meeting the requirements of
The NSR programs established in parts C and D of title I of the CAA contain specific requirements for the preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified major stationary sources of air pollutants. In attainment and unclassifiable areas, the requirements under part C apply for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. In nonattainment areas, the requirements under part D apply for the nonattainment NSR program. We commonly refer to the PSD and nonattainment NSR programs together as the “major NSR programs.”
The regulations for the major NSR programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 for PSD, and 51.165, 52.24 and part 51, Appendix S for nonattainment NSR.
As part of the required air quality impact analyses, section 165(a)(3) of the CAA provides that the owner or operator of a proposed facility must, among other things, demonstrate that “emissions from construction or operation of such facility will not cause,
In the proposal, the EPA indicated that, since the May 27, 2008, effective date of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, permit applications for new major stationary sources and major modifications have been subject to the PSD program requirements for ozone under two sets of circumstances: (1) Prior to the designation of areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, sources locating in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (2) on and after the July 20, 2012, effective date of area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, sources locating in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. If, however, an area was designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on and after July 20, 2012, but was designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2), the nonattainment designation would require application of nonattainment NSR for permits issued to new and modified sources locating in that area that trigger major NSR requirements for ozone until the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS is effective. In this rulemaking, the EPA is revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes. Accordingly, as explained in section IV.A of this preamble, as of 30 days after the publication of this rule in the
For any area that is designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the historical designations and classifications resulting from the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS will continue to serve to identify nonattainment NSR anti-backsliding requirements (
Some states may have already in their SIP a nonattainment NSR program consistent with part D of the CAA that can be applied to new nonattainment areas. In such situations, permitting authorities should have begun applying the nonattainment NSR requirements in permitting actions for new and modified major sources that trigger major source permitting requirements for ozone in new nonattainment areas starting from the effective date of the 2008 ozone designations (July 20, 2012).
For a newly designated (or redesignated) nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a state with a SIP that specifically lists the areas in which nonattainment NSR requirements under part D apply, or in a state that currently has no approved nonattainment NSR program, there will be an interim period between the July 20, 2012, designation date and the date when the EPA approves the state's amended SIP, which must be revised to adequately address the nonattainment NSR requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS contained in this final rule. In the proposal, we explained that during this interim period, nonattainment NSR requirements for the 2008 NAAQS are governed by the EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling codified in Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. Among other things, in general, Appendix S requires new or modified major sources in nonattainment areas to meet the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and obtain sufficient offsetting
In the proposal, the EPA explained that the time period for the NSR waiver provision contained in section VI of Appendix S, enabling permitting authorities in specified circumstances to issue nonattainment NSR permits that do not require LAER or emissions offsets as are otherwise required under section IV of appendix S, was limited by the court's ruling in
In
Several commenters requested that the EPA clarify how the court's decision affects the implementation of Appendix S as an interim nonattainment NSR program. While most commenters understood that the vacatur applied only to the removal of the 18-month deadline for the section VI waiver, one commenter seemed to interpret the vacatur to apply to appendix S in its entirety.
To clarify, there is now a distinction between the length of time during which waivers may be granted under section VI of Appendix S and the length of time the remainder of Appendix S applies as an interim nonattainment NSR program. No section VI waivers may be granted beyond 18 months from the date of designation. The remainder of Appendix S, however, is not subject to an 18-month time limitation. It will remain as the basis for air agencies to issue nonattainment NSR permits in new ozone nonattainment areas until the EPA approves a state's nonattainment NSR program for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under the SIP for the area. Specifically, section IV of Appendix S contains preconstruction requirements for proposed sources and modifications, which reflect the requirements contained in part D of the CAA for ozone nonattainment areas. The requirements in section IV should be met consistent with the anti-backsliding requirements contained in new section VII of Appendix S.
To satisfy requirements under section 173 of the Act, new and modified major sources in nonattainment areas must secure emissions reductions (
States can help facilitate continued economic development in a nonattainment area by establishing offset banks or registries. Such banks or registries can help new or modified major stationary source owners meet offset requirements by streamlining identification and access to available emissions reductions. Some states have established offset banks to help ensure a consistent method for generating and transferring NO
In the proposal, the EPA recognized that states could establish interprecursor
Although there were no adverse comments relating to the EPA's ability to allow interprecursor trading for ozone, the EPA recognizes that the current language of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11) and part 51 Appendix S IV.G.5 could be read to limit interprecursor trading to PM
As noted previously, the EPA received no adverse comments on the interprecursor aspect of the proposal. Commenters did, however, indicate support for ensuring in the final rulemaking that interpollutant trading would continue to be allowed, and one commenter indicated support for measures similar to what was authorized in the final 2008 PM
Accordingly, the EPA is taking action in this final rulemaking to amend the regulatory text in both 40 CFR 51.165 and Appendix S as a logical outgrowth of the proposal and the submitted comments to ensure that the offset provisions of both rules are consistent with our proposal and our ongoing position to allow such trades for the ozone precursors (VOC and NO
Section 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to identify areas within nonattainment areas as “zone[s] to which economic development should be targeted.” Under this section, new or modified major stationary sources that locate in such a zone are relieved of the NSR requirement to obtain emission offsets if (1) the relevant SIP includes an NSR nonattainment program that has established emission levels for new and modified major sources in the zone (“growth allowance”), and (2) the emissions from new or modified stationary sources in the zone will not cause or contribute to emission levels that exceed such growth allowance. CAA section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that the growth allowance be consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress, and that it will not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date for the nonattainment area. The EPA is willing to work with HUD and states to identify potential areas that could be identified as EDZs.
As explained in section III.A of this preamble, several commenters noted that the EPA's proposed rulemaking did not address the SIP submittal deadline for the nonattainment NSR program for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As explained in section III.A, the final rule includes a deadline of 3 years from the effective date of designation for states to submit their nonattainment NSR program SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The rationale for this deadline appears in section III.A of this preamble.
We proposed that states should rely on their 3-year cycle inventory as described by the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) to meet 182(a)(3)(A) periodic inventory obligations and that the emissions reporting requirements of the AERR be applied to determine all of the data elements required for such inventories (
We are generally finalizing as proposed, although in light of comments received we made small changes to address reporting of ozone season day and partial county emissions not currently addressed in the AERR, as explained below. CAA section 182(a)(3)(A) requires that states submit periodic emission inventories no later than the end of each 3-year period after submission of the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. This requirement applies to Marginal and above ozone nonattainment areas. Thus, states must submit this periodic inventory no later than the end of each 3-year period after submission of the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. The periodic inventory required by this final rule must include ozone season day emissions of VOC and NO
We are finalizing the requirement that states use the reporting requirements of the AERR to determine the data elements required for such inventories, while including an additional requirement to report ozone season day emissions, as defined in this final rule, rather than the AERR requirement for
The EPA has concluded that ozone season day emissions are the most appropriate temporal basis for developing the emissions to be included in this inventory, rather than summer day emissions as required by past implementation rules or the AERR. The EPA believes that summer day emissions required previously are an insufficient nomenclature, since in some areas nonattainment may be due to ozone exceedances in months other than summer months (
For all inventories submitted to the EPA for this rule, states must use the reporting requirements of the AERR to determine which sources are reported as point sources as well as the detail (
Inventories of partial-county nonattainment areas must match the spatial extent of the nonattainment area to include only emissions within the nonattainment area. The EPA acknowledges the challenges associated with partial county inventories and has prepared an updated draft of the emissions inventory guidance (
For all inventories that are used in developing RFP plans or attainment demonstrations, mobile source emissions should be estimated using the latest emissions models, data and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. The latest approved models should be used to estimate emissions from on-road and non-road sources, in combination with the latest available estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle population, and/or equipment activity. States are advised to check the EPA Web pages for the currently approved mobile source models and to consult with the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality and their Regional Office to determine the versions of models to use for their SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For on-road mobile emissions in states other than California, the current approved version of MOVES, as well as links to the
Additional information is available to states for all emissions sources and quality assurance in the form of guidance. States should consult the latest version of the guidance document “Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,” EPA-454/R-05-001 (latest final November 2005; revised draft April 2014) and any subsequent updates to that guidance that the EPA makes available (which can be found at
As indicated previously, some inventories submitted to meet the requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A) may be used in the development of RFP plans and/or attainment demonstrations. The EPA expects that the base year inventory for the nonattainment area will serve as the RFP plan baseline. As such, the EPA requires the methodologies used to develop these inventories to be clearly documented and the inventories themselves to be subject to public participation requirements and formal approval/disapproval by the EPA.
The EPA is not finalizing the proposed approach, where we advised that states could follow our existing September 29, 1992, guidance, titled, “Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base-Year Emissions Inventories for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas” in implementing certain SIP adoption and submission procedures for the emissions inventory requirements under CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A) for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In that guidance, the EPA indicated it could provide states with a time-limited “
Commenters provided a variety of comments on issues relating to emissions inventories. A full accounting of those comments and the EPA's detailed responses are further explained in the Response to Comments document contained in the docket. Significant comments were made that resulted in small changes from the proposed rule. In particular, commenters noted that the proposed rule failed to clearly indicate the need for seasonal or summer day emissions values in the required inventories and for use in the RFP plan. Different commenters suggested different terms, time periods, and emissions bases to use in the inventories and plans, including summer day, typical summer day, high ozone season day, and maximum daily. These comments and others noted the discrepancy with this rule and proposed changes to the AERR, in that seasonal emissions were not expressly required by either the proposed ozone requirements rule or the proposed AERR changes. As a result of these comments, the EPA has included the requirement in this rule as a logical outgrowth for ozone season day emissions, as defined in this final rule, to be used in emission inventories submitted for ozone SIPs. One commenter noted that partial county areas are not expressly addressed in the emissions inventory requirements and pointed out that it will be burdensome for states to create partial county inventories. The EPA addresses partial county emissions in this final rule by specifically defining the emissions to be included as “within the boundaries of the nonattainment area” and clarifies in this preamble that such partial county estimates are still needed to comply with the CAA requirements for inventories and RFP plans.
States must develop emission reporting programs, called emission statement programs, for VOC and NO
The EPA published guidance on source emission statements in a July 1992 memorandum titled, “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program.” A memorandum titled, “Emission Statement Requirements Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation,” dated March 14, 2006, clarified that the source emission statement requirement under the CAA was applicable to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and classified as Marginal or higher under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. This requirement similarly applies to all areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Most areas that need an emission statement program already have one in place due to a nonattainment designation for an earlier ozone NAAQS. If an area has a previously approved emission statement rule in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The state should review the existing rule to ensure it is adequate and, if it is, may rely on it to meet the emission statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In cases when an existing emission statement requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements of this rule, states can provide the rationale for that determination to the EPA in a written statement in the SIP to meet this requirement. States should identify the various requirements and how each is met by the existing emission statement program. In cases when an emission statement requirement is modified for any reason, states must provide the revisions to the emission statement as part of their SIP.
The EPA's ambient monitoring requirements are contained in 40 CFR part 58. Monitoring rule amendments published on October 17, 2006, (71 FR 61236) established minimum ozone monitoring requirements based on population and levels of ozone in an area to better prioritize monitoring resources. The minimum monitoring requirements are contained in Table D-2 of Appendix D to part 58. The Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) program, required by CAA section 182(c)(1), collects enhanced ambient air measurements in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious, Severe, or Extreme. The monitoring rule amendments published on October 17, 2006, reduced the minimum PAMS requirements. The revisions were intended to require the retention of the minimum common PAMS network elements necessary to meet the objectives of every PAMS program, while freeing up resources for states to tailor other features of their own PAMS networks to suit their specific data needs. This final rule makes no changes to these existing requirements.
Section 181(a)(5) of the CAA addresses the conditions under which an area may be eligible for a 1-year extension of its attainment date. Because that statutory provision was written for an exceedance-based standard, such as the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA established through the Phase 1 Rule (40 CFR 51.907) an interpretation that would apply to a concentration-based standard, such as the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach. An area that fails to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by its attainment date would be eligible for the first 1-year extension if, for the attainment year, the area's 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average is at or below the level of the standard. The area would be eligible for the second 1-year extension if the area's 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year, is at or below the level of the standard. Thus, to be eligible for the first 1-year extension, the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour value for an area would need to be at or below 0.075 ppm. The area would be eligible for the second extension if the area's 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year, is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm.
This approach is the same approach used for implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes this approach makes sense for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as well.
The EPA received no adverse comments on the proposed action.
The CAA Amendments of 1990 contained section 182(h) that provides a “rural transport” determination for ozone nonattainment areas that are rural in nature and can demonstrate that sources in the area do not make a significant contribution to ozone concentrations measured in the area or in other areas. These areas are subject to Marginal nonattainment area requirements, regardless of the area's classification under CAA section 181(a). This distinction was created for rural nonattainment areas whose ozone problem is the result of ozone and/or precursors transport into the area that is so overwhelming that the contribution of local emissions to ozone concentrations above the level of the NAAQS is relatively minor and that emissions within the area do not significantly contribute to ozone measured in other areas.
One qualifying consideration for a rural transport area determination is the lack of adjacency of the candidate nonattainment area's boundary to potentially nearby urban areas. In general, we would expect a rural nonattainment area that has few or insignificant sources of ozone precursors, yet has a monitor indicating a violation of the NAAQS, to encompass a relatively small geographic area due to the relative lack of emissions sources.
We are finalizing, as proposed, the interpretation of the references to both MSA and CMSA in CAA section 182(h) to refer to OMB's current definition of MSA. Accordingly, to qualify as a rural transport nonattainment area, the nonattainment area's boundary could not include or be adjacent to a current OMB-defined MSA. Under this approach, any nonattainment area associated with a Census-defined micropolitan area (areas with central county or counties containing an urban cluster of 10,000-49,999 people plus adjacent counties having a high degree of economic and social integration as measured through worker commuting) or an area too sparsely populated to be included in a census-defined statistical area, may be able to qualify as a rural transport nonattainment area.
The EPA believes this interpretation of CAA section 182(h) is consistent with the original scope of CAA section 182(h) as promulgated in 1990 and provides maximum flexibility for areas to qualify for this determination where appropriate. We did not receive any adverse comments on our proposed interpretation.
Each state within a multi-state ozone nonattainment area is responsible for meeting all the requirements relevant to that area. CAA section 182(j)(1)(A) requires that states should “take all reasonable steps to coordinate substantively and procedurally” on SIP development. States should coordinate
CAA section 182(j)(2) recognizes that in certain instances, one or more states within a multi-state nonattainment area may not submit an attainment plan by the required date, thus interfering with the ability of the area as a whole to demonstrate attainment. In such case, CAA section 182(j) provides that even though the area as a whole would not be able to demonstrate attainment, the sanction provisions of CAA section 179 shall not apply in the portion of the nonattainment area located in a state that submitted all other provisions of an attainment plan and demonstrated that it could have demonstrated attainment but for the failure of the other state to cooperate. The EPA did not propose any changes to its prior interpretations of these sections of the CAA (
The EPA recognizes that many states are affected by transported ozone and ozone precursors from upwind states, and that transported pollution may contribute significantly to air pollution that exceeds the NAAQS in those states. The CAA establishes states' responsibilities to address interstate transport through two provisions. First, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligates states to include provisions in their infrastructure SIPs to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state, from interfering with required provisions preventing significant deterioration of air quality or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state. Second, CAA section 126 directs states to include provisions to establish a notification process in their infrastructure SIPs through which downwind jurisdictions can be alerted to specific sources of transported pollution. The EPA issued its “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Elements Under the Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” on September 13, 2013,
Where interstate transported emissions contribute to an exceedance or violation and come from prescribed fire, wildfires or other natural sources, air agencies may be able to use the provisions in the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) to request exclusion of affected data. Once EPA concurs with an air agency's request, the event-influenced data are officially noted and removed from the data set used to calculate official design values.
Because of previously expressed stakeholder feedback regarding implementation of the Exceptional Events Rule and specific stakeholder concerns regarding the analyses that can be used to support ozone-related exceptional event demonstrations, the EPA intends to propose revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule in a future notice and comment rulemaking effort and will solicit public comment at that time. Additionally, the EPA intends to develop guidance to address implementing the Exceptional Events Rule criteria for wildfires that could affect ambient ozone concentrations. Depending on the nature and scope of interstate emission events affecting downward air quality, the EPA may be able to assist states in developing approvable exceptional events demonstrations.
Most ozone air quality problems in the United States are due primarily to emission sources within the United States. However, domestic ozone air quality can also be affected by sources of emissions located across United States borders in Canada and Mexico, and from other continents. These contributions to U.S. ozone concentrations from sources outside of the United States can affect to varying degrees the ability of some areas to attain and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA will continue to work with our domestic and international partners to better understand the extent and implications of transboundary flows of air pollutants and, where possible, to mitigate their impact on U.S. domestic air quality.
Section 179B of the CAA allows the EPA to approve an attainment demonstration for a nonattainment area if: (1) The attainment demonstration meets all other applicable requirements of the CAA; and (2) the submitting state can satisfactorily demonstrate that “but for emissions emanating from outside of the United States,” the area would attain and maintain the ozone standard. The EPA proposed that this could include consideration of any emissions from North American or intercontinental sources.
The EPA is finalizing this action as proposed. The EPA believes that the best approach for addressing the potential impacts of international transport on nonattainment is for states to work with the relevant EPA Regional Office on a case-by-case basis to determine the most appropriate information and analytical methods for each area's unique situation. We will work with states that are developing plans pursuant to CAA section 179B, and ensure the states have the benefit of the EPA's developing understanding of international transport of ozone and its precursors.
Although monitored data cannot be excluded for a determination of whether an area has attained a NAAQS based solely on the fact the data are affected by emissions from outside the U.S., such data may be excluded from consideration if they were significantly influenced by exceptional events as described in CAA section 319(b). Where international transport meets the criteria and procedural requirements contained in the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14), it may be addressed by that rule.
We proposed, consistent with the approach taken in the Phase 2 Rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 2005 updated guidance, that a previously granted NO
We are finalizing this approach as proposed. A state with a previously approved NO
The EPA believes that while it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to grant NO
As states evaluate whether to seek a NO
Energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE) policies and programs are adopted by federal, state and local governments to lower energy demand through the use of more energy efficient equipment, technologies and practices and to transition to cleaner energy. These policies help reduce electricity generation from fossil-fueled sources, which, in turn, can result in lower emissions of NO
In July 2012, the EPA released the “
In addition to the Roadmap, the EPA is providing training and technical assistance to state, tribal and local agencies, as well as tools for quantifying the emissions impacts of EE/RE policies and programs (
States may also wish to consider strategies that foster more efficient urban and regional development patterns as a long-term air pollution control measure. Resources include the HUD DOT EPA Sustainable Communities Partnership, as well as the policy and technical guidance documents on land use available on the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site.
Areas may also consider incorporating travel efficiency strategies, such as new or expanded mass transit options, commuter strategies, system operations (
The EPA stated in the proposal that from a planning and resource perspective, we believe it can be efficient for states to develop integrated control strategies that address multiple pollutants rather than separate strategies for each pollutant or NAAQS individually. The EPA also provided states with recommendations and considerations to take into account when developing a comprehensive approach. The EPA requested comment on what incentives or assistance we might be able to provide to encourage states to integrate their planning activities.
From a planning and resource perspective, the EPA continues to believe that multi-pollutant control strategy planning can be efficient for states. An integrated air quality control strategy that reduces multiple pollutants can help ensure that reductions are efficiently achieved and produce the greatest overall air quality benefits. However, multi-pollutant approaches are not required as part of this rule.
States may also find it desirable to assess the impact of ozone, PM
We recommend that states and tribes wishing to take a comprehensive approach consider the following activities:
• Choose or develop models for use in the attainment demonstration that can assess the air quality and ecosystem impacts of measures to reduce ozone precursors, secondary fine particles, pollutants that contribute to regional haze and, where appropriate, toxic air pollutants and other related pollutants that can impact ecosystems.
• Conduct an integrated assessment of the impact controls have on ambient levels of ozone, PM
• Use common data bases and analytical tools, where possible.
The EPA also supports considering the co-benefits of emissions reductions on multiple pollutants. We acknowledge that there are CAA constraints that may limit the incentive for multi-pollutant planning, and clarify that single-pollutant planning is acceptable under the Act.
The EPA proposed to adopt for the 2008 ozone NAAQS the same requirements applicable to the OTR that were codified in 40 CFR 51.916 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, except that the submission date for OTR RACT SIPs required under CAA section 182(b)(2) would be the same as provided under the RACT section of this regulation for nonattainment areas. (
The EPA did not propose any specific regulatory provisions related to compliance and enforcement. CAA section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment SIPs to “include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment . . .” The EPA's current guidance, “Guidance on Preparing Enforceable Regulations and Compliance Programs for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans (EPA-452/R-93-005, June 1993)” is still relevant to rules adopted for SIPs under the 2008 ozone NAAQS and should be consulted for purposes of developing appropriate enforceable nonattainment plan provisions under CAA section 172(c)(6). The EPA did not solicit comment on this section and thus, none were received.
The EPA proposed that the existing requirements for emergency episodes (40 CFR part 51, subpart H) would also apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposal. The EPA is finalizing the requirements for emergency episodes as proposed. The EPA believes the existing requirements for emergency episodes (40 CFR part 51, subpart H) remain appropriate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and/or any current ozone NAAQS. If wildfire is a potential contributor to these episodes, the EPA urges implementing state and local agencies to coordinate with the land management agencies, as appropriate, in developing plans and appropriate public communications regarding public safety and reducing exposure.
The EPA proposed to apply the same approach with respect to the Clean Data Policy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as it applied in the Phase 1 Rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. That is, a determination of attainment would suspend the obligation to submit attainment planning SIP elements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Such a determination would suspend the obligation to submit any attainment-related SIP elements not yet approved in the SIP, for so long as the area continues to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is finalizing this action as proposed. The EPA is replacing 40 CFR 51.918 with 40 CFR 51.1118 to consolidate in one regulation a comprehensive provision applicable to determinations of attainment for the current and former ozone NAAQS. Thus, 40 CFR 51.1118 will apply to a determination of attainment that is made with respect to any revoked or current ozone NAAQS—the 1-hour, the 1997 or the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate for an area that has met an ozone NAAQS to suspend further attainment planning efforts for that ozone NAAQS. The new 40 CFR 51.1118 sets forth the regulatory consequences of an EPA determination, made after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that an area designated nonattainment for an ozone standard has air quality attaining that standard. Upon such a determination by the EPA, the requirements for the area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, RFP plans, contingency measures and other attainment-related planning requirements for that NAAQS, shall be suspended until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply, or until the EPA determines that the area has again violated that ozone NAAQS, in which case the requirements are again applicable.
As we mentioned in the proposal, tribes are generally not required to submit tribal implementation plans (TIPs).
The EPA stands ready to assist states in implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Ozone Advance program, which began in April 2012, is an opportunity for 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment areas to work collaboratively with EPA to improve local air quality. Information on the Ozone Advance program for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is provided in a separate guidance document that is available at
The EPA proposed to exercise its authority to revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes upon the publication of the final SIP Requirements Rule in the
The EPA is revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes upon the effective date of this final rule, which will be 30 days after publication of this rule in the
After revocation of the 1997 standard, the designations (and the classifications associated with those designations) for that standard are no longer in effect, and the sole designations that remain in effect are those for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, the EPA is retaining the listing of the designated areas for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81, for the sole purpose of identifying the anti-backsliding requirements that may apply to the areas at the time of revocation. Accordingly, such references to historical designations for the revoked standard should not be viewed as current designations under CAA section 107(d).
This approach of establishing anti-backsliding requirements is consistent with the EPA's practice in the transition from the 1-hour to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. It is not logical to attach to an area any anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked 1997 NAAQS until that NAAQS is revoked because up until revocation, implementation of the 1997 NAAQS is still adequately governed by the relevant CAA and regulatory provisions, and the EPA can still take actions to redesignate or reclassify areas for that standard.
The EPA believes it is appropriate to revoke rather than retain the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes.
We believe that revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS is appropriate for all purposes. The EPA believes that the permanent retention of two standards, differing only in the ozone concentrations they allow, creates unnecessary complexity and is not necessary to provide for attainment of the more stringent NAAQS. The EPA's reason for establishing the new standards of 0.075 ppm as requisite to protect public health and welfare was its conclusion that the old standard of 0.08 ppm was not adequate. Revoking (with appropriate anti-backsliding measures) rather than retaining that 1997 ozone NAAQS will facilitate a more seamless transition to demonstrating compliance with the more health and welfare protective 2008 ozone NAAQS, and will ensure the most efficient use of state and local resources in working toward attainment of that standard. Moreover, we believe that by requiring adequate anti-backsliding measures we will ensure continued momentum in states' efforts toward achieving cleaner air.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that the adopted revocation approach means that the 1997 NAAQS would be revoked before the statutory maximum attainment date for areas classified as Severe and Extreme for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We believe that Congress understood this possibility when it amended the CAA in 1990 to require the EPA to review each NAAQS every 5 years. Similarly, Congress also recognized that areas with more significant ozone problems would need more time to attain the standard, and gave these areas more time to attain the standard, with timeframes for attainment largely beyond the 5-year timeframe required for review of the NAAQS. The EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization of revoking the NAAQS, while retaining a retinue of anti-backsliding requirements, as creating perpetual extensions for attaining old standards. The commenter's argument ignores the fact that the old standard has been supplanted by a more protective standard, and that the EPA's anti-backsliding requirements, combined with the CAA's new obligations to achieve the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, effectively fulfill the function of the prior attainment date. In addition the EPA notes that the attainment demonstration for the prior standard is retained as an anti-backsliding measure.
The EPA believes that integrating prior requirements with new goals facilitates coherent, effective and timely planning and controls, and minimizes the separate potentially duplicative submittal of requirements left over from obsolete standards. In this time of diminished resources, the states and the EPA need to move forward efficiently without being overburdened by unnecessary paperwork requirements arising from former standards that can detract from efficient movement towards more stringent standards.
For these reasons, and consistent with the anti-backsliding regime previously endorsed by the D.C. Circuit,
The EPA proposal stated that subpart AA, 40 CFR 51.1100
In proposed subpart AA, 40 CFR 51.1100(o) specified the list of “applicable requirements” that would apply as anti-backsliding requirements for the transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA proposed as “applicable requirements” the requirements that were previously listed in 40 CFR 51.900(f) (except for Stage II vapor recovery),
The applicable requirements discussed previously apply to areas that are designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and remain nonattainment for a previous ozone NAAQS on the date the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked. For areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed that after the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked, these areas would not be required to retain in their SIPs nonattainment NSR programs for ozone. Instead, such areas would be required to implement PSD requirements for ozone. The EPA's determination that after revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment NSR requirements do not apply to areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is consistent with the
Based on requirements in the Phase 1 rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as modified in light of
As part of the proposal, the EPA indicated that upon revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the designations for that NAAQS would have no further effect except as references for anti-backsliding purposes. References to the designations for the revoked standard in 40 CFR part 81 would be retained solely for anti-backsliding purposes for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and should not be viewed as current nonattainment designations under CAA § 107 within the meaning of 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) and, therefore, would not trigger the exemption from PSD requirements otherwise resulting from those provisions. The proposal also requested comment as to whether or not an amendment to 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) would be appropriate to make it clear that a nonattainment designation for a revoked NAAQS, once the revocation becomes effective in an area, would not trigger the PSD exemption in those provisions and would not prevent application of PSD requirements for that pollutant and how to word such an amendment. Alternatively, the EPA sought comment as to whether it would be sufficient for the EPA to articulate the interpretation of these provisions as described earlier in this paragraph.
The EPA is finalizing the anti-backsliding requirements as proposed, including amendments to 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) which address classifications for revoked NAAQS. The amended subpart AA addresses anti-backsliding requirements for both the previously revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS in a consolidated and streamlined fashion. Areas designated nonattainment for the
Also as proposed, three items are being added to the list of applicable requirements: Nonattainment contingency measures, nonattainment NSR requirements (clarified to refer to major source thresholds and offset ratios), and CAA section 185 requirements for Severe and Extreme areas. As proposed, Stage II vapor recovery is not being included in the list of applicable requirements for the reasons described above.
Based on feedback received during the comment period, the EPA is specifically including two additional items in the list of applicable requirements: RACM and CAA section 182(e)(5) contingency measures. These provisions were implicitly included in the attainment demonstration but are listed separately for clarification. As such, the complete list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o) is: (1) RACT; (2) Vehicle I/M programs; (3) Major source applicability cut-offs for purposes of RACT; (4) ROP and/or RFP reductions; (5) the Clean fuels fleet program under section 183(c)(4) of the CAA; (6) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA; (7) Transportation control measures during heavy traffic hours as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA; (8) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA; (9) Transportation controls under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA; (10) Vehicle miles traveled provisions under section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA; (11) NO
As detailed in the proposal,
Similarly, areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS when the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked will become subject to PSD rather than nonattainment NSR once the revocation takes effect. An area that is attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is attaining the most current and health protective ozone standard. The EPA believes that Congress did not intend to hold such an area to the requirements for an old standard when the area has met a newer, more stringent standard of the same form. Such areas will implement PSD for the 2008 ozone NAAQS once the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS takes effect, notwithstanding any remaining references to nonattainment designations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81. The references to the designations for the revoked standard in 40 CFR part 81 are retained solely for anti-backsliding purposes for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, such references to historical nonattainment designations for the revoked standard should not be viewed as current nonattainment designations under CAA § 107 within the meaning of 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) and, therefore, do not trigger the exemption from PSD requirements otherwise resulting from those provisions.
Upon reviewing comments, the EPA decided that sufficient arguments were provided to append two additional items to the list of applicable requirements in 51.1100(o). Those two items are RACM and 182(e)(5) contingency measures. The EPA views this as a clarification, rather than as an addition of control elements. Attainment demonstration SIPs are already listed as an applicable requirement. RACM is an integral part of an approvable attainment demonstration. Similarly, contingency measures will become a required element of 51.1100(o) consistent with the
Similarly, for Extreme areas relying on CAA section 182(e)(5), the EPA agrees that the contingency measures required for that program should be held to the same requirements as contingency measures for sections 172(c) and 182(c) of the CAA. Thus the EPA is adding 182(e)(5) contingency measures to the list of applicable requirements in 51.1100(o).
However, the EPA does not agree with the commenter that conformity needs to be retained as an applicable requirement. Transportation and general conformity are retained as requirements for all areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, these areas are meeting the most stringent, health-protective NAAQS and thus have no remaining conformity requirements because they are designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the designations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS which trigger conformity requirements are revoked. Transportation and general conformity apply only in areas designated as nonattainment or redesignated to attainment with an approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan. (CAA section 176(c)(5)). Upon the effective date of the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS the only relevant designation for ozone for conformity purposes will be an area's designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
This section discusses how the transition requirements apply to various types of areas. The general principle is to apply transition requirements depending on how the area is designated—attainment or nonattainment—for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, while taking into account the area's status with respect to prior standards.
For this category, the EPA proposed that an area's approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS satisfies both its obligations for maintenance under section 110(a)(1) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and its obligation to submit a second approvable maintenance plan under CAA section 175A for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is finalizing this as proposed. For areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as of the date of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS), the area's approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS satisfies both its obligations for maintenance under CAA section 110(a)(1) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and its obligation to submit a second approvable maintenance plan under CAA section 175A for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS.
All areas in this category were already subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS, and have been both redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as well as any other revoked ozone NAAQS) and designated attainment for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. The approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS satisfied the anti-backsliding requirements of these areas for the prior 1-hour NAAQS. Any further 110(a)(1) maintenance plan requirement under the 2008 ozone NAAQS would be unnecessarily burdensome. No revision to the CAA section 175A maintenance plans for these areas can be approved unless it complies with the anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. The EPA believes that there is no justification for additional maintenance plan demonstration burdens to be imposed on these areas solely because at one time they were designated nonattainment under the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS. This approach recognizes and reflects that these areas were redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to its revocation, and have been designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
While these approved CAA section 175A maintenance plans were established for maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and accordingly help prevent backsliding for that revoked NAAQS, they also provide a foundation for maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which, in combination with other active requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, contribute to maintenance of the new standard. The emissions reductions for one NAAQS build upon the emissions reductions from previous NAAQS. The EPA concludes that no additional measures beyond the prior CAA section 175A maintenance plans and the PSD plans for the 2008 standard should be necessary to provide for maintenance in these areas. The EPA will work with states as necessary to address any future air quality concerns and maintenance needs for these areas.
The EPA proposed two approaches for this category. The EPA proposed as its
The second, and less preferred, alternative proposed by the EPA for these areas was that the state be required to demonstrate maintenance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS via a “maintenance showing.” This maintenance showing would be due 3 years after the effective date of designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and would be in a form other than a formal SIP revision. The maintenance showing would contain a demonstration of continued maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the area for 10 years from the effective date of the area's designation as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA committed to providing guidance regarding the specific elements of the maintenance showing if this route were chosen.
The EPA is finalizing the preferred option: For areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS) states are not required to adopt any outstanding applicable requirements for the revoked 1997 standard. Approved PSD SIPs for these areas satisfy the obligation to submit an approvable maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(1).
Areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (as of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS) have already attained the most stringent existing standard, notwithstanding any existing nonattainment designation. These areas thus have developed nonattainment SIPs that in combination with federal measures and emissions controls in upwind areas have produced sufficient emissions reductions to achieve air quality that attained both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and resulted in an attainment designation for the more protective 2008 ozone NAAQS. They remain subject to the 1997 nonattainment area requirements already approved into the SIP, which can be revised only upon a showing that such revision complies with the anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. Given the succession of NAAQS of increasing stringency that has occurred, the EPA believes that the burden of developing an approvable 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would outweigh any compensating benefit for an area that is already attaining that NAAQS and that is subject to prior nonattainment requirements which are already incorporated into the SIP and have been sufficient to bring the area into attainment of both the 1997 and 2008 standards.
The EPA proposed that for these areas, the area's approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS would satisfy the obligation to submit a second approvable maintenance plan under CAA section 175A for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is finalizing this as proposed.
All areas in this group are already subject to an approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS and have been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As explained elsewhere, the approval of the redesignation request and of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS required the EPA to determine that any anti-backsliding requirements
These areas are also designated nonattainment for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS and therefore are subject to nonattainment NSR and other nonattainment requirements for their classification under the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, the EPA believes that there is no justification for a second CAA section 175A maintenance plan to be imposed on these areas solely because at one time they were designated nonattainment under a revoked ozone NAAQS.
The EPA proposed that areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and also designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as of the revocation of the 1997 NAAQS
The EPA is finalizing this as proposed. In an area designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS the state will be obligated to implement the applicable requirements set forth in 51.1100(o) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This could include, as applicable, anti-backsliding requirements associated with the revoked 1-hour NAAQS if the area was also designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when that NAAQS was revoked. Nonattainment NSR applies in these areas in accordance with their highest nonattainment classification under any ozone standard for which they are (or were at the time of revocation) designated nonattainment. Also, if these areas are classified Severe or Extreme at the time of revocation for a prior standard, the requirements of CAA section 185 in relation to that prior standard continue to apply.
The EPA believes that the application of anti-backsliding principles is very clear cut for this category of areas. These areas remain subject to the applicable requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as well as for any of the revoked ozone NAAQS for which the areas remained nonattainment, until the requirements are satisfied or suspended as detailed in sections IV.D and IV.E. The EPA received no adverse comments on this approach.
The EPA proposed two acceptable procedures through which a state may demonstrate that it is no longer required to adopt any additional applicable requirements for an area which have not already been approved into the SIP for a revoked ozone NAAQS. Both procedures allow a state to remove or revise the nonattainment NSR provisions in the SIP and, upon a showing of consistency with the anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(l) and 193 (if applicable), shift requirements which are contained in the active portion of the SIP to the
The first of the proposed procedures is formal redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For areas subject to anti-backsliding requirements for revoked standards, approval of a request for redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS signifies that the state has satisfied its obligations to adopt anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked standards. This is an extension of the approach that the EPA adopted in the Phase 1 Rule. The EPA proposed that once the area is redesignated and the requirement(s) for nonattainment NSR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and for any prior ozone NAAQS cease to apply, the state may request that the corresponding nonattainment NSR requirements be removed from the SIP rather than be retained as a maintenance plan contingency measure.
The second of the proposed procedures for satisfying anti-backsliding requirements was a new separate route referred to as a “redesignation substitute” for a revoked standard. This redesignation substitute showing would serve as a successor to redesignation to attainment, for which the area would have been eligible were it not for revocation. The showing is based on the CAA's criteria for redesignation to attainment [CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)]. States would have to demonstrate that the area has attained the relevant standard and met all of the requirements for redesignation. After notice-and-comment rulemaking on this showing, the EPA approval of the showing would have the same effect on the area's nonattainment anti-backsliding obligations as would a redesignation to attainment for the revoked standard. The EPA did not propose to require states to go through formal SIP submission procedures to submit a request for approval of a redesignation substitute because it is not a redesignation. The EPA proposed that such an area would no longer be subject to any remaining applicable anti-backsliding requirements and the nonattainment NSR requirements associated with the revoked NAAQS for which the area completed a redesignation substitute would be lifted, leaving the remaining NSR requirements to be determined by the highest remaining classification the area is subject to, whether for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or another revoked NAAQS for which the EPA had not approved a redesignation showing.
The EPA is finalizing both routes as acceptable ways to address anti-backsliding requirements. That is, states can choose either to submit a request to redesignate to attainment for the most current NAAQS with an approved 175A maintenance plan that addresses the current and revoked NAAQS, or to submit a redesignation substitute request for a revoked NAAQS. Under both of the these procedures, a state seeking to revise its SIP to remove anti-backsliding measures from the active portion of its SIP must demonstrate, pursuant to CAA section 110(l), that such revision would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any applicable NAAQS, or any other requirement of the CAA.
The first of the procedures, formal redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, is an extension of the approach that the EPA adopted in the Phase 1 Rule. Redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would allow a state to terminate and remove from the active portion of its SIP any applicable anti-backsliding requirements, including nonattainment NSR requirements associated with its classifications under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or under the 1997 or 1-hour ozone NAAQS, except for areas in the OTR. The area would instead need, at a minimum, to implement the PSD program. This approach is consistent with the EPA's longstanding interpretation of nonattainment NSR requirements for areas that are redesignated to attainment.
Approval of a redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS signifies that the state has satisfied its obligations to adopt anti-backsliding requirements for the current and revoked standards for that area. This same approach was used in the Phase 1 Rule in requiring redesignations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to address anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked 1-hour standard. Approval of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS assures that the area's SIP includes the provisions necessary for maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which is the most stringent of the NAAQS. Therefore, upon redesignation to attainment and approval of its plan for maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, an area will have satisfied its obligations to adopt anti-backsliding requirements. All of the anti-backsliding measures that have been approved into the SIP must continue to be implemented unless or until the state can show that such implementation is not necessary for maintenance, consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 if applicable.
Experience has shown the EPA that a second mechanism for areas to address the requirements imposed by anti-backsliding requirements is also appropriate. After revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, areas that attain and meet requirements for the revoked 1997 or 1-hour ozone NAAQS would be disadvantaged relative to areas that were redesignated to attainment for those standards prior to their revocation. Absent this second mechanism, areas that would otherwise have qualified for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 or 1-hour ozone NAAQS, were it not for revocation of those NAAQS, would need to continue implementing potentially outdated and onerous requirements for a NAAQS they have attained until they also qualify for redesignation to attainment for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes that, under any view of anti-backsliding for a revoked standard, it should not mean imposing requirements greater than those that would apply if the standard had not been revoked.
The EPA has no mechanism for formally redesignating areas for a
The EPA believes this is an acceptable approach because it is based on the CAA's criteria for redesignation to attainment [CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)]. A showing would include: Attainment of the relevant revoked 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS; a showing that attainment was due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions; and a demonstration that the area can continue to maintain the standard over the next 10 years. Redesignation criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) would be met by the existing approved SIP, under which the area has attained the revoked standard, in the context of (and reinforced by) the requirements for the new 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA will conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking on the state's showings. We believe a notice-and-comment process fulfills the function of redesignation to attainment for the purpose of satisfying anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked standard.
The EPA believes that requiring more elaborate administrative procedures for purposes of approving a state's request for a redesignation substitute for a revoked NAAQS (for example, requiring states to use the formal SIP adoption process) would needlessly impose burdens because the area will remain subject to all the formal requirements for redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Development of SIP revisions takes time and imposes administrative costs on states, industry and the public. As in the case of a redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, at the time of submitting a redesignation substitute request or at any time thereafter, a state may request to revise its SIP so as to cease implementing a specific nonattainment SIP requirement. However, this request could not be granted, and the SIP revised, until the EPA approves the redesignation substitute and a demonstration that the SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l). The EPA is not providing this mechanism for the purpose of allowing states to relax or avoid air quality management measures that are needed for attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The showings required, the provisions of CAA section 110(l), and the fact that the area remains subject to CAA requirements for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, assure that is not the case. It is, however, important to relieve states of requirements that are no longer necessary, or that can be replaced by other forms of protection that might better meet the local needs and circumstances of an area.
The EPA is providing in the redesignation substitute option a mechanism that demands more than a determination of attainment of the prior NAAQS, and calls for a showing that addresses redesignation criteria for that NAAQS. Moreover, the process under this option occurs while the state remains subject to ongoing requirements to meet the new more stringent standard in that area. In this context, this final action is clearly sufficient for its limited anti-backsliding purpose—it recognizes and supports the state's progress in having attained the prior standard in that area due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, and reinforces continued attainment by calling for a demonstration that the area can maintain the revoked standard.
The EPA proposed to apply the same approach with respect to determinations of attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as applied under the 1997 ozone NAAQS under 40 CFR 51.918. Under 40 CFR 51.918, an EPA determination that an area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS suspended the obligation to submit any attainment-related SIP planning elements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS not yet approved in the SIP, for so long as the area continued to be in attainment of that NAAQS.
The EPA is finalizing its proposed approach to implementing the Clean Data Policy with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and all prior ozone NAAQS. Under the EPA's Clean Data Regulation, a determination of attainment suspends the obligation to submit certain attainment-related planning requirements for the associated NAAQS for an area as long as the area continues to attain that standard.
The planning elements that may be suspended under 40 CFR 51.1118 are the same as those suspended under existing 40 CFR 51.918: RFP requirements, attainment demonstrations, RACM, contingency measures and other state planning requirements related to attainment of the relevant standard. For a Severe or Extreme area, a CAA section 185 fee program is expressly linked by the statute itself to an attainment plan; therefore suspension of the obligation to submit the attainment plan also necessarily suspends the obligation to submit the fee program which is part of the attainment plan (provided that the EPA has not already determined that the area failed to attain by its attainment deadline and thus triggered the obligation to implement a fee program). The EPA notes that a determination of attainment would not, however, suspend obligations to submit non-planning requirements such as nonattainment NSR, subpart 2 RACT or emission inventories under CAA section 182(a)(1).
40 CFR 51.1118 applies essentially the same language as 40 CFR 51.918. Upon revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, this section would be applicable to determinations of attainment for all ozone NAAQS: The 2008, 1997 and the already revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS. With the finalization of 51.1118, the EPA's long-standing Clean Data Policy, which has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit and all other courts that have considered it, is embodied in a regulation applicable for the purpose of all existing and prior ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes that continuation of this approach makes the most sense for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
We proposed, and solicited comment on, two alternative approaches for implementing the title V permit program for sources in areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and subject to anti-backsliding requirements for a prior ozone NAAQS. The EPA co-proposed two approaches to interpreting title V applicability requirements following revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (1) Major source thresholds for title V should be the same as the major source thresholds applicable for purposes of other requirements such as RACT and NSR; and (2) major source thresholds for title V depend solely on the area's classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA specifically solicited comments on whether title V should (or should not) be considered a “control” within the meaning of CAA section 172(e) in light of the fact that title V generally does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements but is intended to assure compliance with all such existing requirements.
We are finalizing the first option and the associated proposed revisions to parts 70 and 71. Following revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, major source thresholds for title V will be the same as the major source
The EPA received a wide range of comments on the question of whether the major source thresholds for title V permitting should be considered a “control” for purposes of the anti-backsliding requirements of CAA section 172(e). The EPA recognizes that many of these comments raise valid perspectives. It is true that title V generally does not impose new substantive pollution control requirements on sources, and thus ordinarily the EPA would not describe title V permitting itself as a “control.” At the same time, the EPA does believe that one of the underlying purposes of title V is to assure compliance with the pollution control requirements applicable to a source. Thus, it may well be true that title V provides air quality benefits, and should be considered a “control” under the broad, functional analysis used by the court in the
Title V and NSR have long shared a common approach to the definition of major source.
In addition, the EPA notes that, under CAA section 502, sources are required to operate in accordance with the terms of a title V permit if,
Maintaining consistency between the NSR and title V thresholds in this regard will promote compliance with CAA requirements by providing a simpler permitting regime, ensuring that sources subject to major source NSR understand they are also subject to title V, and enabling permitting authorities to identify sources that are potentially subject to major source NSR. The EPA believes a contrary approach would introduce not only complexity, but anomalies, into the permitting program that would be contrary to the purposes and requirements of the Act. To promote effective program implementation and ensure consistency with the CAA, this final rule will amend the relevant provisions of parts 70 and 71 related to application of title V thresholds.
A number of commenters stated that the title V program is not a control in and of itself. One commenter stated that the EPA has consistently stated that title V is a separate program when compared to the requirements of title I. Several commenters stated that the history of title V rulemaking is clear on this point, indicating that the EPA has stated repeatedly that no substantive controls are imposed simply by having a title V permit. Title V should not be considered a “control” in light of the fact that title V is not intended to impose new substantive air quality control requirements but is instead intended to assure compliance with all existing applicable requirements.
The CAA requires that states with areas designated as nonattainment submit to the Administrator the appropriate SIP revisions and implement specified control measures by certain dates applicable to the area's classification. By addressing the planning and implementation requirements for all areas designated nonattainment under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, this action protects all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in those areas regardless of minority or economic status.
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action raises novel policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
The information collection activities in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2347.02 and OMB Reference number 2060-0695. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is finalizing this 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule so that states will know what CAA requirements apply to their nonattainment areas when the states develop their SIPs for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. The intended effect of the SIP Requirements Rule is to provide certainty to states regarding their planning obligations such that states may begin SIP development. For purposes of analysis of the estimated paperwork burden, the EPA assumed 46 nonattainment areas,
States should already have information from many emission
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 120,000 labor hours per year at an annual labor cost of $2.4 million (present value) over the 3-year period or approximately $91,000 per state for the 26 state air agency respondents, including the District of Columbia. The Information Collection Request Supporting Statement for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule EPA ICR #2347.02 in the docket provides the details for the 26 state air agencies that are required to provide the 58 SIP revisions for the 46 areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. The average annual reporting burden is 690 hours per response, with approximately 2 responses per state for 58 state responses from the state air agencies. There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs associated with the proposed rule requirements. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this rule include state, local and tribal governments and none of these governments are small governments. Other types of small entities are not directly subject to the requirements of this rule because this action only addresses how a SIP will provide for adequate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and meet the obligations of the CAA. Although some states may ultimately decide to impose economic impacts on small entities, that is not required by this rule and would only occur at the discretion of the state.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, since no tribe has to develop a TIP under these regulatory revisions. Furthermore, these regulation revisions do not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the federal government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and these revisions to the regulations do nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA met with tribal officials in developing the proposal. Meeting summaries are contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This final rule addresses the substantive requirements for states with nonattainment areas to develop planning SIPs and attain the NAAQS.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
The final revisions to the regulations address the substantive requirements for SIPs to attain the NAAQS, which are designed to protect all segments of the general populations. As such, they do not adversely affect the health or safety of minority or low-income populations and are designed to protect and enhance the health and safety of these and other populations. The EPA encourages states to consider any potential impacts on these populations in developing SIPs to attain the NAAQS.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under the CAA. CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.”
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
This rule implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). First, the rulemaking addresses a NAAQS that applies to all states and territories in the U.S. Second, the rulemaking addresses issues relevant to specific existing SIP provisions in states across the U.S. that are located in each of the 10 EPA Regions, numerous federal circuits and multiple time zones. Third, the rulemaking addresses a common core of knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the decision and a common interpretation of the requirements of the CAA being applied to SIPs in states across the country. Fourth, the rulemaking, by addressing issues relevant to appropriate SIP provisions in one state, may have precedential impacts upon the SIPs of other states nationwide. Courts have found similar rulemaking actions to be of nationwide scope and effect.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 4, 2015. Any such judicial review is limited to only those objections that are raised with reasonable specificity in timely comments. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements.
This table lists the areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012 that were also nonattainment for a prior ozone NAAQS (1997 NAAQS and/or 1-hour NAAQS) as of the date the prior NAAQS was revoked. The table also indicates the attainment-related status of each area with respect to each of the ozone standards, which is relevant to understanding which obligations associated with the standards applies to each area, as detailed in this final rule. Clean Data Determination means the area received a determination from the EPA that suspends the obligation to submit to the EPA certain planning requirements associated with a standard. Attainment Deadline Determination means the EPA determined that the area attained a standard by the applicable attainment date. No Action means the EPA did not determine that the area qualified for either a Clean Data Determination or a determination of attainment by the applicable attainment date. The term “n/a” means not applicable for this area because the area was not nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the time the 1-hour NAAQS was revoked (June 15, 2005).
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 109; 110; 172; 181 through 185B; 301(a)(1) and 501(2)(B) of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7409; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7502; 42 U.S.C. 7511-7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7661(2)(B)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Operating permits, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Operating permits, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(c) Until the effective date of the final Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements Rule (final SIP Requirements Rule) to be codified at 40 CFR 51.1100
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
As of April 6, 2015, the provisions of subpart AA shall replace the provisions of subpart X, §§ 51.900 to 51.918, which will cease to apply, with the exception of the attainment date extension provisions of § 51.907 for the anti-backsliding purposes of § 51.1105(d)(2).
(o)
(1) Reasonably available control technology (RACT) under CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2).
(2) Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs (I/M) under CAA sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3).
(3) Major source applicability thresholds for purposes of RACT under CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b), 182(c), 182(d), and 182(e).
(4) Reductions to achieve Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) under CAA sections172(c)(2), 182(b)(1)(A), and 182(c)(2)(B).
(5) Clean fuels fleet program under CAA section183(c)(4).
(6) Clean fuels for boilers under CAA section 182(e)(3).
(7) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) during heavy traffic hours as specified under CAA section 182(e)(4).
(8) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under CAA section 182(c)(1).
(9) Transportation controls under CAA section 182(c)(5).
(10) Vehicle miles traveled provisions of CAA section 182(d)(1).
(11) NO
(12) Attainment demonstration requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(4), 182(b)(1)(A), and 182(c)(2).
(13) Nonattainment contingency measures required under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for failure to attain the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date or to make reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS.
(14) Nonattainment NSR major source thresholds and offset ratios under CAA sections 172(a)(5) and 182(a)(2).
(15) Penalty fee program requirements for Severe and Extreme Areas under CAA section 185.
(16) Contingency measures associated with areas utilizing CAA section 182(e)(5).
(17) Reasonably available control measures (RACM) requirements under CAA section 172(c)(1).
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
(z)
(aa) An area “
(bb)
(cc)
(a) * * *
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(2) If EPA, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, approves a redesignation to attainment, the state may request that provisions for nonattainment NSR be removed from the SIP, and that other anti-backsliding obligations be shifted to contingency measures provided that such action is consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193. If EPA, after notice and comment rulemaking, approves a redesignation substitute for a revoked NAAQS, the state may request that provisions for nonattainment NSR for that revoked NAAQS be removed, and that other anti-backsliding obligations for that revoked NAAQS be shifted to contingency measures provided that such action is consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193.
(c)
(d)
(2)
(ii) As of April 6, 2015, the EPA is no longer obligated to reclassify an area to a higher classification for the 1997 ozone NAAQS based upon a determination that the area failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the area's attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
(iii) For the revoked 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is required to determine whether an area attained the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS by the area's attainment date solely for anti-backsliding purposes to address an applicable requirement for nonattainment contingency measures and CAA section 185 fee programs. In making such a determination, the EPA may consider and apply the provisions of CAA section 181(a)(5) and former 40 CFR 51.907 in interpreting whether a 1-year extension of the attainment date is applicable under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C).
(e)
(f)
For any area that is initially designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that is subsequently redesignated to nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, any absolute, fixed date applicable in connection with the requirements of this part other than an attainment date is extended by a period of time equal to the length of time between the effective date of the initial designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the effective date of redesignation, except as otherwise provided in this subpart. The maximum attainment date for a redesignated area would be based on the area's classification, consistent with Table 1 in § 51.1103.
(a) A nonattainment area will meet the requirement of CAA section 181(a)(5)(B) pertaining to 1-year extensions of the attainment date if:
(1) For the first 1-year extension, the area's 4th highest daily maximum 8 hour average in the attainment year is 0.075 ppm or less.
(2) For the second 1-year extension, the area's 4th highest daily maximum 8 hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year, is 0.075 ppm or less.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the area's 4th highest daily maximum 8 hour average for a year shall be from the monitor with the highest 4th highest daily maximum 8 hour average for that year of all the monitors that represent that area.
(a) An area classified as Moderate under § 51.1103(a) shall be subject to the attainment demonstration requirement applicable for that classification under CAA section 182(b), and such demonstration is due no later than 36 months after the effective date of the area's designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
(b) An area classified as Serious or higher under § 51.1103(a) shall be subject to the attainment demonstration requirement applicable for that classification under CAA section 182(c), and such demonstration is due no later than 48 months after the effective date of the area's designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
(c) Attainment demonstration criteria. An attainment demonstration due pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must meet the requirements of § 51.112; the adequacy of an attainment demonstration shall be demonstrated by means of a photochemical grid model or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, to be at least as effective.
(d) Implementation of control measures. For each nonattainment area, the state must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) If classified as Moderate or higher, the area is subject to the RFP requirements under CAA section 172(c)(2) and shall submit a SIP revision that:
(A) Provides for a 15 percent emission reduction from the baseline year within 6 years after the baseline year;
(B) Provides for an additional emissions reduction of 3 percent per year from the end of the first 6 years up to the beginning of the attainment year if a baseline year earlier than 2011 is used; and
(C) Relies on either NO
(ii) If classified as Serious or higher, the area is also subject to RFP under CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) and shall submit a SIP revision no later than 48 months after the effective date of designation providing for an average emissions reduction of 3 percent per year:
(A) For all remaining 3-year periods after the first 6-year period until the year of the area's attainment date; and
(B) That relies on either NO
(3)
(i) The state shall not distinguish between the portion of the area with a previously approved 15 percent ROP plan and the portion of the area without such a plan, and shall meet the requirements of (a)(4) of this section for the entire nonattainment area.
(ii) The state shall treat the area as two parts, each with a separate RFP target as follows:
(A) For the portion of the area without an approved 15 percent VOC ROP plan for the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS, the state shall submit a SIP revision as required under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(B) For the portion of the area with an approved 15 percent VOC ROP plan for the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS, the state shall submit a SIP as required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4)
(ii) For Moderate areas, the plan must provide for an additional 3 percent per year reduction from the end of the first 6 years up to the beginning of the attainment year if a baseline year from 2008 to 2010 is used.
(iii) For each area classified as Serious or higher, the state shall submit a SIP revision consistent with CAA section 182(c)(2)(B). The final increment of progress must be achieved no later than the attainment date for the area.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(i) Measures related to motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated by January 1, 1990;
(ii) Regulations concerning Reid vapor pressure promulgated by November 15, 1990;
(iii) Measures to correct previous RACT requirements; and
(iv) Measures required to correct previous I/M programs.
(b)
(a)
(2) The state shall submit the RACT SIP for each area no later than 24 months after the effective date of designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
(3) The state shall provide for implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
(b)
(c)
(a) A person or a state may petition the Administrator for an exemption from NO
(b) The petition must contain adequate documentation that the criteria in CAA section 182(f) are met.
(c) A CAA section 182(f) NO
The requirements for nonattainment NSR for the ozone NAAQS are located in § 51.165. For each nonattainment area, the state shall submit a nonattainment NSR plan or plan revision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS no later than 36 months after the effective date of the area's designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
(a) For each nonattainment area, the state shall submit a base year inventory as defined by § 51.1100(bb) to meet the emissions inventory requirement of CAA section 182(a)(1). This inventory shall be submitted no later than 24 months after the effective date of designation. The inventory year shall be selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP plan as required by § 51.1110(b).
(b) For each nonattainment area, the state shall submit a periodic emission inventory of emissions sources in the area to meet the requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3)(A). With the exception of the inventory year and timing of submittal, this inventory shall be consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. Each periodic inventory shall be submitted no later than the end of each 3-year period after the required submission of the base year inventory for the nonattainment area. This requirement shall apply until the area is redesignated to attainment.
(c) The emissions values included in the inventories required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be actual ozone season day emissions as defined by § 51.1100(cc).
(d) The state shall report emissions from point sources according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
(e) The data elements in the emissions inventory shall be consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Since only emissions within the boundaries of the nonattainment area shall be included as defined by § 51.1100(cc), this requirement shall apply to the emissions inventories required in this section instead of any total county requirements contained in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
(a)
(b)
(2) The state shall submit the RACT revision no later than 24 months after designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and shall provide for implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1 of the 5th year after designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
For each area classified as Severe or Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the state shall submit a SIP revision within 10 years of the effective date of designation that meets the requirements of CAA section 185.
Upon a determination by EPA that an area designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or for any prior ozone NAAQS, has attained the relevant standard, the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable progress and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or for any prior NAAQS for which the determination has been made, shall be suspended until such time as: The area is redesignated to attainment for that NAAQS or a redesignation substitute is approved as appropriate, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or EPA determines that the area has violated that NAAQS, at which time the area is again required to submit such plans.
As of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015, as set forth in § 50.10(c), the provisions of subpart AA shall replace the provisions of subpart X, §§ 51.900 to 51.918, which cease to apply except for § 51.907 for the anti-backsliding purposes of § 51.1105(c)(2).
IV. * * *
G. * * *
5.
(i) The offset requirements of paragraph IV.A, Condition 3 of this Ruling for emissions of the ozone precursors NO
(ii) The offset requirements of paragraph IV.A, Condition 3 of this Ruling for direct PM
Nonattainment area new source review obligations for prior ozone NAAQS.
A. Except as provided in paragraph VII.B of this Ruling, an area designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015 remains subject to the obligation to adopt and implement the major source threshold and offset ratio requirements for nonattainment NSR that apply or applied to the area pursuant to sections 172(c)(5), 173 and 182 of the Act based on the highest of: (i) The area's classification under section 181(a)(1) of the Act for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as of
B.1. An area remains subject to the obligations for a revoked NAAQS under paragraph (a) until either (i) the area is redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; or (ii) the EPA approves a demonstration for the area in a redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked NAAQS per the provisions of § 51.1105(b). Under this redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked NAAQS, and for this limited anti-backsliding purpose, the demonstration must show that the area has attained that revoked NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and that the area will maintain that revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of EPA's approval of this showing.
2. Effect of redesignation to attainment for 2008 ozone NAAQS or approval of a redesignation substitute for a revoked ozone NAAQS. After redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the state may request that provisions for nonattainment NSR be removed from the SIP. After EPA approval of a redesignation substitute for a revoked NAAQS under the provisions of § 51.1105(b), the state may request that provisions for nonattainment NSR for that revoked NAAQS be removed from the SIP. Upon removal of nonattainment NSR provisions for a revoked NAAQS, the state remains subject to the obligation to adopt and implement the major source threshold and offset ratio requirements for nonattainment NSR that apply or applied to the area for the remaining applicable NAAQS consistent with paragraph VII.A of this Ruling.
(a) * * *
(11) The plan shall require that in meeting the emissions offset requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the emissions offsets obtained shall be for the same regulated NSR pollutant unless interprecursor offsetting is permitted for a particular pollutant as specified in this paragraph.
(i) The plan may allow the offset requirement in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for emissions of the ozone precursors NO
(ii) The plan may allow the offset requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section for direct PM
(12) The plan shall require that in any area designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015 the requirements of this section applicable to major stationary sources and major modifications of ozone shall include the anti-backsliding requirements contained at § 51.1105.
(i) * * *
(2) The plan may provide that requirements equivalent to those contained in paragraphs (j) through (r) of this section do not apply to a major stationary source or major modification with respect to a particular pollutant if the owner or operator demonstrates that, as to that pollutant, the source or modification is located in an area designated as nonattainment under section 107 of the Act. Nonattainment designations for revoked NAAQS, as contained in part 81 of this chapter, shall not be viewed as current designations under section 107 of the Act for purposes of determining the applicability of requirements equivalent to those contained in paragraphs (j) through (r) of this section to a major stationary source or major modification after the revocation of that NAAQS is effective.
(b) * * *
(2) A SIP revision required as a result of a change in an area's designation or classification under a NAAQS for ozone, including all necessary legal authority and the items specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section, shall be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the area's attainment SIP for the NAAQS in question.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(i). * * *
(2) The requirements of paragraphs (j) through (r) of this section shall not apply to a major stationary source or major modification with respect to a particular pollutant if the owner or operator demonstrates that, as to that pollutant, the source or modification is located in an area designated as nonattainment under section 107 of the Act. Nonattainment designations for revoked NAAQS, as contained in 40 CFR part 81, shall not be viewed as current designations under section 107 of the Act for purposes of determining the applicability of paragraphs (j) through (r) of this section to a major stationary source or major modification after the revocation of that NAAQS is effective.
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(3) * * *
(i) For ozone nonattainment areas, sources with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of volatile organic compounds or oxides of nitrogen in areas classified or treated as classified as “Marginal” or “Moderate,” 50 tpy or more in areas classified or treated as classified as “Serious,” 25 tpy or more in areas classified or treated as classified as “Severe,” and 10 tpy or more in areas classified or treated as classified as “Extreme”; except that the references in this paragraph to 100, 50, 25 and 10 tpy of nitrogen oxides shall not apply with respect to any source for which the Administrator has made a finding, under section 182(f)(1) or (2) of the Act, that requirements under section 182(f) of the Act do not apply;
(iii) * * *
(A) That are classified or treated as classified as “Serious,” and
(iv) For particulate matter (PM-10) nonattainment areas classified or treated as classified as “Serious,” sources with the potential to emit 70 tpy or more of PM-10.
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(3) * * *
(i) For ozone nonattainment areas, sources with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of volatile organic compounds or oxides of nitrogen in areas classified or treated as classified as “Marginal” or “Moderate,” 50 tpy or more in areas classified or treated as classified as “Serious,” 25 tpy or more in areas classified or treated as classified as “Severe,” and 10 tpy or more in areas classified or treated as classified as “Extreme”; except that the references in this paragraph to 100, 50, 25 and 10 tpy of nitrogen oxides shall not apply with respect to any source for which the Administrator has made a finding, under section 182(f)(1) or (2) of the Act, that requirements under section 182(f) of the Act do not apply;
(iii) * * *
(A) That are classified or treated as classified as “Serious,” and
(iv) For particulate matter (PM-10) nonattainment areas classified or treated as classified as “Serious,” sources with the potential to emit 70 tpy or more of PM-10.
| 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 |