Page Range | 16961-17305 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
80 FR 17080 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board | |
80 FR 17119 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
80 FR 17045 - Notice for Public Comment on the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) | |
80 FR 17058 - Notice for Public Comment on the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program's Suspension and Termination Policies | |
80 FR 16970 - Certain Employee Remuneration in Excess of $1,000,000 Under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) | |
80 FR 17032 - Extension of Deadline of Request for Applicants for Appointment to the United States-Brazil CEO Forum | |
80 FR 17109 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
80 FR 17138 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
80 FR 17034 - Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
80 FR 17033 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Xylem Water Systems USA LLC, Subzone 37D (Centrifugal and Submersible Pumps), Auburn, New York | |
80 FR 17039 - State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB) | |
80 FR 16973 - Period of Limitations on Assessment for Listed Transactions Not Disclosed Under Section 6011 | |
80 FR 17020 - Notice of a Public Meeting: Regulations Implementing Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Prohibition on Use of Lead Pipes, Solder and Flux | |
80 FR 17025 - Notice of Intent To Request Approval To Establish a New Information Collection | |
80 FR 16998 - Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Increased Assessment Rate | |
80 FR 17029 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-National Universal Product Code (NUPC) Database | |
80 FR 17042 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request Renewal for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) | |
80 FR 17027 - Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Income Eligibility Guidelines | |
80 FR 17026 - Child Nutrition Programs-Income Eligibility Guidelines | |
80 FR 17040 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules Renewal Information Collection Request; Microbial Rules Renewal Information Collection Request; Public Water System Supervision Program Renewal Information Collection Request | |
80 FR 17073 - Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment and Associated Step-Down Plans | |
80 FR 17142 - Registration and Financial Security Requirements for Brokers of Property and Freight Forwarders; Association of Independent Property Brokers and Agents' Exemption Application | |
80 FR 17081 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 17021 - Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision | |
80 FR 17045 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
80 FR 17151 - Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC); Nominations | |
80 FR 17076 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
80 FR 17139 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
80 FR 17136 - Record of Decision To Adopt U.S. Air Force Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River Training Complex | |
80 FR 17072 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for Energy Innovation Fund-Multifamily Pilot Program | |
80 FR 16980 - Notice of Enforcement for Special Local Regulations; RiverFest; Port Neches, TX | |
80 FR 17048 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
80 FR 17153 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations | |
80 FR 17109 - Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project; Department of Defense | |
80 FR 17053 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension of Certification of Maintenance of Effort on Help America Vote Act, Payments for Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&A Voting Access Narrative Annual Report) | |
80 FR 16996 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment to the 2015 Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal Apportionments | |
80 FR 17032 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
80 FR 17152 - List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International Boycott | |
80 FR 17136 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice | |
80 FR 17076 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
80 FR 17150 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 17040 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
80 FR 17038 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 17117 - Princeton Private Equity Fund and Princeton Fund Advisors, LLC; Notice of Application | |
80 FR 17005 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes | |
80 FR 17056 - Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice | |
80 FR 17052 - Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 17078 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 | |
80 FR 17045 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
80 FR 17044 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
80 FR 17044 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
80 FR 17152 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 17034 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Mokupapapa Discovery Center Exhibit Evaluation | |
80 FR 17137 - Transfer of Federally Assisted Facility | |
80 FR 17147 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the GA 400 Transit Initiative in Fulton County, Georgia | |
80 FR 17072 - Notice of Cancellation of Public Meeting, Pecos District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concern (LPC ACEC) Livestock Grazing Subcommittee New Mexico | |
80 FR 17054 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 17036 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
80 FR 17007 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
80 FR 17003 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
80 FR 17079 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 408(b)(2) Regulation | |
80 FR 17077 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard | |
80 FR 17081 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Annex Building Structure and Layout Changes | |
80 FR 17076 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
80 FR 17059 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing | |
80 FR 17073 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
80 FR 17050 - Early Clinical Trials With Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information; Guidance for Industry; Request for Comments | |
80 FR 17051 - Critical Path Innovation Meetings; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
80 FR 17047 - Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Recommending the Use of the World Health Organization Drug Dictionary | |
80 FR 17049 - Odalys Fernandez: Debarment Order | |
80 FR 17057 - Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
80 FR 17057 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines | |
80 FR 17047 - Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
80 FR 17055 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food | |
80 FR 17153 - Notice of Open Public Hearing; Correction | |
80 FR 17126 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 5950 | |
80 FR 17132 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Collateral and Haircut Policy | |
80 FR 17119 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to FATCA Requirements | |
80 FR 17122 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify Certain Statements Made in SR-BOX-2015-03, a Proposed Rule Change Filed by the Exchange on January 9, 2015 | |
80 FR 17046 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
80 FR 17053 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
80 FR 17136 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 17129 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 17129 - ETFS Trust and ETF Securities Advisors, LLC; Notice of Application | |
80 FR 17121 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 17135 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 17049 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
80 FR 17124 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Clearance of New Natural Gas Futures Contracts | |
80 FR 17038 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2016 and 2018 | |
80 FR 17033 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms | |
80 FR 17141 - Wisconsin Central Ltd.-Abandonment Exemption-in Lake County, Ill. | |
80 FR 17037 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request | |
80 FR 17031 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Matters Related to Its Project on Police-Community Relations in Missouri; Correction | |
80 FR 17031 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New York Advisory Committee | |
80 FR 17080 - Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration | |
80 FR 17080 - Notice of Availability of Funds and Funding Opportunity Announcement for Training To Work 3-Adult Reentry | |
80 FR 17010 - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; Reconsideration | |
80 FR 17043 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0109, 0162 & 0165) | |
80 FR 16996 - Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors; Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB Approval | |
80 FR 17083 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
80 FR 17062 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the Fourth Quarter of Calendar Year 2014 | |
80 FR 17000 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
80 FR 16961 - Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act Regulation | |
80 FR 16961 - Revisions to Rules of Practice | |
80 FR 16980 - Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Locations | |
80 FR 17221 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers | |
80 FR 16963 - HUD Approval of Requests for Transfers of Multifamily Housing Project-Based Rental Assistance, HUD-Held or Insured Debt, and Income-Based Use Restrictions | |
80 FR 17061 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, Forms I-864; I-864A; I-864EZ; I-864W; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
80 FR 17155 - Resource Agency Hearings and Alternatives Development Procedures in Hydropower Licenses |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rules; technical correction.
The Federal Trade Commission published final rules on March 23, 2015, revising certain of its rules of practice. This document makes a technical correction to those final rules.
Effective March 31, 2015.
G. Richard Gold, Attorney, (202) 326-3355, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission published a document in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Public record.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16, chapter I, subchapter A of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(10) * * *
(viii) The Commission's annual report submitted after the end of each fiscal year, summarizing its work during the year (with copies obtainable from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402) and any other annual reports made to Congress on activities of the Commission as required by law;
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule.
The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act (CGBPA or the Act) adopted the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers—found in the 2005 version of the applicable ASTM rule, F2517-05—as a consumer product safety rule. The 2005 ASTM standard was recently revised. Under the Act, the consumer product standard for portable gasoline containers will, by operation of law, incorporate the 2015 revisions to the child-resistance requirements unless the Commission finds that the revisions do not carry out the purposes of the CGBPA's requirements. The Commission has not found that the revisions fail to carry out the purposes of the CGBPA's requirements. As a result, the 2015 revisions to the child-resistance requirements will be automatically incorporated and apply as the statutorily-mandated standard for closures on portable gasoline containers. This direct final rule is to codify certain sections of the 2015 standard to eliminate potential confusion as to the applicable standard.
This rule will be effective on April 12, 2015, unless the Commission receives significant adverse comment by April 3, 2015. If we receive timely significant adverse comments, we will publish notification in the
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0006, by any of the following methods:
John Boja, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7300;
Under the Act, the ASTM standard for portable gasoline containers became, by operation of law, the applicable consumer product safety standard. Similarly, any revision to the child-resistance requirements of the ASTM standard becomes, by operation of law, part of the applicable consumer product safety standard unless the Commission determines, within 60 days after receiving notice from ASTM of a revised ASTM standard, that the revisions are not acceptable as provided in the Act.
On February 11, 2015, ASTM gave to CPSC notice of revisions to ASTM F2517-05. The revised standard is designated F2517-15.
The Commission has not made a determination that the revisions to ASTM F2517-05's child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers fail to further the purposes of the CGBPA's requirements.
The rule codifies the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers as stated in ASTM F2517-15. As stated above, these requirements become mandatory through operation of law; the Commission is publishing this rule so that the Code of Federal Regulations will reflect the current version of the mandatory standard.
The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment.
This rule will codify in the Code of Federal Regulations the child-resistance requirements of a consumer product safety standard, ASTM F2517-15, that already are in full force and effect by operation of law. Codification of the rule into CPSC's regulations is intended to eliminate potential confusion as to the child-resistance standard applicable to portable gasoline containers. In these circumstances where the substantive requirements are mandated by statute and have become effective under the statute, public comment serves little purpose. Moreover, codification of existing substantive requirements is not expected to be controversial or to result in significant adverse comment. As a result, the Commission believes that issuance of a rule codifying the revised standard in these circumstances is appropriate.
Unless we receive a significant adverse comment by April 3, 2015, the rule will become effective on April 12, 2015. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one in which the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change. Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking providing an opportunity for public comment.
Section 1460.3 of the final rule provides that closures on portable gasoline containers must comply with the child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR recently revised these regulations to require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the rule's preamble ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2517-15. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2517-15 from ASTM, either through ASTM's Web site or by mail at the address provided in the rule. One may also inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as discussed in the rule.
The CPSC is incorporating by reference child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15 pursuant to the Act because the Commission has determined that the revised standard carries out the purposes of the child-resistant requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers specified in ASTM F2517-05.
The revised standard, ASTM F2517-15, contains:
As discussed in the preceding section, this is a direct final rule. Unless the Commission receives a significant adverse comment by April 3, 2015, the rule will become effective on April 12, 2015.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statutes unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 605. This rule merely codifies requirements that will take effect through operation of law as specified in the CGBPA. The rule does not impose any requirements beyond those put in place by the CGBPA. Thus, the rule does not create new substantive obligations for any entity, including any small entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
This direct final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required.
Section 26(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the CPSA]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. (Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances).
As discussed above, under the CGBPA, the child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15 became a consumer product standard for CPSA purposes. Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, Pub. L 110-278, Sec. 2(a) (July 17, 2008). The child-resistance requirements of ASTM F2517-15, which will be codified under this rule, will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA.
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program. Because ASTM F2517-15 is deemed a “consumer product safety rule” for CPSA purpose, portable gasoline containers manufactured on or after April 12, 2015 are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA with respect to ASTM F2517-15.
Consumer protection, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission adds part 1460 to subchapter B of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
Sec. 2, Pub. L. 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602.
In accordance with the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, portable gasoline containers must comply with the requirements specified in § 1460.3, which are considered to be a consumer product safety rule.
Each portable gasoline container manufactured on or after April 12, 2015 for sale in the United States shall conform to the child-resistance requirements for closures on portable gasoline containers specified in sections 2 through 6 of ASTM F2517-15 (including Appendixes X2 and X3 referenced therein),
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of requirements to transfer assistance.
This notice establishes the terms and conditions by which HUD will approve a request for the transfer of project-based rental assistance, debt held or insured by the Secretary, and statutorily required income-based use restrictions from one multifamily housing project to another (or between several such projects). The Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2014 and the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2015 give the Secretary the authority to approve transfer requests for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, provided that the Secretary publish a notice in the
Nancie-Ann Bodell, Acting Director, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight of Multifamily Housing, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6110, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-2495 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Beginning with section 318 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396, approved November 30, 2005), HUD appropriations acts have contained a general provision authorizing the Secretary to approve requests from project owners for the transfer of certain rental assistance, debt, and income-based use restrictions between HUD-assisted projects. For fiscal years 2014 and 2015, this transfer authority is provided under section 214 of Title II of Division L of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, approved January 17, 2014) (Section 214).
HUD approval of transfers is subject to the conditions enumerated in the appropriations act for the applicable fiscal year. These statutory terms and conditions have, in general, been consistent from one appropriations act to the next. The statutory criteria for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 are enumerated in Section 214(c), which provides as follows:
• The transfer authorized in subsection (a) is subject to the following conditions:
○ NUMBER AND BEDROOM SIZE OF UNITS.—
○ The transferring project shall, as determined by the Secretary, be either physically obsolete or economically nonviable.
○ The receiving project or projects shall meet or exceed applicable physical standards established by the Secretary.
○ The owner or mortgagor of the transferring project shall notify and consult with the tenants residing in the transferring project and provide a certification of approval by all appropriate local governmental officials.
○ The tenants of the transferring project who remain eligible for assistance to be provided by the receiving project or projects shall not be required to vacate their units in the transferring project or projects until new units in the receiving project are available for occupancy.
○ The Secretary determines that this transfer is in the best interest of the tenants.
○ If either the transferring project or the receiving project or projects meets the condition specified in subsection (d)(2)(A),
○ If the transferring project meets the requirements of subsection (d)(2),
○ The transfer does not increase the cost (as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended) of any FHA-insured mortgage, except to the extent that appropriations are provided in advance for the amount of any such increased cost.
HUD has exercised the transfer authority on a case-by-case basis, determining compliance with the statutory criteria based on the specific circumstances of the projects. Most of the statutory criteria are prescriptive, leaving little room for the exercise of agency discretion (for example, the requirement that the transfer not increase the cost of any FHA-insured mortgage). Others, however, are more
Section 214(e)(1) requires that HUD publish by notice in the
Owners of multifamily housing projects, as defined by subsection (d)(2) of Section 214, who wish to request a transfer of rental assistance, debt, or income-based use restrictions under Section 214 should submit a package containing the relevant materials outlined below to the HUD Hub/Program Center or Regional Center/Satellite Office for review. Owners can submit packages for review on or after the effective date of this notice. HUD will issue a subsequent Housing notice detailing procedural submission requirements and will follow this notice with a proposed rule to solicit comment before regulatory codification of these criteria.
Commencing for transfer requests submitted pursuant to Section 214, HUD will evaluate the request, on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the following criteria. The receiving property must be a multifamily housing project prior to or as a result of the Section 214 transfer. The receiving project may already be HUD-affiliated, meaning it has existing HUD project-based rental assistance, an existing use restriction, or debt (either HUD-held or FHA-insured). HUD will approve a transfer under Section 214 to a HUD-affiliated property if the receiving property is in compliance with all business agreements with the Department or has a HUD-approved plan in place to correct any identified deficiencies. The receiving property may be existing, under construction, newly constructed, undergoing substantial rehabilitation, or undergoing moderate rehabilitation. Before Section 8 project-based rental assistance is transferred to the receiving property, the property must exist and be habitable (as demonstrated by a certificate of occupancy or like documentation). The numbered items below track the statutory criteria and, where HUD has been granted flexibility, establishes requirements and guidance on how HUD will assess compliance with the statutory factors.
For occupied units in the transferring project: The number of low-income and very low-income units and the configuration (
For unoccupied units in the transferring project: HUD may authorize a reduction in the number of dwelling units in the receiving project or projects to allow for a reconfiguration of bedroom sizes to meet market demands, as demonstrated by the transferring owner, provided there is no increase in the project-based assistance budget authority. HUD Multifamily Hub/Program Center or Regional Center/Satellite Office staff will verify that the net dollar amount of Federal assistance transferred remains the same in the receiving project or projects. The transferring owner shall provide justification for a reduction in the number of dwelling units in one or more of the following ways:
a. Evidence of all efforts to market the unit type proposed for reduction and evidence of the demand within the geographic market area for the proposed new unit type. The documentation may include evidence of the transferring owner's efforts, including:
i. Property traffic reports.
ii. Advertising details.
iii. Age and/or income waivers requested.
iv. Local housing authority wait list information or other affordable housing provider contacts made demonstrating that there is minimal or no demand for the unit type.
b. Documentation that the average vacancy at the transferring property has been 25 percent or more over the past 24 months.
c. Any other documentation that a reduction in the number of dwelling units is necessary to meet market demand, and approved by HUD.
Physical obsolescence shall be shown in one or more of the following ways:
a. A Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) physical inspection score of 30 or below.
b. Two or more consecutive REAC physical inspection scores of below 60.
c. Condemnation or other such notice by the local or state government rendering the property uninhabitable.
d. A taking through eminent domain.
e. Evidence that needed capital repairs cannot be made without the property losing financial viability.
f. Any other proof of physical obsolescence provided by the owner and approved by HUD.
Economic non-viability must be shown in one or more of the following ways:
a. A market analysis justifying the inability of the property to meet current HUD-imposed affordability restrictions.
b. A market analysis indicating limited to no market for the unit type(s).
c. A demonstrated average vacancy of 25 percent or more over the past 24 months.
d. Any other proof of economic non-viability provided by the owner and approved by HUD.
The transferring owner is required to certify in writing that the material submitted to demonstrate compliance with this criterion is true and accurate. The Multifamily Hub/Program Center will review all submitted information and verify its accuracy.
The receiving project or projects must have a REAC physical inspection score of 60 or above. If the project does not have a current REAC physical inspection score, an inspection must be conducted prior to the transfer and the project must score 60 or above or have a HUD-approved plan in place to correct any deficiencies.
The receiving project must also meet all applicable accessibility requirements, including, but not limited to the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The owner must provide documentation acceptable to HUD that the receiving project is in compliance with all applicable accessibility requirements. The HUD Hub/Program Center or Regional Center/Satellite Office will review the submitted documentation and verify acceptability.
The transferring owner must give the tenants and legitimate tenant organization(s) written notification of the proposed transfer and provide a minimum 30-day comment period. HUD will not accept a Section 214 request for any project unless the transferring owner has notified the tenants of the proposed transfer and has provided the tenants with an opportunity to comment on the proposed transfer.
a. The notification should include the address and phone of the appropriate HUD office, including the specific division and/or name and phone number of a contact at the appropriate HUD office. The notification should be provided in appropriate formats as necessary to meet the needs of all, including persons with limited English proficiency and formats for persons with vision, hearing, and other communication-related disabilities (
b. The notification will include a description of the impact of the request on tenants' rental assistance and tenant contributions. The notification must also explain the tenants' relocation rights and responsibilities, including the assistance that tenants may become eligible to receive under the Uniform Relocation Act if acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition are involved (see section five below). In addition, the notification must inform the tenants that if a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract will be transferred, and it assists the unit they inhabit, they may be eligible for tenant protection vouchers if they choose not to relocate (see Section C below).
c. The notice must be delivered directly to each unit in the project or mailed to each tenant and posted in at least 3 places/common areas throughout the project, including any project office. In a project greater than 4 stories, the notice may be served either by delivery to each unit or by posting. If the posting method is used, the notice must be posted in at least three conspicuous places within each building in which the affected dwelling units are located.
i. The tenants (including any legal or other representatives acting for the tenants individually or as a group) have the right to inspect and copy the materials that the owner is required to submit to HUD for a period of 30 days from the date on which the notice is served to the tenants. Any tenant comments must be available in the project office during normal business hours for public reading and copying.
ii. The tenants have the right, during this period, to submit written comments on the transfer to the transferring owner and the appropriate HUD office. Tenant representatives may assist tenants in preparing these comments.
d. The transferring owner must hold a meeting with the tenants and legitimate tenant organizations to discuss the details of the notification and answer questions.
e. Upon completion of the tenant comment period, the transferring owner must review the comments submitted by the tenants and their representatives and prepare a written evaluation of the comments. Any negative comments must be addressed. The transferring owner must then submit the following materials to the appropriate HUD office at the time of submission of the request for transfer under Section 214:
i. A copy of the transferring owner's Notification to the tenants;
ii. A sign-in sheet from the tenant meeting;
iii. A copy of all the tenant comments;
iv. The transferring owner's evaluation of the tenant comments and any responses the owner gave to negative comments; and
v. A certification by the transferring owner that it has complied with all of the requirements of 24 CFR 245.410, 245.415, 245.416 through 245.419, as applicable, and 245.420. The transferring owner must identify any Fair Housing litigation settlement agreements, voluntary compliance agreements, or other remedial agreements signed by the owner and HUD. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) will ensure there is no conflict between the agreements and the proposed transfer. If there is a conflict, the transferring owner may propose modifications to the remedial agreement as part of the transfer proposal.
The owner must also provide a certification of approval from the relevant local government officials, which may include but are not limited to the:
a. Local Mayor.
b. City Council.
c. Planning Commission.
d. Health and Human Services Commission.
e. Any other pertinent local government official or government body.
Although in some cases, a certification of approval may be required from multiple local governmental officials, there must be at least one certification of approval from at least one local government official in all cases to warrant approval of a request for transfer of assistance, debt, or use restrictions.
The tenants of the transferring project who remain eligible to receive assistance will not be required to vacate their units in the transferring project until new units in the receiving project are available for occupancy. If tenants must move as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition in connection with a transfer of assistance under Section 214, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) may apply.
HUD will review tenant relocations and protections on a case-by case-basis to ensure tenants are protected from permanent displacement. Under no circumstances shall the residents pay for any relocation costs incurred as a result of the transfer and the resulting move to the receiving property. It is within the owner's discretion whether to pay relocation costs for relocations to locations other than the receiving property. A Section 214 transaction where the tenants' relocation expenses are not paid, will not be approved by HUD.
HUD will determine that the transfer is in the best interest of the tenants based on criteria including, but not limited to, the following:
a. The transfer will preserve affordable and/or assisted housing in a
b. The transfer complies with section C of this notice. The site and neighborhood requirements ensure that the receiving property is in a location that affords the tenants at the transferring property the same or a better property location than the transferring site.
c. All current tenants will receive the same level of assistance they are currently receiving. Tenants that move from the transferring project to the receiving project remain subject to their existing lease requirements and all occupancy rules. The receiving owner may not seek to terminate the lease of a tenant from the transferring project for actions that occurred prior to the Section 214 transfer but the tenant will be subject to ongoing eligibility requirements for actions that occur after the transfer. Any eviction procedures currently underway at the transferring project will not be affected by the transfer of budget authority.
d. In scenarios where a Section 8 HAP contract will be transferred, and a tenant assisted by the HAP contract objects to relocating to the receiving property, the tenant may be eligible to receive a tenant protection voucher, subject to the availability of appropriations. A tenant may receive a TPV, if they meet the eligibility requirements for voucher assistance and the unit that they currently reside in is supported by a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract that is subject to transfer as part of the Section 214 transfer. The owner will notify the tenant of their potential eligibility to receive a TPV at the time of tenant notification and subsequently notify the Multifamily Hub/PC regarding how many TPVs are requested. If TPVs are needed, the Multifamily Hub/PC should work with the Public and Indian Housing (PIH) field office to follow the procedures outlined in PIH Notice 2001-41.
e. To determine if the Section 214 transfer is in the best interest of the tenants, the transferring owner must provide documentation that all tenants residing at the property at the time of the transfer are relocating to a property of greater economic solvency or better physical condition, or accepting a tenant protection voucher to move to a property that best meets their housing needs.
f. If the transferring property is not fully assisted by a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract, HUD will approve or disapprove the transfer based upon its review of the information submitted and all tenant comments received.
g. If the transferring property is not fully assisted by a Section 8 project-based rental assistance contract, the transfer will only be approved if:
i. There are no tenants at the transferring property; or
ii. The property is occupied but the transfer will be to an immediately adjacent property; or
iii. The unassisted tenants would have to move in the absence of the Section 214 transfer (
iv. The transfer involves a 202 Direct Loan or a 202/811 Capital Advance or PRAC contract that must be transferred as a result of a state's response to the Olmstead Decision or state Medicaid/Medicare policies on congregate housing make it economically impossible to continue operating the property as originally conceived.
h. If the tenants must be relocated, they will/did receive the protections provided under the URA, or other assistance if the URA is not triggered. No tenants will be displaced as a result of the transfer.
To demonstrate compliance, the receiving owner must submit one or more of the following as documentation:
a.Verification from the FHA lender that any lien on the receiving project is subordinate to any FHA-insured mortgage lien.
b. Other documentation as applicable.
A receiving owner may submit a waiver request if the receiving owner believes it is necessary that a lien(s) not be subordinate to the FHA insured mortgage to facilitate the financing of acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of the receiving project or projects. Such a request must demonstrate that the waiver is necessary to finance the transaction and that there is minimal risk to the FHA as a result of the waiver. HUD must approve all waiver requests.
If a use restriction is in place at the receiving project, the receiving owner must sign a new or amended use restriction that includes all income and eligibility restrictions of the transferring use restriction and runs for the duration of the transferring project's existing use restriction or the use restriction at the receiving project, whichever is longer.
Transfers must not increase the cost (as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1874) of any FHA-insured mortgage. HUD will consider the transfer of an FHA-insured mortgage, or Secretary-held formerly insured mortgage that is subsidized under either Section 221(d)(3)-(d)(5) with below market interest rates or Section 236. In addition, in order to avoid a claim against the General Insurance Fund, HUD may approve the transfer of a non-subsidized FHA-insured mortgage in combination with the transfer of a project-based rental assistance contract and/or a use restriction to a receiving project. However, HUD will only consider the transfer of a non-subsidized FHA-insured mortgage when the transferring project is in danger of imminent default on its FHA-insured mortgage due to a finding that the project is physically obsolete and/or economically nonviable in compliance with the criteria and process set forth in this notice.
1. Transfers that involve Section 202 assistance must comply with the site and neighborhood requirements at 24 CFR 891.125.
2. Transfers that involve Section 811 assistance must comply with the site and neighborhood requirements at 24 CFR 891.125 and 24 CFR 891.320.
3. All other receiving sites must comply with the site and neighborhood requirements below. The receiving owner must submit the address of the proposed property with their proposal and HUD will determine whether the site meets the following requirements:
a. The site and neighborhood is suitable from the standpoint of facilitating and furthering full compliance with the applicable provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Order 11063, and HUD regulations issued pursuant thereto.
b. The neighborhood must not be one that is seriously detrimental to family life or in which substandard dwellings or other undesirable conditions predominate, unless there is actively in progress a concerted program to remedy the undesirable conditions.
c. The housing must be accessible to social, recreational, educational, commercial, and health facilities and services, and other municipal facilities and services that are at least equivalent to those typically found in neighborhoods consisting largely of unassisted, standard housing of similar market rents.
d. If the receiving project is new construction, and is not covered by the
i. Sufficient, comparable opportunities exist for housing for minority households in the income range to be served by the proposed project, outside areas of minority concentration. Sufficient does not require that in every locality there be an equal number of assisted units within and outside of areas of minority concentration. Rather, application of this standard should produce a reasonable distribution of assisted units each year which over a period of several years will approach an appropriate balance of housing opportunities within and outside areas of minority concentration. An appropriate balance in any jurisdiction must be determined in light of local conditions affecting the range of housing choices available for very low-income minority households and in relation to the racial mix of the locality's population.
(A) Units may be considered to be comparable opportunities if they have the same household type and tenure type (owner/renter), require approximately the same total tenant payment, serve the same income group, are located in the same housing market, and are in standard condition.
(B) Application of this sufficient, comparable opportunities standard involves assessing the overall impact of HUD-assisted housing on the availability of housing choices for very low-income minority households, in and outside areas of minority concentration, and must take into account the extent to which the following factors are present, along with any other factor relevant to housing choice:
(1) A significant number of assisted housing units are available outside areas of minority concentration.
(2) There is significant integration of assisted housing projects constructed or rehabilitated in the past ten years, relative to the racial mix of the eligible population.
(3) There are racially integrated neighborhoods in the locality.
(4) Programs are operated by the locality to assist minority households, as applicable, that wish to find housing outside areas of minority concentration.
(5) Minority households have benefitted from local activities (
(6) A significant proportion of minority households, have been successful in finding units in nonminority areas under the Section 8 Certificate and Housing Voucher programs.
(7) Comparable housing opportunities have been made available outside areas of minority concentration through other programs.
ii. The project is necessary to meet overriding housing needs that cannot be met in that housing market area. Application of the overriding housing needs criterion, for example, permits approval of sites that are an integral part of an overall local strategy for the preservation or restoration of the immediate neighborhood and of sites in a neighborhood experiencing significant private investment that is demonstrably changing the economic character of the area (a “revitalizing area”). An overriding housing need, however, may not serve as the basis for determining that a site is acceptable if the only reason the need cannot otherwise be feasibly met is that discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin renders sites outside areas of minority concentration unavailable, or if the use of this standard in recent years has had the effect of circumventing the obligation to provide housing choice.
4. All Section 214 transactions (including those involving Section 202/811 properties) will be reviewed by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research to assess whether there is sufficient demand for affordable rental housing in the receiving market area and to ensure that the transfer does not occur in neighborhoods with highly concentrated poverty.
The submission to HUD requesting a transfer under Section 214 must include the following information from the receiving owner:
1. Written confirmation of acceptance of the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract, Use Agreement, and/or debt, as applicable, and confirmation that the transfer is warranted by local demand for affordable housing.
2. If the transfer involves project-based section 8 assistance, written evidence that the transfer of the HAP contract is warranted by local demands for affordable housing. Supporting documentation may include a market analysis showing eligible families in the area, a list of current tenants who are eligible for Section 8 assistance, or prospective tenants on waiting lists.
3. If applicable, a written tenant selection plan, Tenant Relocation Plan and an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan approved by HUD.
4. A narrative detailing the capacity of the proposed owner and management agent of the receiving property to own, operate, manage, and if applicable, renovate affordable housing.
5. The receiving owner must not be subject to any of the following actions that have not been resolved to HUD's satisfaction: (1) A charge from HUD concerning a systemic violation of the Fair Housing Act or a cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing agency concerning a systemic violation of a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing law proscribing discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial status; and (2) A Fair Housing Act lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination or denial of rights to a group of persons raising an issue of general public interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3614(a); or (3) A letter of finding identifying systemic noncompliance under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. HUD will determine if actions to resolve the charge, cause determination, lawsuit, or letter of findings are sufficient to resolve the matter.
a. A voluntary compliance agreement (VCA) signed by all the parties;
b. A HUD-approved conciliation agreement signed by all the parties;
c. A conciliation agreement signed by all the parties and approved by the state governmental or local administrative agency with jurisdiction over the matter;
d. A consent order or consent decree; or
e. A final judicial ruling or administrative ruling or decision.
6. Documentation to assist HUD in an environmental review of the transfer request in accordance with environmental regulations and requirements at 24 CFR part 50. HUD will conduct the environmental review as required by part 50 prior to approving a transfer. HUD will document compliance on Form HUD-4128, “Environmental Assessment and Compliance Findings for the Related Laws.” Applicants are responsible for submitting environmental information and reports, and should use Chapter 9 of the MAP Guide and the HUD Environmental Review Web site (available at
a. Significant ground disturbance (digging) or construction not contemplated in the original application or incompatible with current engineering or institutional controls;
b. Site expansion or addition;
c. Transfer to a site for which a Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E 1527-05 (or a more recent edition) has not been prepared previously; or
d. Any other activities which may result in contaminant exposure pathways not contemplated in the original application or incompatible with current engineering or institutional controls.
After a request has been submitted to HUD, the requestor and other participants in the proposed transfer, including owners and contractors on the receiving project, may not undertake or commit funds for acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, or construction of the receiving property until HUD has completed the environmental review and notified the requestor that the transfer to the receiving property is acceptable.
Once HUD has received and reviewed the materials above and approved the transfer under Section 214, the owner of the receiving project must do the following as applicable:
1. If there is a use restriction at the transferring property, sign a new or amended use restriction that includes all income and eligibility restrictions of the transferring use restriction and runs for the duration of the transferring project's existing use restriction or the use restriction at the receiving project, whichever is longer.
2. If the transfer involves project based section 8 assistance, renew the HAP contract for a 20-year term at the time of the transfer and attach the Preservation Exhibit agreeing to the automatic renewal of the Section 8 HAP contract at the end of the 20-year term, subject to annual appropriations, for a minimum of the time remaining on the HAP contract that was in effect prior to the transfer under Section 214.
3. Receive approval through the Previous Participation Process including a 2530 review. The receiving owner must be in compliance with all business agreements for the receiving project and for any other HUD insured or assisted projects owned.
4. Comply with all Departmental statutes, regulations, policies and procedures related to any assignment or amendment of a Section 8 HAP contract or other project-based rental assistance contract, required modification of loan documents and legal descriptions, or other necessary changes as a result of a Section 214 transfer.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made for this notice in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at this HUD Headquarters Building, an advance appointment to review the FONSI must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (not a toll free number).
The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Number 2502-0608. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice will become effective April 30, 2015. HUD will begin accepting requests for transfers pursuant to this notice on or after the effective date. For questions regarding the submission or status of a transfer request, interested parties should contact their HUD Multifamily Hub/Program Center. The list of HUD Multifamily Hubs and Program Centers is available at:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations relating to the deduction limitation for certain employee remuneration in excess of $1,000,000 under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These regulations affect publicly held corporations.
Ilya Enkishev at (202) 317-5600 (not a toll-free number).
On June 24, 2011, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposed regulations) in the
The Treasury Department and the IRS received written comments in response to the proposed regulations. All comments were considered and are available for public inspection at
Section 162(m)(1) precludes a deduction under chapter 1 of the Code by any publicly held corporation for compensation paid to any covered employee to the extent that the compensation for the taxable year exceeds $1,000,000. Section 162(m)(4)(C) provides that the deduction limitation does not apply to qualified performance-based compensation. Section 1.162-27(e)(1) provides that qualified performance-based compensation is compensation that meets all of the requirements of § 1.162-27(e)(2) through (e)(5).
The proposed regulations clarified § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) by providing that the plan under which an option or stock appreciation right is granted must state “the maximum number of shares with respect to which options or rights may be granted during a specified period to any
Commenters suggested that these final regulations clarify that under § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) a plan satisfies the per-employee limitation requirement if the plan specifies the maximum number of shares with respect to which any type of equity-based compensation may be granted to any individual employee during a specified period. Commenters explained that clarification is needed on whether the per-employee limitation may apply to all types of equity-based awards, not merely stock options and stock appreciation rights, which are the two types of equity-based awards described in § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A). In addition, commenters noted that a per-employee limitation on all types of equity-based awards would have the same effect as a per-employee limitation with respect to stock options and stock appreciation rights. In response to these comments, the final regulations modify § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) to provide that a plan satisfies the per-employee limitation requirement if the plan specifies an aggregate maximum number of shares with respect to which stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units and other equity-based awards may be granted to any individual employee during a specified period under a plan approved by shareholders in accordance with § 1.162-27(e)(4). This clarification is not intended as a substantive change.
One commenter suggested that the clarification to § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) apply only to compensation attributable to stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under a plan that was submitted for shareholder approval after August 8, 2011 (that is, forty-five days after the publication of the proposed regulations) and not to grants under plans submitted for shareholder approval before August 9, 2011 (even if the grant was made after that date). Another commenter suggested that the clarification apply only after the first shareholder meeting that occurs at least 12 months after the publication of these final regulations. These commenters reasoned that a transition period is appropriate because a plan providing for an aggregate share limit (but not an explicit per-employee share limitation) arguably satisfies the per-employee limitation requirement under the existing regulations because no individual employee may receive shares in excess of the aggregate limit.
These final regulations do not adopt either of these suggestions. The clarification to § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) is not a substantive change. The transition rule in § 1.162-27(h)(3)(i) of the regulations provides that a plan providing for an aggregate limit, but not a per-employee limit, satisfies § 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) only if the plan was approved by shareholders before December 20, 1993, and only during a limited reliance period specified in § 1.162-27(h)(3)(i). Additionally, the legislative history to section 162(m) and the preamble to the 1993 Treasury Regulations (58 FR 66310) under section 162(m) provide for a limit on the maximum number of shares for which options or stock appreciation rights may be granted to individual employees. The preamble to the 1993 Treasury Regulations explains the reason for requiring a per-employee limitation: “Some have questioned why it would be necessary for the regulations to require an
In general, § 1.162-27(f)(1) provides that when a corporation becomes publicly held, the section 162(m) deduction limitation “does not apply to any remuneration paid pursuant to a compensation plan or agreement that existed during the period in which the corporation was not publicly held.” Pursuant to § 1.162-27(f)(2), a corporation may rely on § 1.162-27(f)(1) until the earliest of: (i) The expiration of the plan or agreement; (ii) a material modification of the plan or agreement; (iii) the issuance of all employer stock and other compensation that has been allocated under the plan or agreement; or (iv) the first meeting of shareholders at which directors are to be elected that occurs after the close of the third calendar year following the calendar year in which an initial public offering (IPO) occurs or, in the case of a privately held corporation that becomes publicly held without an IPO, the first calendar year following the calendar year in which the corporation becomes publicly held. Section 1.162-27(f)(3) provides that the relief provided under § 1.162-27(f)(1) applies to any compensation received pursuant to the exercise of a stock option or stock appreciation right, or the substantial vesting of restricted property, granted under a plan or agreement described in § 1.162-27(f)(1) if the grant occurs on or before the earliest of the events specified in § 1.162-27(f)(2). The proposed regulations clarified that the transition rule in § 1.162-27(f)(1) applies to all compensation other than compensation specifically identified in § 1.162-27(f)(3). Specifically, the proposed regulations identified compensation payable under a restricted stock unit arrangement (RSU) or a phantom stock arrangement as being ineligible for the transition relief in § 1.162-27(f)(3). Therefore, the effect of the proposed regulations is that compensation payable under a RSU is eligible for transition relief only if it is paid, and not merely granted, before the earliest of the events specified in § 1.162-27(f)(2).
Commenters suggested that compensation payable under a RSU should qualify for the transition relief in § 1.162-27(f)(3) because a RSU is economically similar to restricted stock. These final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. A RSU provides a right to receive an amount of compensation based on the value of stock that is payable in cash, stock, or other property (as defined in § 1.83-3(e)) upon the satisfaction of a vesting condition (such as a period of service). Restricted stock, by contrast, is property that has been transferred to the service provider on the date of grant subject to the satisfaction of a specified vesting condition. Restricted stock and RSU's are treated differently under the Code. RSU's generally are treated as nonqualified deferred compensation and may be subject to the rules under section 409A, whereas restricted stock is treated as property and is governed by the rules under section 83. Because compensation attributable to a RSU is in the nature of nonqualified deferred compensation (unlike restricted stock), compensation attributable to a RSU is not sufficiently similar to restricted property to receive the transition relief provided under § 1.162-27(f)(3). Accordingly, these final regulations adopt the proposed clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) without change.
The proposed regulations provided that the clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) would apply on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting the proposed regulations as final regulations. Commenters suggested that the clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) should apply to RSU's granted after the publication of final regulations and not merely to remuneration payable under a RSU after the date of publication. These final regulations adopt this suggestion. Accordingly, these final regulations provide that the clarification to § 1.162-27(f)(3) applies to remuneration otherwise deductible under a RSU that is granted on or after April 1, 2015.
The clarifications to paragraphs (e)(2)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vii)
It has been determined that this Treasury decision 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 also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the proposed regulations preceding these regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of these final regulations is Ilya Enkishev, Office of the Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A)
(vii) * * *
Corporation V establishes a stock option plan for salaried employees. The terms of the stock option plan specify that no individual salaried employee shall receive options for more than 100,000 shares over any 3-year period. The compensation committee grants options for 50,000 shares to each of several salaried employees. The exercise price of each option is equal to or greater than the fair market value of a share of V stock at the time of each grant. Compensation attributable to the exercise of the options satisfies the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section. If, however, the terms of the options provide that the exercise price is less than fair market value of a share of V stock at the date of grant, no compensation attributable to the exercise of those options satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) unless issuance or exercise of the options was contingent upon the attainment of a preestablished performance goal that satisfies this paragraph (e)(2). If, however, the terms of the plan also provide that Corporation V could grant options to purchase no more than 900,000 shares over any 3-year period, but did not provide a limitation on the number of shares that any individual employee could purchase, then no compensation attributable to the exercise of those options satisfies the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section.
(4) * * *
(iv)
(f) * * *
(3)
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) The modifications to paragraphs (e)(2)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vii)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations relating to the exception to the general three-year period of limitations on assessment under section 6501(c)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for listed transactions that a taxpayer failed to disclose as required under section 6011. These final regulations affect taxpayers who fail to disclose listed transactions in accordance with section 6011.
Danielle Pierce of the Office of Chief Counsel (Procedure and
The collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1940. The collection of information in these final regulations is in § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(5). This information is required to provide the IRS, under penalties of perjury, with the information necessary to properly determine the taxpayer's applicable period of limitations. The collection of information in these final regulations is the same as the collection of information in Revenue Procedure 2005-26 (2005-1 CB 965), which was previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1940. The collection of information in § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6) is the same as the collection of information required under section 6112. See § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(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 valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This document contains amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 6501(c) relating to exceptions to the period of limitations on assessment. Section 6501(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided, if a return is filed, tax with respect to that return must be assessed within 3 years from the later of the date the return was filed or the original due date of the return. Section 6501(c) contains several exceptions to the general three-year period of limitations on assessment.
Section 6501(c)(10) was added to the Code by section 814 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357 (118 Stat. 1418, 1581 (2004)) (AJCA), enacted on October 22, 2004. Section 6501(c)(10) provides that, if a taxpayer fails to disclose a listed transaction as required under section 6011, the time to assess tax against the taxpayer with respect to that transaction will end no earlier than one year after the earlier of (A) the date on which the taxpayer furnishes the information required under section 6011, or (B) the date that the material advisor furnishes to the Secretary, upon written request, the information required under section 6112 with respect to the taxpayer related to the listed transaction. Section 6112 requires material advisors to maintain lists of advisees and other information with respect to reportable transactions, including listed transactions, and to furnish that information to the IRS upon request. The term “material advisor” is defined in § 301.6111-3(b). Section 6112 and § 301.6112-1 provide guidance relating to the preparation, content, maintenance, retention, and furnishing of lists by material advisors. Under this provision, if neither the taxpayer nor a material advisor furnishes the requisite information, the period of limitations on assessment will remain open, and the tax with respect to the listed transaction may be assessed at any time. Section 6501(c)(10) is effective for taxable years with respect to which the period of limitations on assessment did not expire prior to October 22, 2004.
Section 6501(c)(10) applies when a taxpayer does not properly disclose a listed transaction (as defined in section 6707A(c)(2)) as required under section 6011. Taxpayers are required under section 6011 and the regulations thereunder (collectively referred to as the “section 6011 disclosure rules”) to disclose certain information regarding each reportable transaction in which the taxpayer participated. See Treas. Reg. §§ 1.6011-4; 20.6011-4; 25.6011-4; 31.6011-4; 53.6011-4; 54.6011-4; and 56.6011-4. Among the transactions that are reportable are “listed transactions.” See Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(b)(2). Under the section 6011 disclosure rules, a listed transaction is a transaction that is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction that the IRS has determined to be a tax avoidance transaction and identified by notice, regulation, or other form of published guidance. Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(b)(2). For a list of transactions the IRS has identified as listed transactions, see Notice 2009-59, 2009-31 IRB 1. See § 601.601(d)(2).
If the section 6011 disclosure rules require a taxpayer to disclose a listed transaction, the taxpayer must complete and file a disclosure statement in accordance with the section 6011 disclosure rules. The section 6011 disclosure rules currently require that Form 8886, “Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement” (or successor form), be used as the disclosure statement and be completed in accordance with the instructions to the form. The Form 8886 (or successor form) generally must be attached to the taxpayer's original or amended tax return for each taxable year for which a taxpayer participates in a listed transaction. Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-4(e)(1). If a listed transaction results in a loss that is carried back to a prior year, Form 8886 (or successor form) must be attached to the taxpayer's application for tentative refund or amended tax return for that prior year. The taxpayer also must send a copy of Form 8886 (or successor form) to the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA), generally at the same time that a disclosure statement pertaining to a particular listed transaction is first filed. Under the current rules, when a transaction is identified as a listed transaction after the date on which the taxpayer files a tax return (including an amended return) for a taxable year reflecting the taxpayer's participation in the listed transaction and before the end of the period of limitations for assessment of tax for any taxable year in which the taxpayer participated in the listed transaction, then the taxpayer must file Form 8886 (or successor form) with OTSA within 90 calendar days after the date the transaction became a listed transaction.
If a taxpayer does not disclose its participation in a listed transaction in accordance with all of the requirements of the section 6011 disclosure rules and section 6501(c)(10) applies, then the time to assess tax related to the listed transaction will expire no earlier than the earlier of (1) one year after the date on which the information described in section 6501(c)(10)(A) is provided, or (2) one year after the date on which the information described in section 6501(c)(10)(B) is provided.
The IRS and Treasury Department issued Rev. Proc. 2005-26 (2005-1 CB 965) on April 25, 2005, to provide interim guidance on section 6501(c)(10). The revenue procedure prescribes how taxpayers and material advisors should disclose listed transactions that were not properly disclosed under section 6011 in order to start the one-year period under section 6501(c)(10).
On October 7, 2009, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-160871-04) relating to the section 6501(c)(10) exception to the general three-year period of limitations on assessment that applies if a taxpayer fails to disclose a listed transaction as required under section 6011 was published in the
These final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with four substantive clarifications. First, § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(1) is clarified with respect to the interaction of the one-year period of limitations on assessment after disclosure of a listed transaction under section 6501(c)(10) and the general three-year period of limitations on assessment under section 6501(a) (or other applicable limitations period under section 6501). The one-year period in section 6501(c)(10) serves only to extend the existing limitations period. For example, if the general section 6501(a) three-year period of limitations on assessment applies and the one-year period under section 6501(c)(10) ends prior to the expiration of the section 6501(a) three-year period, the assessment period for the tax year remains open until the expiration of the general three-year period. Proposed section 301.6501(c)-1(g)(8), Example 5 (renumbered as Example 6 in the final regulations) and Example 9, illustrated this point. However, the text of the proposed regulations did not specifically provide that in no case will the period of limitations be shorter than the period of limitations that would apply without regard to application of section 301.6501(c)-1(g). A sentence was added to the end of § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(1) to clarify this point.
Second, the final regulations revise § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6) to clarify when a disclosure will be considered a disclosure by a material advisor for purposes of section 6501(c)(10)(B) so that the one-year period of limitations on assessment will begin. Under section 6501(c)(10)(B), if a taxpayer fails to disclose information related to a listed transaction, the time to assess tax will end no earlier than one year after the date that “a material advisor meets the requirements of section 6112 with respect to a request by the Secretary under section 6112(b) relating to such transaction with respect to such taxpayer.” This means that unless a material advisor furnishes the information with respect to the taxpayer in response to an IRS written request for the list under section 6112(b) and in accordance with section 6112, the one-year period under section 6501(c)(10)(B) will not begin. Accordingly, receipt of information from a person other than the material advisor with respect to the taxpayer will not satisfy the requirements of a disclosure for purposes of section 6501(c)(10)(B). The final regulations add § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6)(ii)(A) to clarify that, consistent with the statutory language, except in limited circumstances related to dissolution or liquidation of an entity that is a material advisor or in the case of a designation agreement, only receipt of information furnished by the material advisor will satisfy the requirements for disclosure under § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6).
Third, the final regulations clarify that information received by the IRS in circumstances other than in response to a section 6112 request, such as in response to an Information Document Request in a section 6700 investigation or as a result of a summons enforcement proceeding, will not begin the one-year period under § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6). Proposed section 301.6501(c)-1(g)(8), Example 10, illustrated this point. However, the text of the proposed regulations did not specifically address this point. The final regulations have been revised to add § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6)(ii)(B) to provide that information not furnished in response to a section 6112 request will not satisfy the requirements under § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6) even if provided by the material advisor, unless furnished to OTSA in accordance with § 301.6112-1(d) in the case of material advisors that are liquidated or dissolved.
Fourth, the final regulations clarify that if a material advisor furnishes information described in § 301.6112-1(e), but does not furnish information identifying the taxpayer as a person who entered into the listed transaction, the requirements of section 6501(c)(10)(B) will not have been satisfied for that taxpayer. Proposed section 301.6501(c)-1(g)(8), Example 11, illustrated this point. However, the text of the proposed regulations did not specifically address this point. The final regulations have been revised to add § 301.6501(c)-1(g)(6)(ii)(C) for clarification.
In addition to the revisions described above, other minor clarifying changes have been made that are not intended to be substantive.
These final regulations apply to taxable years for which the period of limitation on assessment under section 6501, including the period of limitation set forth in section 6501(c)(10) and § 301.6510(c)-1(g), did not expire before March 31, 2015, the date these final regulations are published in the
Upon the publication of these final regulations under section 6501(c)(10) in the
It has been determined that these final regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations.
It is hereby certified that the collection of information contained in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). Section 6501(c)(10) applies when taxpayers fail to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under section 6011 with respect to listed transactions. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not know the exact number and types of taxpayers that fail to comply with those requirements. However, although the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that many tax avoidance transactions involve pass-through entities, when pass-through entities are utilized, the entities are not ultimately liable for the tax; rather, the taxpayers subject to section 6501(c)(10) will be the individuals and corporations owning, directly or indirectly, the interests in the pass-through entities. Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that these final regulations will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that any impact on small entities resulting from these final regulations will not be significant. Most of the information required under these final regulations is already required by other regulations or forms, namely, § 1.6011-4, § 301.6112-1, and Form 8886, “Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement.” The only new information required to be submitted to the IRS is a cover letter, which must contain a reference to the tax returns and taxable year(s) at issue and a statement signed under penalty of perjury. The cover letter should take minimal time and expense to prepare. Therefore, the additional requirement of the cover letter should not significantly increase the burden on taxpayers. Based on these facts, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of these regulations is Danielle Pierce of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(g)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
(B)
(
(C)
(D)
(ii)
(6)
(ii)
(
(
(
(B)
(C)
(iii)
(7)
(8)
(ii) The period of limitations on assessment for Y's 2003 taxable year was open on the date the transaction was identified as a listed transaction. Under the applicable section 6011 regulations (TD 9108), which were effective for transactions entered into before August 3, 2007, Y should have disclosed its participation in the transaction with its next filed return, which was its 2004 Form 1120, but Y did not disclose its participation. Y's failure to disclose with the 2004 Form 1120 relates to taxable years 2003 and 2004. Section 6501(c)(10) operates to keep the period of limitations on assessment open for the 2003 and 2004 taxable years with respect to the listed transaction until at least one year after the date Y satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section or a material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to Y.
(ii) The period of limitations on assessment for A's 2015 taxable year was open on the date the transaction was identified as a listed transaction. Under the current section 6011 regulations (TD 9350) which are effective for transactions entered into on or after August 3, 2007, A must disclose its participation in the transaction by filing a completed Form 8886 with OTSA on or before June 5, 2017, which is 90 days after the date the transaction became a listed transaction. A did not disclose the transaction as required. A's failure to disclose relates to taxable year 2015 even though the obligation to disclose did not arise until 2017. Section 6501(c)(10) operates to keep the period of limitations on assessment open for the 2015 taxable year with respect to the listed transaction until at least one year after the date A satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this section or a material advisor satisfies the requirements of paragraph (g)(6) of this section with respect to A.
(ii) On July 2, 2020, the IRS completes an examination of F's 2015 taxable year and disallows the tax consequences claimed as a result of the listed transaction. The disallowance of a loss increased F's adjusted gross income. Due to the increase of F's adjusted gross income, certain credits, such as the child tax credit, and exemption deductions were disallowed or reduced because of limitations based on adjusted gross income. In addition, F now is liable for the alternative minimum tax. The examination also uncovered that F claimed two deductions on Schedule C to which F was not entitled. Under section 6501(c)(10), the IRS can timely issue a statutory notice of deficiency (and assess in due course) against F for the deficiency resulting from (1) disallowing the loss, (2) disallowing the credits and exemptions to which F was not entitled based on F's increased adjusted gross income, and (3) being liable for the alternative minimum tax. In addition, the IRS can assess any interest and applicable penalties related to those adjustments, such as the accuracy-related penalty under sections 6662 and 6662A and the penalty under section 6707A for F's failure to disclose the transaction as required under section 6011 and the regulations under section 6011. The IRS cannot, however, pursuant to section 6501(c)(10), assess the increase in tax that would result from disallowing the two deductions on F's Schedule C because those deductions are not related to, or affected by, the adjustments concerning the listed transaction.
(9)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulations for the RiverFest Power Boat races on the Neches River in Port Neches, TX from 2 p.m. on May 1, 2015, through 6 p.m. on May 3, 2015. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, non-participating vessels and other users of the waterway. During the enforcement periods no person or vessel may enter the zone established by the Special Local Regulation without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Port Arthur or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801 will be enforced from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on May 1, 2015; and from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on May 2 and 3, 2015.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, TX; telephone 409-719-5086, email
The Coast Guard will enforce Special Local Regulation for the annual boat races in 33 CFR 100.801(60) on May 1, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and on May 2 and 3, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 33 U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this notice in the
If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is issuing regulations applicable to newly constructed mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), floating outer continental shelf (OCS) facilities, and vessels other than offshore supply vessels (OSVs) that engage in OCS activities. The regulations expand the list of acceptable national and international explosion protection standards and add the internationally accepted independent third-party certification system, the International Electrotechnical Commission System for Certification to Standards relating to Equipment for use in Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx), as an accepted method of testing and certifying electrical equipment intended for use in hazardous locations. The regulations also provide owners and operators of existing U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, vessels other than OSVs, and U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable or combustible cargoes, the option of following this compliance regime as an alternative to the requirements contained in existing regulations.
This final rule is effective April 30, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule, effective April 30, 2015.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2012-0850 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Raymond Martin, Systems Engineering Division (CG-ENG-3), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1384, email
On June 24, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
In April 2013, the Coast Guard tasked the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) to review and comment on a notice of policy we published in the
A key finding of the Coast Guard's investigation of the MODU DEEPWATER HORIZON explosion, fire, and sinking emphasized the importance of proper electrical equipment installations in hazardous locations during oil drilling exploration on U.S. and foreign MODUs. The Coast Guard, therefore, reviewed the existing regulations for hazardous locations; specifically, the requirements for electrical equipment testing and certification and the standards applicable to U.S. and foreign MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels that engage in OCS activities.
Currently, electrical equipment on U.S. vessels and floating facilities that operate on the OCS must comply with 46 CFR subpart 111.105. This subpart adopts international and national standards and requires the equipment to be tested and certified by a Coast Guard-accepted independent third-party laboratory.
In contrast, foreign vessels and floating facilities that engage in OCS activities must meet the requirements of 33 CFR subchapter N. Currently, foreign floating OCS facilities must meet the same engineering standards as U.S. floating OCS facilities, while foreign vessels engaged in OCS activities on the U.S. OCS do not meet the same engineering standards as U.S. vessels. While the Coast Guard supports the development and adoption of international vessel safety standards, the existing safety requirements of the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) do not completely account for the specifics of hydrocarbon production, processing, storage, and handling systems, and the 2009 IMO MODU Code, which provides a recommended SOLAS equivalency for MODUs, is not a legally binding instrument. For electrical equipment in hazardous locations, we believe this rule is necessary to ensure that all vessels engaged in OCS activities meet the same, OCS-specific safety standards. In this final rule, therefore, we require that new foreign MODUs, floating OCS facilities and vessels meet the same standards for explosion protection in hazardous areas as their U.S. counterparts before operating on the OCS. Additionally, through this final rule, we expand the list of acceptable standards for existing and new vessels and facilities.
As noted above, we received 23 comment letters in response to the NPRM. Additionally, NOSAC submitted a report to the Coast Guard that included their comments on the NPRM. We considered all of these comments in the development of this final rule. The comments and our responses have been grouped into subject-matter categories below. In cases where the comment resulted in a change to the regulations previously proposed in the NPRM, the change is specifically identified and discussed.
The NPRM's proposed implementation date was 30 days after publication of the final rule. Fourteen comments stated that was unreasonable. These commenters explained that over 200 MODUs were either under contract, under construction or due to be constructed in the next 5 years and that the costs of changing the specifications for the electrical equipment located in hazardous locations would be much greater than that indicated in Section VI of the NPRM.
We agree. While the estimates provided correspond to the global MODU population currently under construction, a majority of which have
Existing U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels, other than offshore supply vessels (OSVs), and U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable or combustible cargoes may immediately use the expanded list of explosion protection standards and IECEx certification regime identified in this final rule in lieu of the existing requirements in §§ 111.105-1 through 111.105-15.
The NPRM proposed the adoption of a selection of explosion protection standards and certification schemes. Thirteen comments suggested that the proposed regulations were unnecessary and that compliance with the 2009 IMO MODU Code should be sufficient for all vessels. Many of these comments further noted that the 2009 IMO MODU Code already requires certification by an independent testing laboratory. We agree in part. The Coast Guard supports the development and adoption of international vessel safety standards. The Coast Guard believes the 2009 IMO MODU Code provides helpful guidance for the design and engineering of MODUs, particularly in supplementing SOLAS with standards specific to hydrocarbon production, processing, storage, and handling systems, and should be given appropriate effect by flag administrations. However, the 2009 IMO MODU Code is not a legally binding instrument and by its terms does not apply to vessels that are not MODUs. Additionally, there are differing interpretations of the “independent testing laboratory” certification contained in the 2009 MODU Code. As the coastal state with jurisdiction, we find that it is a necessary and reasonable safety measure to require that newly constructed foreign vessels and floating facilities that engage in OCS activities have uniform safety standards for explosion protection in hazardous locations.
Ten comments addressed the cost of bringing into compliance with the proposed rule existing MODUs that are currently not operated on the OCS but the owners or operators intend them to do so. Those comments stated that the cost of bringing the existing vessels into compliance would likely exceed the cost published in the NPRM. In addition to required equipment recertification and replacement costs, there would be a loss of revenue during necessary downtime for replacement of equipment that could equal or exceed all other costs.
We recognize that the costs to retrofit an existing MODU could be prohibitive depending on the design, construction and type of operation of an individual MODU. Because of this, we decided to make the final rule applicable to vessels and facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and that engage in OCS activities. Existing vessels and facilities will continue to be subject to the regulations and standards effective at the time of their construction.
Similarly, one comment recommended that the Coast Guard address electrical equipment in hazardous locations on MODUs currently on the OCS. The Coast Guard disagrees. As explained earlier, this rule does not require any existing vessel or facility to meet the requirements of subpart 111.108 because the costs to retrofit existing equipment could be prohibitive depending on the design, construction and type of operation of an individual vessel or facility.
One comment stated that the Coast Guard should address electrical equipment in hazardous locations on foreign oil and chemical tankers and gas carriers entering U.S. ports. These vessels are outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is confined to vessels and facilities engaged in OCS activities. Additionally, foreign oil and chemical tankers and gas carriers are already subject to international standards and to Coast Guard inspection for compliance with those standards.
Four comments requested that the final rule not apply to sister vessels of vessels already operating on the OCS. They argued that these vessels are identical in design to those existing vessels that the Coast Guard is excluding from the requirements of this final rule.
Under the NPRM, vessels new to the OCS would have been subject to the new requirements, whereas vessels and facilities that had previously operated on the OCS would not. In this final rule, we have changed the applicability to include only those vessels and facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and that engage in OCS activities. This final rule, therefore, does not place new requirements on any existing vessels or facilities nor any vessel or facility that is constructed on or before April 2, 2018. Existing vessels or facilities or those constructed on or before April 2, 2018 will remain subject to the regulations and standards effective at the time of their construction and will remain subject to Coast Guard inspection. Any vessel or facility constructed after the implementation date will be subject to the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 before operating on the OCS.
Eleven comments addressed the proposed requirement in 46 CFR 111.108-3 requiring the testing and certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations by an independent laboratory. The definition of independent laboratory in the Coast Guard's Electrical Engineering regulations is contained in 46 CFR 110.15-1, and means a laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard using the independent laboratory criteria found in 46 CFR 159.010. Commenters stated that this requirement is burdensome and unnecessary, particularly for Ex Certification Bodies (ExCBs) and Ex Testing Laboratories operating under the IECEx System. Additionally, these commenters were concerned that there were not enough independent laboratories accepted by the Coast Guard, particularly within the IECEx System, to meet the demands for equipment certifications necessary to comply with this final rule. Further, the commenters stated that requiring Coast Guard-accepted independent laboratories undermines use of international standards, foreign flag administrations, and Recognized Organizations.
We disagree. First, there are differing interpretations of the “independent testing laboratory” certification contained in the 2009 MODU Code. U.S. MODUs, vessels and floating facilities, have been subject to independent third-party testing for over 30 years because we believe it is a critically important
In a separate rulemaking, the Coast Guard published an interim rule on August 18, 2014 (79 FR 48894) for U.S. offshore supply vessels greater than 6,000 GT ITC. That interim rule also recognized the IECEx System for certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations. Unlike section 111.108-3(b)(3) of this final rule, 46 CFR 111.106-3(b)(3)(iii) of the interim rule does not require certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations to be done by a Coast Guard accepted independent laboratory. The Coast Guard recognizes the inconsistency between 46 CFR 111.106-3(b)(3)(iii) of the interim rule and 46 CFR 111.108-3(b)(3) of this final rule and intends to align 46 CFR 111.106-3(b)(3)(iii) with this final rule in a future rulemaking.
Eight comments suggested the Coast Guard accept electrical equipment with certification issued under the European Commission Directive (94/9/EC) on equipment and Protective Systems Intended for use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres (ATEX Directive or ATEX).
We disagree. ATEX certification does not require independent third party testing for all types of equipment. It also does not ensure that electrical equipment installed in hazardous locations is fully tested to relevant standards. When foreign MODUs and vessels have electrical equipment installed in hazardous locations that is not independently tested, there is not the same level of safety for explosion protection in hazardous areas as required of U.S. vessels and floating facilities that operate on the OCS and that are required to meet 46 CFR subpart 111.105. The ATEX Directive is a European conformity assessment scheme designed to facilitate trade within Europe and is based on “Essential Health and Safety Requirements.” Additionally, the ATEX Directive is currently not applicable to seagoing vessels or MODUs and it is our experience with ATEX certification that it can be difficult to determine the extent of testing performed by the “notified body
It is also important to recognize that some ATEX certified electrical equipment may be acceptable under subpart 111.108 if it can be demonstrated that the electrical equipment has been fully tested and certified to the applicable standards contained in 46 CFR subchapter J by an independent laboratory as defined in 46 CFR 110.15-1. Frequently, equipment with ATEX certification also has certifications acceptable under 46 CFR 111.108-3 of this final rule.
Two comments requested that the Coast Guard clarify a statement in CG-ENG Policy Letter No. 01-13, Alternate Design and Equipment Standard for Floating Offshore Installations (FOI) and Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) Units on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, of June 26, 2013. For hazardous locations, the policy letter states that electrical equipment certified under the ATEX scheme will not be accepted by the Coast Guard. As explained above, if the equipment is also certified in accordance with one of the acceptable methods listed in 46 CFR 111.108-3, in addition to its ATEX certification, then the equipment is acceptable under 46 CFR 111.108-3 of this final rule.
Three comments said the proposed use of Class I, Special Division 1 in 46 CFR 111.108-3(e) may cause confusion as it is not a term recognized by the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) standard, NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC), We disagree and have not revised this section. Class I, Special Division 1 is intended to be equivalent to Class I, Zone 0, and is consistent with Informational Note No. 2 of Article 500.5(B)(3) of NFPA 70. Coast Guard regulations have long recognized that certain spaces such as cargo pump rooms and cargo tanks are more hazardous than other Class I, Division 1 locations. For these hazardous locations, we limit the types of permitted electrical installations. Use of the term “Class I, Special Division 1” simplifies the designation of these locations.
Five comments recommended that the Coast Guard establish standards for the design, installation, inspection, and maintenance of electrical equipment in hazardous locations. Two comments suggested requiring an onboard electrical equipment register that contains information regarding electrical equipment and its inspection, maintenance, and operational history. The commenters also suggest this information could be reviewed by visiting Coast Guard marine inspectors or third-party inspection personnel and could become part of a company's quality system. We agree that competency and accurate recordkeeping are critical to safety, but this recommendation is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Under the NPRM, vessels and facilities new to the OCS would be subject to the NPRM, whereas vessels and facilities that had previously operated on the OCS, would not. Two comments requested that the Coast Guard more clearly define what constitutes having “operated on the OCS.” Because this final rule now applies only to vessels and facilities constructed after April 2, 2018, that engage in OCS activities, we believe no
Two comments requested clarification on the responsibilities of the Coast Guard and of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) for electrical equipment in hazardous locations on MODUs under the USCG/BSEE Memorandum of Agreement, OCS-8, signed June 4, 2013. While the subject is outside the scope of this rulemaking because neither agency's responsibilities with regard to regulating electrical equipment located in hazardous locations are affected by this final rule, it is relevant to understanding the regulatory requirements for electrical equipment located in hazardous locations.
BSEE and Coast Guard have a shared responsibility for safety on the OCS. In general, the Coast Guard is responsible for the vessel or facility and all of its supporting systems while BSEE is responsible for systems related to the drilling and production of resources. Classification of hazardous locations and design of electrical systems is a vessel-wide or facility-wide task and the Coast Guard maintains a holistic view of the vessel or facility. The Coast Guard, in this rule, provides an expanded list of standards that are applicable to systems under the Coast Guard's jurisdiction as explained in BSEE-USCG MOA OCS-8. The electrical safety standards contained in BSEE's OCS regulations, 30 CFR part 250, are acceptable to the Coast Guard. Frequently, drilling and production components will be installed on vessels or facilities on a temporary or semi-temporary basis. In general, BSEE oversees these systems and if they find them acceptable, their installation is acceptable to the Coast Guard.
Two comments suggested that electrical equipment in Division 2 or Zone 2 locations be accepted without independent third-party certification or be accepted with ATEX certification. The Coast Guard agrees to the extent that applicable provisions of NFPA 70 and the 2009 IMO MODU Code permit. 46 CFR 111.108-3(b)(1) and (b)(2) incorporate by reference Articles 500-504 and Article 505 of the NFPA 70. Articles 501.125(B) and 505.20(C) of the NFPA 70 allow the installation of certain electrical equipment in these locations without independent identification or listing if the equipment meets specific requirements that reduce the risk of explosion. This final rule is not intended to modify these standards. 46 CFR 111.108-3(b)(3) incorporates Chapter 6 of the 2009 IMO MODU Code and requires certification under the IECEx System. The IECEx System requires independent certification for all electrical equipment in hazardous areas. This final rule is not intended to modify the IECEx System. Electrical system designers must choose an explosion protection standards regime from the list of acceptable options provided in 46 CFR 111.108-3 and comply with the standards regime they chose.
One comment requested that the Coast Guard incorporate the latest ANSI/ISA safety standards for hazardous locations. The Coast Guard agrees and notes that 46 CFR 111.108-3(b) incorporates the ANSI/ISA series of standards incorporated in NFPA 70, as it did in the NPRM.
Two comments noted that some required equipment located in hazardous locations is not available as certified for Zone 2 areas, such as search and rescue transponders. The Coast Guard agrees with this comment, and notes that several standards included in this final rule address this situation. The objective of this final rule is to provide a selection of standards for certification of electrical equipment in hazardous locations. Electrical equipment not meeting the Class I, Zone 2 or Class I, Division 2 requirements, should be installed as far as possible from hazardous locations, or if not possible, located or installed in the least hazardous location. Standards listed in 46 CFR 111.108-3 of this final rule do address equipment such as this. Section 6.3.3 of IEC 61892-7:2007,
One comment asked if equipment tested to the IECEx System but not yet marked as such would be acceptable. The commenter explained that equipment is sometimes delivered before the IECEx Certificate of Compliance is issued. Another comment noted that equipment can be certified under both the ATEX Directive and the IECEx System but only have ATEX labeling. Finally, a comment requested acceptance of equipment consisting of assemblies of IECEx certified components rather than requiring a certificate for the entire assembly.
These are compliance issues that can be very simple or very complex depending on the type of equipment and will be addressed by the Marine Safety Center (MSC) or cognizant Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection on a case-by-case basis. When IECEx on any other Coast Guard accepted independent third party certification is unclear, documentation must be presented that demonstrates the equipment meets the applicable requirements. Any equipment or assembly of equipment must meet all the requirements of the IECEx System. It is not the Coast Guard's intent to modify the IECEx System.
One comment requested that the Coast Guard consider lowering the minimum flashpoint that defines hazardous locations, because Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) diesel fuels are being produced against a minimum flashpoint of 52° C, rather than the 60° C minimum that has served as the basis for both Coast Guard and IMO requirements to date. We are unable to make this change in the final rule because it was not proposed in the NPRM. The minimum flashpoint of 60° C exists in numerous standards and regulations including 46 CFR 111.105-29, 46 CFR 111.105-31, 46 CFR 58.01-10, numerous locations within SOLAS, and IEC 60092-502:1999. We may consider proposing a change to the minimum flashpoint in a future rulemaking. This will provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Until that occurs, the MSC can accept arrangements that provide an equivalent level of safety in accordance with 46 CFR 110.20-1.
One commenter requested that drill floor equipment that is IECEx certified for Class I, Zone 1 or Class I, Zone 2 be
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in § 110.10-1 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in that section.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry.
A summary of the changes between the NPRM and the final rule follows:
The Coast Guard received several comments on the published NPRM. These comments have been grouped by topic, as several comments addressed similar concerns, and are discussed in the following table.
We do not anticipate any costs to be borne by the U.S.-flagged vessels that will be affected by this rule. The rule requires that all U.S. vessels, excluding OSVs that are regulated under 46 CFR subchapter L, that are constructed after April 2, 2018 and engage in OCS activity, comply with the newly created subpart 111.108. U.S. flagged vessels which fall within this scope are provided with an expanded list of standards and certification options.
Subpart 111.108 will not impose any burden on U.S. vessels due to the nature of current industry practice. Because North American certification of electrical equipment is generally to the most current edition of the published reference standards,
The logic applied to U.S. vessels, excluding OSVs as discussed above, applies to U.S. MODUs and floating OCS facilities as well. We do not anticipate any cost burden associated with this rule to be imposed on this vessel class. We believe this because the affected population are those U.S. MODUs and floating OCS facilities that are constructed after April 2, 2018. These vessels will be subject to subpart 111.108, a subpart that contains the updated standards to which new equipment will be certified. As with the vessels discussed earlier, in the absence of subpart 111.108, new equipment would be built to the most current standards as a matter of industry practice. Under this final rule, this scenario will not require any costs to the vessel owner as there is no change in the regulatory environment for U.S. MODUs and floating OCS facilities.
Under this final rule, all U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, vessels other than OSVs, and U.S. tank vessels may comply with this new subpart in lieu of §§ 111.105-1 through 111.105-15. We do not foresee any additional costs to the owners of these vessels and facilities by providing this option but if there are additional costs, there is expected to be equal or greater benefit to the owner driving the selection of this option. Currently, the regulations for electrical installations in hazardous locations are contained in subpart 111.105. This regulation will expand the available subparts to include subpart 111.108, while still allowing owners and operators the option to remain subject to existing subpart 111.105.
While the modification of the affected population aids us in estimating the effects of the proposed rulemaking, it does not further refine the costs which are applied to the population. As some commenters on the NPRM document have reinforced, the estimated costs associated with the rule could vary widely. Industry costs were constructed from a variety of elements, for example the cost of certifying equipment or the opportunity cost of recertification of said equipment. With the modification of the affected population we are able to drop the opportunity cost from our analysis, which allows us to further streamline our discussion of the costs for the rulemaking. What remains is the cost associated with third party certification of equipment.
Currently, foreign vessels are not required to utilize third party certified equipment in hazardous areas unless explicitly required by their flag state. Implementation of the final rule will require certification by a Coast Guard approved, independent laboratory which, in effect, changes the baseline for newly constructed foreign vessels. Foreign flagged vessels constructed 3 years after the implementation date seeking entrance to the OCS in pursuit of OCS activities will be required to utilize third party certified equipment where previously this was not explicitly required. Our analysis of this baseline change is clouded by the aggregate nature of the cost of certification. When an entity purchases equipment for use in a hazardous location on a vessel, the marginal cost of the certification element of the purchase price is not itemized for the purchaser. The certification cost is present in the purchase price as a value added component of the total price of the equipment. As such, we are not able to explicitly determine the marginal cost difference between equipment certified by a third party and those without third party certification. Additionally, the list of equipment present in these locations, and required to be third party certified, is diverse. For example, one equipment list obtained by the Coast Guard contained equipment which ranged in complexity from a fluorescent light to elements of the tank temperature monitoring system.
While the cost estimation is obtuse, it is not insurmountable. We have several elements which should allow us to construct a range for the final rule's associated costs. On the high end of the
The $500,000 cost quote
The cost floor is a function of costs potentially accrued to a hypothetical vessel to be built in the future. In some cases these vessels would be built to the certification specifications contained in this final rule anyway, in which case they would accrue no additional costs from this rule. However, due to the probable greater cost of third-party-certified equipment, we can assume that, without this rulemaking, some equipment would be installed without third party certification. Table 3 presents the range.
The Coast Guard-maintained MISLE database, contains records of all applicable vessels operating on the OCS in pursuit of OCS activities. Historic data extracted from this database is presented below in Table 4.
Over the past 10 years, 17 foreign vessels have been built which would fall under this rule's application. The database was filtered to include foreign vessels, those vessel classes which would potentially be on the OCS in pursuit of OCS activities, and have build years within the past decade. Evaluation of this data found that on average, 2 foreign vessels are built per year which could seek entrance to the US OCS in pursuit of OCS activities.
Therefore, the range of costs associated with this rulemaking will fall between $0 (2 Vessels * $0) and $1,000,000 (2 vessels * $500,000) per year with an average per year cost of $500,000 (2 vessels * $250,000).
Burden estimates in the NPRM were $800,000 per year. With the changes that the final rule makes to the affected population, the yearly costs have been reduced, by an estimation that is upwards of 37%.
We are unable to monetize benefits. We can find no casualties that would have been prevented by these regulations. However, third-party testing and certification for critical equipment, such as electrical equipment intended for use in hazardous locations, addresses a potentially catastrophic hazard consisting of an explosive gas or vapor combined with an electrical ignition source, and is generally understood by industry as an appropriate measure that enhances safety and protects life, the environment, and property.
We considered five alternatives when evaluating the effects of this final rule. The first, abstaining from action, was rejected because it allows a regulatory imbalance and a potential safety gap to exist between foreign vessels and U.S. vessels operating on the OCS.
The second alternative we considered was to require both U.S. and foreign vessels and facilities to adhere to the existing international standards. This alternative was deemed insufficient because compliance with international standards, such as the 2009 IMO Code, is subject to the interpretation of the applicable flag administration. An example of an undesired consequence of this alternative would be the acceptance of ATEX certified equipment. The Coast Guard, however, will not accept ATEX certifications because evidence of full testing to the applicable harmonized 60079 series of standards by an independent third-party laboratory is not guaranteed. Consistent with preexisting Coast Guard practices, third-party testing and certification for critical equipment is generally required.
The third alternative we considered was to require foreign vessels and floating facilities to meet current U.S. standards. This alternative was not selected because we believe that requiring compliance with U.S. standards is unnecessary when there are comparable international standards acceptable to the Coast Guard. Because these latest editions of internationally recognized standards for explosion protection offer owners and operators greater flexibility, while also avoiding the costs of coastal state-specific requirements, we are expanding the list of international explosion protection standards deemed acceptable.
The fourth alternative, implementing the regulations in this final rule, puts in place a regulatory regime that will allow for both the U.S., as the coastal state, and industry to be confident in the certification and assessment of electrical equipment intended for use in hazardous locations. This will be achieved through the use of the most current, internationally recognized standards for explosion protection and independent third-party certification. The regulations in this final rule expand the list of national and international explosion protection standards deemed acceptable for U.S. operators.
A fifth and final alternative is that which was presented to the public in the NPRM. This alternative included the application of the NPRM regulations to existing vessels before those vessels engaged in OCS activities for the first
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
We do not anticipate any effect on small entities. As noted in the previous discussion, there is no anticipated cost burden placed on U.S. entities by this rule and, as such, we do not anticipate any effect on small entities that would be addressed by this section. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for exclusive regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories for inspected vessels covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule uses the following voluntary consensus standards:
The sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR 110.10-1.
This rule also uses technical standards other than voluntary consensus standards.
The section that references this standard and the locations where this standard is available are listed in 46 CFR 110.10-1.
We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This final rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a), (d) and (e) of the Instruction and under section 6(a) of the “Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy” (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002).” This final rule involves regulations which are editorial and concern inspection and equipping of vessels and regulations concerning vessel operation safety standards. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in
Continental shelf, Investigations, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Vessels.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Incorporation by reference.
Vessels.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 140 and 143 and 46 CFR parts 110 and 111 as follows:
43 U.S.C. 1333, 1348, 1350, 1356; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(1) The vessel's keel was laid; or
(2) Construction identifiable with the vessel or facility began and assembly of that vessel or facility commenced comprising of 50 metric tons or at least 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural material, whichever is less.
43 U.S.C. 1333(d)(1), 1348(c), 1356; 49 CFR 1.46; section 143.210 is also issued under 14 U.S.C. 664 and 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(d) Each floating OCS facility that is constructed after April 2, 2018 must comply with the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 prior to engaging in OCS activities.
Each mobile offshore drilling unit that is documented under the laws of a foreign nation and is constructed after April 2, 2018 must comply with the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 prior to engaging in OCS activities.
Each vessel that is documented under the laws of a foreign nation and is constructed after April 2, 2018 must comply with the requirements of 46 CFR subpart 111.108 prior to engaging in OCS activities.
33 U.S.C. 1509; 43 U.S.C 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3307, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 110.01-2 also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507. Sections 110.15-1 and 110.25-1 also issued under sec. 617, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subchapter with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of change in the
(b)
(1) Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, Part 4 Vessel Systems and Machinery, 2003 (“ABS Steel Vessel Rules”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1, 111.01-9, 111.12-3, 111.12-5, 111.12-7, 111.33-11, 111.35-1, 111.70-1, 111.105-31, 111.105-39, 111.105-40, and 113.05-7 of this chapter.
(2) Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Part 4 Machinery and Systems, 2001 (“ABS MODU Rules”), IBR approved for §§ 111.12-1, 111.12-3, 111.12-5, 111.12-7, 111.33-11, 111.35-1, and 111.70-1 of this chapter.
(c)
(1) ANSI/IEEE C37.12-1991—American National Standard for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a Symmetrical Current Basis-Specifications Guide, 1991 (“ANSI/IEEE C37.12”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(2) ANSI/IEEE C37.27-1987 (IEEE Std 331)—Application Guide for Low-Voltage AC Nonintegrally Fused Power Circuitbreakers (Using Separately Mounted Current-Limiting Fuses), 1987 (“ANSI/IEEE C37.27”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(3) ANSI/ISA 12.12.01-2012—Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class II, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, approved 9 July 2012 (“ANSI/ISA 12.12.01”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(4) ANSI/ISA-60079-18—Electrical Apparatus for Use in Class I, Zone 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations: Type of Protection—Encapsulation “m”, approved July 31, 2009 (“ANSI/ISA 60079-18”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(d) of this chapter.
(5) ANSI/ISA-60079-18—Explosive atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment protection by encapsulation “m”, Third Edition, approved 14 September, 2012 (“ANSI/ISA 60079-18 (2012)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(e) of this chapter.
(d) American Petroleum Institute (API), Order Desk, 1220 L Street NW.,
(1) API RP 500—Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Division 1 and Division 2, Second Edition, November 1997, reaffirmed in 2002 (“API RP 500”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-7(a) and 111.106-13(b) of this chapter.
(2) API RP 505—Recommended Practice for Classification of Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2, First Edition, approved January 7, 1998 (dated November 1997), reaffirmed 2002 (“API RP 505”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-7(a) and 111.106-13(b) of this chapter.
(e) ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 800-843-2763,
(1) ASME A17.1-2000 Part 2 Electric Elevators, 2000 (“ASME A17.1”), IBR approved for § 111.91-1 of this chapter.
(2) [Reserved]
(f)
(1) ASTM B 117-97, Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus, (“ASTM B 117”), IBR approved for § 110.15-1 of this chapter.
(2) ASTM F2876-10—Standard Practice for Thermal Rating and Installation of Internal Combustion Engine Packages for use in Hazardous Locations in Marine Applications, approved November 1, 2010 (“ASTM F2876-10”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(h) and 111.108-3(g) of this chapter.
(g)
(1) CSA C22.2 No. 30-M1986—Explosion-Proof Enclosures for Use in Class I Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2007 (“CSA C22.2 No. 30-M1986”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(2) CSA C22.2 No. 213-M1987—Non-incendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I, Division 2 Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2008 (“CSA C22.2 No. 213-M1987”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(3) CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 0-M91—General Requirements—Canadian Electrical Code, Part II, Reaffirmed 2006 (“CSA C22.2 No. 0-M91”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(4) CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 157-92—Intrinsically Safe and Non-incendive Equipment for Use in Hazardous Locations, Reaffirmed 2006 (“CSA C22.2 No. 157-92”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(h) DLA Document Services, Department of Defense, Single Stock Point, 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111, 215-697-6396,
(1) MIL-C-24640A—Military Specification Cables, Light Weight, Electric, Low Smoke, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for (1995) Supplement 1, June 26, 1995 (“NPFC MIL-C-24640A”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1 and 111.60-3 of this chapter.
(2) MIL-C-24643A—Military Specification Cables and Cords, Electric, Low Smoke, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for (1996), Amendment 2, March 13, 1996 (“MIL-C-24643A”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1 and 111.60-3 of this chapter.
(3) MIL-DTL-24640C with Supplement 1—Detail Specification Cables, Lightweight, Low Smoke, Electric, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for, November 18, 2011 (“MIL-DTL-24640C”), IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.
(4) MIL-DTL-24643C with Supplement 1A—Detail Specification Cables, Electric, Low Smoke Halogen-Free, for Shipboard Use, General Specification for, December 13, 2011 (dated October 1, 2009) (“MIL-DTL-24643C”), IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.
(5) MIL-W-76D—Military Specification Wire and Cable, Hook-Up, Electrical, Insulated, General Specification for (2003) Amendment 1-2003, February 6, 2003 (“NPFC MIL-W-76D”), IBR approved for § 111.60-11 of this chapter.
(i) FM Approvals, P.O. Box 9102, Norwood, MA 02062, 781-440-8000,
(1) Class Number 3600—Approval Standard for Electric Equipment for use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations General Requirements, November 1998 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3600”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(2) Class Number 3610—Approval Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, January 2010 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3610”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(3) Class Number 3611—Approval Standard for Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and II, Division 2, and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, December 2004 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3611”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(4) Class Number 3615—Approval Standard for Explosionproof Electrical Equipment General Requirements, August 2006 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3615”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(5) Class Number 3620—Approval Standard for Purged and Pressurized Electrical Equipment for Hazardous (Classified) Locations, August 2000 (“FM Approvals Class Number 3620”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(j)
(1) IEEE Std C37.04-1999—IEEE Standard Rating Structure for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers, 1999 (“IEEE C37.04”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(2) IEEE Std C37.010-1999—IEEE Application Guide for AC High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a Symmetrical Current Basis, 1999 (“IEEE C37.010”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(3) IEEE Std C37.13-1990—IEEE Standard for Low-Voltage AC Power Circuit Breakers Used in Enclosures, October 22, 1990 (“IEEE C37.13”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(4) IEEE Std C37.14-2002—IEEE Standard for Low-Voltage DC Power Circuit Breakers Used in Enclosures, April 25, 2003 (“IEEE C37.14”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(5) IEEE Std 45-1998—IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Installations on Shipboard, October 19, 1998 (“IEEE 45-1998”), IBR approved for §§ 111.30-19, 111.105-3, 111.105-31, and 111.105-41 of this chapter.
(6) IEEE Std 45-2002—IEEE Recommended Practice for Electrical Installations On Shipboard, October 11, 2002 (“IEEE 45-2002”), IBR approved for §§ 111.05-7, 111.15-2, 111.30-1, 111.30-5, 111.33-3, 111.33-5, 111.40-1, 111.60-1, 111.60-3, 111.60-5, 111.60-11, 111.60-13, 111.60-19, 111.60-21, 111.60-23, 111.75-5, and 113.65-5 of this chapter.
(7) IEEE 100—The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, 2000 (“IEEE 100”), IBR approved for § 110.15-1.
(8) IEEE Std 1202-1991—IEEE Standard for Flame Testing of Cables for Use in Cable Tray in Industrial and
(9) IEEE Std 1580-2001—IEEE Recommended Practice for Marine Cable for Use on Shipboard and Fixed or Floating Platforms, December 17, 2001 (“IEEE 1580”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-2, 111.60-3 and 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.
(k)
(1) IEC 60068-2-52—Environmental Testing Part 2: Tests—Test Kb: Salt Mist, Cyclic (Sodium Chloride Solution), Second Edition, 1996 (“IEC 68-2-52”), IBR approved for § 110.15-1.
(2) IEC 60079-0—Electrical apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 0: General Requirements, Edition 3.1, 2000 (“IEC 60079-0”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(3) IEC 60079-1—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 1: Flameproof Enclosures “d” including corr.1, Fourth Edition, June 2001 (“IEC 60079-1”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-9, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(4) IEC 60079-1:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures “d”, Sixth edition, 2007-04, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(5) IEC 60079-2 Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 2: Pressurized Enclosures “p”, Fourth Edition, 2001 (“IEC 60079-2”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(6) IEC 60079-2:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 2: Equipment protection by pressurized enclosures “p”, Fifth edition, 2007-02, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(7) IEC 60079-5—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 5: Powder Filling “q”, Second Edition, 1997 (“IEC 60079-5”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(8) IEC 60079-5:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 5: Equipment protection by powder filling “q”, Third edition, 2007-03, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(9) IEC 60079-6—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 6: Oil Immersion “o”, Second Edition, 1995 (“IEC 60079-6”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(10) IEC 60079-6:2007—Explosive atmospheres—Part 6: Equipment protection by oil immersion “o”, Third edition, 2007-03, IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(11) IEC 60079-7—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 7: Increased Safety “e”, Third Edition, 2001 (“IEC 60079-7”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(12) IEC 60079-7:2006—Explosive atmospheres—Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety “e”, Fourth edition, 2006-07, IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.
(13) IEC 60079-11—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 11: Intrinsic Safety “i”, Fourth Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60079-11”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-11, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(14) IEC 60079-11:2006—Explosive atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment protection by intrinsic safety “i”, Fifth edition, 2006-07, IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.
(15) IEC 60079-11:2011—Explosive atmospheres—Part 11: Equipment protection by intrinsic safety “i”, Edition 6.0, 2011-06, IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(16) IEC 60079-13:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 13: Equipment protection by pressurized room “p”, Edition 1.0, 2010-10, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(17) IEC 60079-15—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 15: Type of Protection “n”, Second Edition, 2001 (“IEC 60079-15”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(18) IEC 60079-15:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 15: Equipment protection by type of protection “n”, Edition 4.0, 2010-01, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(19) IEC 60079-18—Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres—Part 18: Encapsulation “m”, First Edition, 1992 (“IEC 60079-18”), IBR approved for §§ 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-15, and 111.105-17 of this chapter.
(20) IEC 60079-18:2009—Explosive atmospheres—Part 18: Equipment protection by encapsulation “m”, Edition 3.0, 2009-05, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b), 111.106-3(d), and 111.108-3(b) and (e) of this chapter.
(21) IEC 60079-25:2010—Explosive atmospheres—Part 25: Intrinsically safe electrical systems, Edition 2.0, 2010-02, IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(22) IEC 60092-101—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 101: Definitions and General Requirements, Edition 4.1, 2002 (“IEC 60092-101”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(23) IEC 60092-201—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 201: System Design-General, Fourth Edition, 1994 (“IEC 60092-201”), IBR approved for §§ 111.70-3 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(24) IEC 60092-202—Amendment 1 Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 202: System Design-Protection, 1996 (“IEC 60092-202”), IBR approved for §§ 111.12-7, 111.50-3, 111.53-1, and 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(25) IEC 60092-301—Amendment 2 Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 301: Equipment-Generators and Motors, 1995 (“IEC 60092-301”), IBR approved for §§ 111.12-7, 111.25-5, and 111.70-1 of this chapter.
(26) IEC 60092-302—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 302: Low-Voltage Switchgear and Control Gear Assemblies, Fourth Edition, 1997 (“IEC 60092-302”), IBR approved for §§ 111.30-1, 111.30-5, and 111.30-19 of this chapter.
(27) IEC 60092-303—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 303: Equipment-Transformers for Power and Lighting, Third Edition, 1980 (“IEC 60092-303”), IBR approved for § 111.20-15 of this chapter.
(28) IEC 60092-304—Amendment 1 Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 304: Equipment—Semiconductor Convertors, 1995 (“IEC 60092-304”), IBR approved for §§ 111.33-3 and 111.33-5 of this chapter.
(29) IEC 60092-306—Electrical Installation in Ships, Part 306: Equipment—Luminaries and accessories, Third Edition, 1980 (“IEC 60092-306”), IBR approved for §§ 111.75-20 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(30) IEC 60092-350:2008—Electrical installations in ships—Part 350: General construction and test methods of power, control and instrumentation cables for shipboard and offshore applications, Edition 3.0, 2008-02, IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.
(31) IEC 60092-352—Electrical Installation in Ships—Choice and Installation of Cables for Low-Voltage Power Systems, Second Edition, 1997 (“IEC 60092-352”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-3, 111.60-5, and 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(32) IEC 60092-353—Electrical Installations in Ships—Part 353: Single and Multicore Non-Radial Field Power Cables with Extruded Solid Insulation for Rated Voltages 1kV and 3kV, Second Edition, 1995 (“IEC 60092-353”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-3, and 111.60-5 of this chapter.
(33) IEC 60092-353:2011—Electrical installations in ships—Part 353: Power cables for rated voltages 1 kV and 3 kV, Edition 3.0, 2011-08, IBR approved for § 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.
(34) IEC 60092-401—Electrical Installations in Ships, Part 401: Installation and Test of completed Installation with amendment 1 (1987) and amendment 2 (1997), Third Edition, 1980 (“IEC 60092-401”), IBR approved for §§ 111.05-9 and 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(35) IEC 60092-502—Electrical installations in ships—Part 502: Tankers—Special features, Fifth edition, 1999-02 (“IEC 60092-502”), IBR approved for §§ 111.81-1, 111.105-31, 111.106-3(b), 111.106-5(c), 111.106-15(a), and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(36) IEC 60092-503—Electrical installations in ships, Part 503: Special features: A.C. supply systems with voltages in the range of above 1kV up to and including 11kV, First Edition, 1975 (“IEC 60092-503”), IBR approved for § 111.30-5 of this chapter.
(37) IEC 60331-11—Tests for electric cables under fire conditions—Circuit integrity—Part 11: Apparatus—Fire alone at a flame temperature of at least 750 °C, First Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60331-11”), IBR approved for § 113.30-25 of this chapter.
(38) IEC 60331-21—Tests for Electric Cables Under Fire Conditions—Circuit Integrity—Part 21: Procedures and Requirements—Cables of Rated Voltage up to and Including 0.6/1.0kV, First Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60331-21”), IBR approved for § 113.30-25 of this chapter.
(39) IEC 60332-1—Tests on Electric Cables Under Fire Conditions, Part 1: Test on a Single Vertical Insulated Wire or Cable, Third Edition, 1993 (“IEC 60332-1”), IBR approved for § 111.30-19 of this chapter.
(40) IEC 60332-3-22—Tests on Electric Cables Under Fire Conditions—Part 3-22: Test for Vertical Flame Spread of Vertically-Mounted Bunched Wires or Cables—Category A, First Edition, 2000 (“IEC 60332-3-22”), IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-2, 111.60-6, and 111.107-1 of this chapter.
(41) IEC 60529—Degrees of Protection Provided by Enclosures (IP Code), Edition 2.1, 2001 (“IEC 60529”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1, 111.01-9, 113.10-7, 113.20-3, 113.25-11, 113.30-25, 113.37-10, 113.40-10, and 113.50-5 of this chapter.
(42) IEC 60533—Electrical and Electronic Installations in Ships—Electromagnetic Compatibility, Second Edition, 1999 (“IEC 60533”), IBR approved for § 113.05-7 of this chapter.
(43) IEC 60947-2—Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Part 2: Circuit-Breakers, Third Edition, 2003 (“IEC 60947-2”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(44) IEC 61363-1—Electrical Installations of Ships and Mobile and Fixed Offshore Units—Part 1: Procedures for Calculating Short-Circuit Currents in Three-Phase a.c., First Edition, 1998 (“IEC 61363-1”), IBR approved for § 111.52-5 of this chapter.
(45) IEC 61892-7:2007—Mobile and fixed offshore units—Electrical installations—Part 7: Hazardous areas, Edition 2.0, 2007-11, IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(46) IEC 62271-100—High-voltage switchgear and controlgear—part 100: High-voltage alternating current circuitbreakers, Edition 1.1, 2003 (“IEC 62271-100”), IBR approved for § 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(l)
(1) International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Consolidated Text of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and its Protocol of 1988: Article, Annexes and Certificates. (Incorporating all Amendments in Effect from January 2001), 2001 (“IMO SOLAS 74”), IBR approved for §§ 111.99-5, 111.105-31, 112.15-1, and 113.25-6 of this chapter.
(2) IMO Resolution A.1023(26)—Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 2009, 18 January 2010 (“2009 IMO MODU Code”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(m)
(1) RP 12.6—Wiring Practices for Hazardous (Classified) Locations Instrumentation Part I: Intrinsic Safety, 1995 (“ISA RP 12.6”), IBR approved for § 111.105-11 of this chapter.
(2) [Reserved]
(n)
(1) Type Approval System—Test Specification Number 1, 2002, IBR approved for § 113.05-7 of this chapter.
(2) [Reserved]
(o)
(1) NEMA Standards Publication ICS 2-2000—Industrial Control and Systems Controllers, Contactors, and Overload Relays, Rated 600 Volts, 2000 (“NEMA ICS 2”), IBR approved for § 111.70-3 of this chapter.
(2) NEMA Standards Publication ICS 2.3-1995—Instructions for the Handling, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Motor Control Centers Rated not More Than 600 Volts, 1995 (“NEMA ICS 2.3”), IBR approved for § 111.70-3 of this chapter.
(3) NEMA Standards Publication No. ICS 2.4-2003—NEMA and IEC Devices for Motor Service—a Guide for Understanding the Differences, 2003 (“NEMA ICS 2.4”), IBR approved for § 111.70-3 of this chapter.
(4) NEMA Standards Publication No. ANSI/NEMA 250-1997—Enclosures for Electrical Equipment (1000 Volts Maximum), August 30, 2001 (“NEMA 250”), IBR approved for §§ 110.15-1, 111.01-9, 110.15-1, 113.10-7, 113.20-3, 113.25-11, 113.30-25, 113.37-10, 113.40-10, and 113.50-5 of this chapter.
(5) NEMA Standards Publication No. WC-3-1992—Rubber Insulated Wire and Cable for the Transmission and Distribution of Electrical Energy, Revision 1, February 1994 (“NEMA WC-3”), IBR approved for § 111.60-13 of this chapter.
(6) NEMA WC-70/ICEA S-95-658-1999—Standard for Non-Shielded Power Rated Cable 2000V or Less for the Distribution of Electrical Energy, 1999 (“NEMA WC-70”), IBR approved for § 111.60-13 of this chapter.
(p)
(1) NEC 2002 (NFPA 70)—National Electrical Code Handbook, Ninth Edition, 2002 (“NFPA NEC 2002”), IBR approved for §§ 111.05-33, 111.20-15, 111.25-5, 111.50-3, 111.50-7, 111.50-9, 111.53-1, 111.54-1, 111.55-1, 111.59-1, 111.60-7, 111.60-13, 111.60-23, 111.81-1, 111.105-1, 111.105-3, 111.105-5, 111.105-7, 111.105-9, 111.105-15, 111.105-17, and 111.107-1 of this chapter.
(2) NFPA 70—National Electrical Code, 2011 Edition (“NFPA 70”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b), 111.106-
(3) NFPA 77—Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, 2000 (“NFPA 77”), IBR approved for § 111.105-27 of this chapter.
(4) NFPA 99—Standard for Health Care Facilities, 2005 (“NFPA 99”), IBR approved for § 111.105-37 of this chapter.
(5) NFPA 496—Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2003 (“NFPA 496”), IBR approved for § 111.105-7 of this chapter.
(6) NFPA 496—Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2008 Edition (“NFPA 496 (2008)”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(c) of this chapter.
(7) NFPA 496—Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2013 Edition (“NFPA 496 (2013)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(d) of this chapter.
(q)
(1) DDS 300-2—A.C. Fault Current Calculations, 1988 (“NAVSEA DDS 300-2”), IBR approved for § 111.52-5 of this chapter.
(2) MIL-HDBK-299(SH)—Military Handbook Cable Comparison Handbook Data Pertaining to Electric Shipboard Cable Notice 1-1991 (Revision of MIL-HDBK-299(SH) (1989)), October 15, 1991 (“NAVSEA MIL-HDBK-299(SH)”), IBR approved for § 111.60-3 of this chapter.
(r)
(1) UL 44—Standard for Thermoset-Insulated Wire and Cable, Fifteenth Edition, Mar. 22, 1999 (Revisions through and including May 13, 2002) (“UL 44”), IBR approved for § 111.60-11 of this chapter.
(2) UL 50—Standard for Safety Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Eleventh Edition, Oct. 19, 1995 (“UL 50”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(3) UL 62—Standard for Flexible Cord and Fixture Wire, Sixteenth Edition, Oct. 15, 1997 (“UL 62”), IBR approved for § 111.60-13 of this chapter.
(4) UL 83—Standard for Thermoplastic-Insulated Wires and Cables, Twelfth Edition, Sept. 29, 1998 (“UL 83”), IBR approved for § 111.60-11 of this chapter.
(5) UL 484—Standard for Room Air Conditioners, Seventh Edition, (Revisions through and including Sep. 3, 2002), Apr. 27, 1993 (“UL 484”), IBR approved for § 111.87-3 of this chapter.
(6) UL 489—Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures, Ninth Edition, (Revisions through and including Mar. 22, 2000), Oct. 31, 1996 (“UL 489”), IBR approved for §§ 111.01-15 and 111.54-1 of this chapter.
(7) UL 514A—Metallic Outlet Boxes, Ninth Edition, Dec. 27, 1996 (“UL 514A”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(8) UL 514B—Conduit, Tubing, and Cable Fittings, Fourth Edition, Nov. 3, 1997 (“UL 514B”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(9) UL 514C—Standard for Nonmetallic Outlet Boxes, Flush-Device Boxes, and Covers, Second Edition, Oct. 31, 1988 (“UL 514C”), IBR approved for § 111.81-1 of this chapter.
(10) UL 674—Standard for Safety: Electric Motors and Generators for Use in Division 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fourth Edition with revisions through Aug. 12, 2008 (dated Dec. 11, 2003) (“ANSI/UL 674”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.
(11) UL 674—Standard for Safety: Electric Motors and Generators for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fifth Edition, dated May 31, 2011 (with revisions through July 19, 2013) (“ANSI/UL 674 (2013)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(12) UL 823—Electric Heaters for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Ninth Edition including revisions through Nov. 15, 2007 (dated Oct. 20, 2006) (“ANSI/UL 823”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(13) UL 844—Standard for Safety: Luminaires for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Twelfth Edition including revisions through Nov. 20, 2008 (dated Jan. 11, 2006) (“ANSI/UL 844”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.
(14) UL 844—Standard for Safety: Luminaires for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Thirteenth Edition, dated June 29, 2012 (“ANSI/UL 844 (2012)”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(15) UL 913—Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class i, ii, and iii, Division 1, Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Sixth Edition, (Revisions through and including Dec. 15, 2003) August 8, 2002 (“UL 913”), IBR approved for § 111.105-11 of this chapter.
(16) UL 913—Standard for Safety: Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1, Hazardous Locations, Seventh Edition, Dated July 31, 2006 (including revisions through June 3, 2010) (“ANSI/UL 913”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(17) UL 1042—Standard for Electric Baseboard Heating Equipment, Apr. 11, 1994, IBR approved for § 111.87-3 of this chapter.
(18) UL 1072—Standard for Medium-Voltage Power Cables, Third Edition, Dec. 28, 2001 (revisions through and including Apr. 14, 2003), IBR approved for § 111.60-1 of this chapter.
(19) UL 1104—Standard for Marine Navigation Lights, Second Edition, Oct. 29, 1998, IBR approved for § 111.75-17 of this chapter.
(20) UL 1203—Standard for Explosion-Proof and Dust-Ignition-Proof Electrical Equipment for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Third Edition, Sept. 7, 2000 (Revisions through and including Apr. 30, 2004), IBR approved for § 111.105-9 of this chapter.
(21) UL 1203—Standard for Safety: Explosion-Proof and Dust-Ignition Proof Electrical Equipment for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Fourth Edition, Dated September 15, 2006 (including revisions through October 28, 2009) (“ANSI/UL 1203”), IBR approved for §§ 111.106-3(b) and 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(22) UL 1309—Marine Shipboard Cables, First Edition, July 14, 1995, IBR approved for §§ 111.60-1, 111.60-3, and 111.106-5(a) of this chapter.
(23) UL 1581—Reference Standard for Electrical Wires, Cables, and Flexible Cords, May 6, 2003, IBR approved for §§ 111.30-19, 111.60-2, and 111.60-6 of this chapter.
(24) UL 1598—Luminaires, First Edition, Jan. 31, 2000, IBR approved for § 111.75-20 of this chapter.
(25) UL 1598A—Standard for Supplemental Requirements for Luminaires for Installation on Marine Vessels, First Edition, Dec. 4, 2000, IBR approved for § 111.75-20 of this chapter.
(26) UL 1604—Electrical Equipment for use in Class I and II, Division 2 and Class III Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Third Edition, Dated April 28, 1994 (including revisions through February 3, 2004) (“UL 1604”), IBR approved for § 111.108-3(b) of this chapter.
(27) UL 2225—Cables and Cable-Fittings for Use in Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Second Edition, Dec. 21, 2005 (“ANSI/UL 2225”), IBR approved for § 111.106-3(b) of this chapter.
(28) UL 2225—Standard for Safety: Cables and Cable-Fittings for use in
(b) * * *
(1) The vessel's keel was laid; or
(2) Construction identifiable with the vessel or facility began and assembly of that vessel or facility commenced comprising of 50 metric tons or at least 1 percent of the estimated mass of all structural material, whichever is less.
(q) For vessels with hazardous locations to which subpart 111.108 of this chapter applies, plans showing the extent and classification of all hazardous locations, including information on—
(1) Equipment identification by manufacturer's name and model number;
(2) Equipment use within the system;
(3) Parameters of intrinsically safe systems, including cables;
(4) Equipment locations;
(5) Installation details and/or approved control drawings; and
(6) A certificate of testing, and listing or certification, by an independent laboratory or an IECEx Certificate of Conformity under the IECEx System, where required by the respective standard in § 111.108-3(b)(1), (2), or (3) of this chapter.
46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 111.05-20 and Subpart 111.106 also issued under sec. 617, Pub. L. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905.
(a) This subpart applies to MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels, other than offshore supply vessels regulated under subchapter L of this chapter, constructed after April 2, 2018 that engage in OCS activities.
(b) U.S. MODUs, floating OCS facilities, and vessels other than OSVs regulated under subchapter L of this chapter and U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable and combustible cargoes, may comply with this subpart in lieu of §§ 111.105-1 through 111.105-15. All other sections of subpart 111.105 of this part remain applicable.
(a) Electrical installations in hazardous locations, where necessary for operational purposes, must be located in the least hazardous location practicable.
(b) Electrical installations in hazardous locations must comply with paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) NFPA 70 Articles 500 through 504 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter). Equipment required to be identified for Class I locations must meet the provisions of Sections 500.7 and 500.8 of NFPA 70 and must be tested and listed by an independent laboratory to any of the following standards:
(i) ANSI/UL 674 (2013), ANSI/UL 823, ANSI/UL 844 (2012), ANSI/UL 913, ANSI/UL 1203, UL 1604 (replaced by ANSI/ISA 12.12.01) or ANSI/UL 2225 (2011) (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).
(ii) FM Approvals Class Number 3600, Class Number 3610, Class Number 3611, Class Number 3615, or Class Number 3620 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).
(iii) CSA C22.2 Nos. 0-M91, 30-M1986, 157-92, or 213-M1987 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).
Note to § 111.108-3(b)(1): See Article 501.5 of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) for use of Zone equipment in Division designated spaces.
(2) NFPA 70 Article 505 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter). Equipment required to be identified for Class I locations must meet the provisions of Sections 505.7 and 505.9 of NFPA 70 and must be tested and listed by an independent laboratory to one or more of the types of protection in ANSI/ISA Series of standards incorporated in NFPA 70.
Note to paragraph (b)(2). See Article 505.9(c)(1) of the NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) for use of Division equipment in Zone designated spaces.
(3) Clause 6 of IEC 61892-7:2007 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) for all U.S. and foreign floating OCS facilities and vessels on the U.S. OCS or on the waters adjacent thereto; chapter 6 of 2009 IMO MODU Code (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1) for all U.S. and foreign MODUs; or clause 6 of IEC 60092-502 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1) for U.S. tank vessels that carry flammable and combustible cargoes. Electrical apparatus in hazardous locations must be tested to IEC 60079-1:2007, IEC 60079-2:2007, IEC 60079-5:2007, IEC 60079-6:2007, IEC 60079-7:2006, IEC 60079-11:2011, IEC 60079-13:2010, IEC 60079-15:2010, IEC 60079-18:2009 or IEC 60079-25:2010 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1) and certified by an independent laboratory under the IECEx System.
(c) System components that are listed or certified under paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section must not be combined in a manner that would compromise system integrity or safety.
(d) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, electrical equipment that complies with the provisions of NFPA 496 (2013) (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) is acceptable for installation in Class I, Divisions 1 and 2. When equipment meeting this standard is used, it does not need to be identified and marked by an independent laboratory. The Commanding Officer, MSC, will evaluate equipment complying with this standard during plan review.
Note to paragraph (d). The Commanding Officer, MSC, will generally consider it acceptable if a manufacturer's certification of compliance is indicated on a material list or plan.
(e) Equipment listed or certified to ANSI/ISA 60079-18 (2012) or IEC 60079-18:2009, respectively, (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter) is not
(f) Submerged pump motors that do not meet the requirements of § 111.105-31(d), installed in tanks carrying flammable or combustible liquids with closed-cup flashpoints not exceeding 60° C (140 °F), must receive concept approval by the Commandant (CG-ENG) and plan approval by the Commanding Officer, MSC.
(g) Internal combustion engines installed in Class I, Divisions 1 and 2 (Class I and IEC, Zones 1 and 2) must meet the provisions of ASTM F2876-10 (incorporated by reference, see § 110.10-1 of this chapter).
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Announcement of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of collection of information requirements.
The Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is announcing that the collection of information requirements contained in the final rule titled “Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors” (41 CFR part 60) have been approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB approval control number is 1250-0009.
The final rule published December 9, 2014 (79 FR 72985), including the information collection requirements, will take effect on April 8, 2015.
Debra A. Carr, Director, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room C-3325, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-0104. This is not a toll-free number.
OFCCP published a final rule entitled “Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors” on December 9, 2014. This final rule amends the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 by replacing the words “sex, or national origin” with the words “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” as directed by Executive Order 13672, titled “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity.” This final rule becomes effective on April 8, 2015.
OFCCP submitted the information collection request on December 8, 2014 to OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On March 17, 2015 OMB approved the collections of information contained in the final rule and assigned this collection OMB Control Number 1250-0009 title “Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Contractors and Subcontractors.” The approval for the collection expires on September 30, 2015. The approved collections of information are:
• Amending the Equal Opportunity Clause: Sections 60-1.4(a) and (b) and 60-4.3(a);
• Amending the Tag Line in Job Advertisements and Solicitations: Sections 60-1.4(a)(2), and 1.4(b)(2); and
• Reporting Denied Visas to Department of State and OFCCP: Section 60-1.10.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS is adjusting the 2015 seasonal apportionments of the total allowable catch (TAC) for pollock in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) by re-apportioning unharvested pollock TAC in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA. This action is necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2015 pollock TAC, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 26, 2015, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2015.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The annual pollock TACs in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA are apportioned among four seasons, in accordance with § 679.23(d)(2). Regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) allow the underharvest of a seasonal apportionment to be added to subsequent seasonal apportionments, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for a given statistical area. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA to reflect the underharvest of pollock in those areas during the A season. In addition, any underharvest remaining beyond 20 percent of the originally specified seasonal apportionment in a particular area may be further apportioned to other statistical areas. Therefore, NMFS also is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock to Statistical Area 620 based on the underharvest of pollock in Statistical Areas 610 and 630 of the GOA. These adjustments are described below.
The B seasonal apportionment of the 2015 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 3,632 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby increases the B season apportionment for Statistical Area 610 by 726 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Area 610 in the A season. This increase is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 610. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is 4,358 mt (3,632 mt plus 726 mt).
The B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 37,820 mt as established by the final 2015 and 206 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 620 by 5,693 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 in the A season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 43,513 mt (37,820 mt plus 5,693 mt).
The B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 4,000 mt as established by the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (80 FR 10250, February 25, 2015). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 630 by 800 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Area 630 in the A season. This increase is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 630. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 4,800 mt (4,000 mt plus 800 mt).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would provide opportunity to harvest increased pollock seasonal apportionments. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 25, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of grapes grown and handled in a designated area of southeastern California. Assessments upon grape handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period began on January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by April 15, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet:
Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 925 (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, grape handlers in a designated area of southeastern California are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable grapes beginning on January 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled.
The grape order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2014 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on October 30, 2014, and unanimously recommended 2015 expenditures of $135,500, a contingency reserve fund of $9,500, and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $110,000. The Committee recommended a crop estimate of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, which is higher than the 5,500,000 18-pound lugs handled last year. The Committee also recommended carrying
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015 fiscal period include $15,500 for research, $17,000 for general office expenses, $62,750 for management and compliance expenses, $25,000 for research and preparation of materials such as the Committee's annual marketing policy statement, and $9,500 for a contingency reserve. The $15,500 research project is a continuation of a vine study in progress by the University of California, Riverside. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal period included $15,500 for research, $22,000 for general office expenses, and $62,500 for management and compliance expenses. Overall 2015 expenditures include an increase in management and compliance expenses and a decrease in general office expenses, and additional funds for a contingency reserve.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by evaluating several factors, including estimated shipments for the 2015 season, budgeted expenses, and the level of available financial reserves. The Committee determined that the $0.0250 assessment rate would generate $145,000 in revenue to cover the budgeted expenses of $135,500, and a contingency reserve fund of $9,500.
Reserve funds by the end of 2015 are projected to be $40,000 if the $9,500 added to the contingency fund is expended or $49,500 if it is not expended. Both amounts are well within the amount authorized under the order. Section 925.41 of the order permits the Committee to maintain approximately one fiscal period's expenses in reserve.
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon a recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate the Committee's recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 14 handlers of southeastern California grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and about 41 grape producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000. Eleven of the 14 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000, according to USDA Market News Service and Committee data. In addition, information from the Committee and USDA's Market News indicates that at least 10 of 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of the grape handlers regulated under the order and about 10 of the producers could be classified as small entities under the Small Business Administration's definitions.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0200 to $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2015 expenditures of $135,500, a contingency reserve fund of $9,500, and an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug of grapes handled. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0250 is $0.0050 higher than the 2014 rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable grapes for the 2015 season is estimated at 5,800,000 18-pound lugs. Thus, the $0.0250 rate should generate $145,000 in income. In addition, reserve funds at the end of the year are projected to be $49,500, which is well within the order's limitation of approximately one fiscal period's expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015 fiscal period include $15,500 for research, $17,000 for general office expenses, $62,750 for management and compliance expenses, $25,000 for research and preparation of materials such as the Committee's annual marketing policy statement, and $9,500 for the contingency reserve. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014 fiscal period included $15,500 for research, $22,000 for general office expenses, and $62,500 for management and compliance expenses. Overall expenditures included an increase in management and compliance expenses and a decrease in general office expenses, and funding of a contingency reserve.
Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered alternative expenditures and assessment rates, to include not increasing the $0.0200 assessment rate currently in effect. Based on a crop estimate of 5,800,000 18-pound lugs, the Committee ultimately determined that increasing the assessment rate to $0.0250 would generate sufficient funds to cover budgeted expenses. Reserve funds at the end of the 2015 fiscal period are projected to be $40,000 if the $9,500 contingency fund is expended or $49,500 if it is not expended. These amounts are well within the amount authorized under the order.
A review of historical crop and price information, as well as preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period, indicates that the producer price for the 2014 season averaged about $22.00 per 18-pound lug of California grapes handled. If the 2015 producer price is similar to the 2014 price, estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total estimated producer revenue would be 0.11 percent for the 2015 season ($0.0250 divided by $22.00 per 18-pound lug).
This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California grape handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015 fiscal period began on January 1, 2015, and the order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable grapes handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.
Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after January 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.0250 per 18-pound lug is established for grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks at certain frames of the forward cargo door. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for cracking of certain forward cargo doors, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain frames, which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 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 SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
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 2014-0228, dated October 20, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An A330 aeroplane operator reported recently cases of crack findings on two different aeroplanes, at frame 20A and at frame 20B close to beam 3 of the forward cargo door. The first finding was detected during scheduled maintenance, while the second one was found during an inspection prompted by the first finding. Subsequent analyses of these cracks identified that the first crack initiated at frame 20B, which is the first primary load path, leading to excessive loads at frame 20A and consequent cracking. Nevertheless, on the other aeroplane, a crack was detected on frame 20A only. Rupture of both frames 20A and 20B could lead to frame 21 failure after a limited number of flight cycles (FC).
This condition, if not detected and corrected, may potentially result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door, which could ultimately jeopardise the aeroplane's safe flight.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14 to provide instructions for a one-time inspection of frames 20A, 20B and 21 in the area of beam 3, until the half pitch between beam 2 and beam 3.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires identification of the Part Number (P/N) of the affected forward cargo doors, a one-time detailed inspection (DET) of each affected door and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [contacting Airbus].
This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.
Required actions also include sending inspection results to Airbus. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014. The service information describes procedures for an inspection for cracking of certain forward cargo doors, and repair if necessary. The actions described in this AOT 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.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $7,565, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 32 work-hours and require parts costing $654,850, for a cost of $657,570 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 May 15, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 202702 has been embodied in production.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks at certain frames of the forward cargo door. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at certain frames, which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the forward cargo door.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of an affected forward cargo door, having a part number identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD, at frames 20A, 20B, and 21 areas located above beam 3, from outside and inside, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014.
(i) F523-70500-000.
(ii) F523-70550-004.
(iii) F523-70500-006.
(iv) F523-70500-008.
(v) F523-70500-010.
(vi) F523-70500-012.
(vii) F523-70500-014.
(viii) F523-70550-000.
(ix) F523-70550-002.
(x) F523-70500-004.
(xi) F523-70550-008.
(xii) F523-70550-050.
(2) If any crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as a mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.
Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to Serge KIYMAZ, Structure Engineer, Structure Engineering—SEES1 CUSTOMER SERVICES, Phone: +33(0)5 82 05 10 33, Fax: +33(0)5 61 93 36 14, email:
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, installing a forward cargo door having any part number specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(xii) of this AD is permitted on any airplane, provided that prior to installation, the door is inspected and, depending on the findings, corrected, in accordance with Airbus AOT A52L010-14, dated September 30, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425- 227-1149. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0228, dated October 20, 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 SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-13-06, for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 2012-13-06 currently requires a one-time detailed inspection to determine the length of the fire shut-off valve (FSOV) bonding leads and for contact or chafing of the wires, and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-13-06, a determination was made that the description of the inspection area specified in the service information was misleading; therefore, some operators might have inspected incorrect bonding leads. This proposed AD would instead require a new one-time detailed inspection of the FSOV bonding leads to ensure that the correct bonding leads are inspected, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct contact or chafing of wires and the bonding leads, which, if not detected, could be a source of sparks in the wing trailing edge, and could lead to an uncontrolled engine fire. May 5, 2015.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 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
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We 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
On June 21, 2012, we issued AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012). AD 2012-13-06 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes and all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes).
Since we issued AD 2012-13-06, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0204, dated September 6, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During a scheduled maintenance check, one operator reported inoperative Fire Shut Off Valve (FSOV). Investigations showed damage at wire located between engine 2 hydraulic FSOV and wing rear spar, in the zones 575/675, and at bonding lead, located between wing rib 7A and rib 8 below hydraulic pressure lines.
Similar inspections on different aeroplanes have shown that one of the causes of damage is the contact between bonding lead and the harness, due to over length of the bonding lead.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to either:
—a potential explosive condition on-ground if the FSOV, that is installed in fuel vapor zone is commanded to close position, or
—a temporary uncontrolled engine fire, if combined with a fire event in the nacelle fed by an hydraulic leakage and not controlled by the fire extinguishing system.
As the affected wire is not powered during normal operation, no defect can be detected unless a test is performed on the FSOV during maintenance check.
EASA issued AD 2011-0084 [
It appeared that the original issue of the Airbus inspection Service Bulletins (SB's) as
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0084, which is superseded, and requires additional work on aeroplanes that have already been inspected in accordance with the instructions of the original issue of the SB's.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-24-0106, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); and Service Bulletin A300-24-6108, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes. 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.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it would take about 8 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 $500 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $145,140, or $1,180 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $50, for a cost of $135 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 May 15, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012).
This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all certificated models; all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical Power.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the description of the inspection area specified in the service information was misleading; therefore, some operators might have inspected incorrect bonding leads. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct contact or chafing of wires and the bonding leads, which, if not detected, could be a source of sparks in the wing trailing edge, and could lead to an uncontrolled engine fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do a one-time detailed inspection to determine the length of the FSOV bonding leads, and to detect contact or chafing of the wires located on the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides of the wing rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-0106, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6108, Revision 01, including Appendices 01, 02, 03, and 04, dated March 26, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); as applicable.
(1) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of AD 2012-13-06,
(2) For airplanes on which the inspection required by paragraph (g) of AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012), has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 4,500 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the length of the bonding lead(s) is more than 80 millimeters (mm) (3.15 inches): Before further flight, replace the bonding lead(s) with a new bonding lead having a length equal to 80 mm ± 2 mm (3.15 inches) ± 0.08 inch, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any contact or chafing of the wires is found, repair the wires before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
As of August 14, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-13-06, Amendment 39-17108 (77 FR 40485, July 10, 2012), no person may install any bonding lead longer than 80 mm ± 2 mm (3.15 inches) ± 0.08 inch, located between the LH/RH engine hydraulic FSOV and wing rear spar in zones 575/675 on any airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0204, dated September 6, 2013, 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 SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on in-service air non-return valves. This proposed AD would require a revision to the Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual (AFM). This proposed AD would also require a revision to the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations for the high pressure (HP) Stage 5 air non-return valves. We are proposing this AD to ensure the flightcrew is provided with procedures to mitigate the risks associated with failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve. Failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve in the open position could result in engine instability and uncommanded in-flight shutdown.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Eric Potter, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5583;
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of multiple instances of corrosion on in-service air non-return valves on Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GIV-X airplanes. This corrosion has resulted in failure of air non-return valves.
The same part number air non-return valve is installed on the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes, but it serves a different purpose in that application, where it functions as an HP Stage 5 air non-return valve.
Failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve in the open position on the Model GVI airplanes could supply high-stage pressure to the low-stage port, resulting in engine instability and uncommanded in-flight shutdown. This condition could also have an adverse effect on subsequent in-flight engine re-start efforts if the flightcrew follows the current AFM procedures.
In light of this information, the FAA has determined that certain procedures should be included in the FAA-approved AFM for Model GVI airplanes to ensure the flightcrew is provided with procedures to mitigate the risks associated with failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve. We have also determined that the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, should be revised to incorporate an airworthiness limitation for the HP Stage 5 air non-return valves.
We reviewed Section 04-08-20, Normal Airstart-Automatic; Section 04-08-30, Manual Airstart-Starter Assist; and Section 04-08-40, Manual Airstart-Windmilling; of Chapter 04, Emergency Procedures, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) AFM, Document Number GAC-AC-G650-OPS-0001, Revision 5, dated August 12, 2013. This service information describes revised procedures for in-flight engine restart and operating procedures.
In addition, we reviewed Section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) Maintenance Manual (MM), Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013. This service information adds an airworthiness limitation for the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve.
This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
We consider this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will positively address the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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
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 May 15, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 36, Pneumatic.
This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on in-service air non-return valves. We are issuing this AD to ensure the flightcrew is provided with procedures to mitigate the risks associated with failure of the high pressure (HP) Stage 5 air non-return valve. Failure of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve in the open position could result in engine instability and uncommanded in-flight shutdown.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the Emergency Procedures section of the AFM by inserting Section 04-08-20, Normal Airstart-Automatic; Section 04-08-30, Manual Airstart-Starter Assist; and Section 04-08-40, Manual Airstart-Windmilling; of Chapter 04, Emergency Procedures; of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) AFM, Document Number GAC-AC-G650-OPS-0001, Revision 5, dated August 12, 2013.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the airplane maintenance manual or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the requirement for the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve from Section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) Maintenance Manual (MM), Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013. The initial compliance time for replacement of the HP Stage 5 air non-return valve is at the applicable time specified in Section 05-10-10, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, of the Gulfstream GVI (G650) MM, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Potter, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5583; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone 800-810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-13-04, for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2013-13-04 currently requires installing a power interruption protection circuit for the landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU). Since we issued AD 2013-13-04, we have determined that additional work is necessary to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would require a new modification of any previously modified LGCIU. This proposed AD would also require revising the maintenance or inspection program to reduce a certain functional check interval. This proposed AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the nose landing gear (NLG), which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 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.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 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
On June 14, 2013, we issued AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). AD 2013-13-04 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. Since we issued AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0202, dated September 5, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
After a push back from the gate, an A320 aeroplane was preparing to initiate taxi, when an uncommanded nose landing gear (NLG) retraction occurred, causing the nose of the aeroplane to hit the ground. Investigations revealed that the retraction was caused by a combination of a power interruption to Landing Gear Control and Interface Units (LGCIU) and an internal hydraulic leak through the landing gear (LG) selector valve 40GA.
Deeper investigations have revealed that LGCIU power interruption appears during engine start at each flight. Even though no incident has been reported in service, it has been determined that a non-compliance to the safety objective exists when combined with a dormant single failure of the selector valve seal leaking.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further incidents of untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the aeroplane.
To address the possible hydraulic leak of the LG selector valve, EASA issued AD 2007-0065 [
To address the risk of untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, EASA issued AD 2011-0202 [
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it has been discovered that additional work is necessary to adequately correct this unsafe condition and consequently, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1346 to Revision 05. An update of the maintenance programme is required as well, following the required modification.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0202, which is superseded, and requires certain additional actions, as defined in the revised Airbus SB, as applicable to aeroplane model, and an update of the approved maintenance programme.
The additional actions include a new modification of any previously modified LGCIU, and reducing a certain functional check interval. This proposed AD also adds airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production to the applicability. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012. The service information describes procedures for modifying the LGCIU. 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.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013), take about 48 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $8,220
We estimate that it would take about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the new modification in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $9,650 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the new modification on U.S. operators to be $11,539,560 or $13,560 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to revise the maintenance or inspection program in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of revising the maintenance program on U.S. operators to be $72,335 or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this 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 May 15, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013).
(1) This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a determination that additional work is necessary to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the nose landing gear (NLG), which, while on the ground, could result in injury to ground personnel and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). For all airplanes except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Install a power interruption protection circuit for the landing gear control interface unit (LGCIU), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than the Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).
(1) For airplanes that have embodied Airbus Modification 38947 specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1348 during production or in service: Within 72 months after August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)).
(2) For all airplanes other than those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 60 months after August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013). For airplanes on which the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done before August 14, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013)) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, dated December 4, 2008 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes): Within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, re-identify the identification plates, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 04, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 22, 2011 (for Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes other than Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes).
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: Modify the LGCIU at the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 03, including Appendix 1, dated October 5, 2011 (for Model A319CJ (corporate jet) airplanes). Accomplishing the modification in this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which any LG selector valve having part number (P/N) 114079019 is installed and that have embodied Airbus Modification 38947 specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1348 during production or in service: Modify the LGCIU within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which any LG selector valve 40GA having a part number listed in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(xii) of this AD, provided the valve has the marking “DI” or “DI-BE” recorded on its amendment plates: Modify the LGCIU within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.
(i) P/N 114079001.
(ii) P/N 114079005.
(iii) P/N 114079009.
(iv) P/N 114079013.
(v) P/N 114079001A.
(vi) P/N 114079005A.
(vii) P/N 114079009A.
(viii) P/N114079015.
(ix) P/N 114079001AB.
(x) P/N 114079005AB.
(xi) P/N 114079009AB.
(xii) P/N 114079017.
(3) For all airplanes other than those identified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Modify the LGCIU within 60 months after the effective date of this AD.
For airplanes that have been modified as of the effective date of this AD as specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this AD, except airplanes on which Airbus modification 37866 has been embodied in production: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the additional modification of the LGCIU, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 05, dated January 13, 2012.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 01, dated October 27, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 02, dated November 4, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, Revision 03, dated January 7, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1346, including Appendices 01 and 02, Revision 04, dated April 22, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013).
Before further flight after accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD or within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Task 32.30.00.17, “Functional Check of LGCIU Power Supply Relays,” of Section C-32 of Section C, Systems and Powerplant, of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Review Board Report, Revision 18, dated March 2013. The initial compliance time is within 4,000 flight hours after accomplishing the additional modification of the LGCIU.
This paragraph provides credit for A319 Corporate Jet airplanes for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD if that modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, dated December 4, 2008; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 01, dated August 31, 2009; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1349, Revision 02, dated June 16, 2010.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-13-04, Amendment 39-17492 (78 FR 41286, July 10, 2013) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0202, dated September 5, 2013, 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—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise part of the Arizona Regional Haze (RH) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) applicable to the Coronado Generating Station (Coronado). In response to a petition for reconsideration from the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), the owner/operator of Coronado, we are proposing to replace a plant-wide compliance method with a unit-specific compliance method for determining compliance with the best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NO
Written comments must be submitted to the designated contact on or before May 15, 2015. Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before April 15, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
See the
Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
• The words or initials
• The initials
• The words
• The initials
• The term
• The initials
• The initials
• The words
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that are listed in the index on
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2015. Submit your comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public docket without change. We may make comments available online at
Do not submit CBI to EPA through
When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the identified comment period deadline.
If anyone contacts EPA by April 15, 2015 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the hearing in the
Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas in 1977 by adding section 169A to the CAA. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.”
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a RH SIP (“Arizona RH SIP”) under Section 308 of the RHR to EPA Region 9 on February 28, 2011. The Arizona RH SIP included BART determinations for NO
. . . the emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu established in the consent decree was not the result of a BART five-factor analysis, nor does the consent decree indicate that SCR at 0.080 lb/MMBtu represents BART. Nonetheless, given the compliance schedule established in the consent decree and the preliminary information received from SRP regarding the status of design and construction of the SCR system, it appears that achieving a 0.050 lb/MMBtu emission rate may not be technically feasible. Even if it is feasible, achievement of this emission rate may not be cost-effective. Therefore, we are proposing an emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu as BART for NO
In its comments on our proposal, SRP asserted that a NO
In setting the NO
We received a petition from SRP on February 4, 2013, requesting partial reconsideration and administrative stay of our final rule under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
EPA is proposing a unit-specific compliance method and separate emission limits for NO
In a letter sent to EPA on November 18, 2013, SRP outlined its views concerning the compliance method and emission limit at Coronado.
The 30-day rolling average NO
Because we are proposing to replace the plant-wide average emission rate limit for NO
After EPA granted reconsideration, SRP submitted additional information to EPA, including two reports prepared by S&L and RMB concerning the achievability of various NO
The 2013 S&L report consisted of an emission analysis of the SCR for Unit 1. Similar to the 2012 S&L report, which concerned Unit 2, the 2013 analysis examined the effect of startup/shutdown events, low-load cycling, and steam reheat on emissions over a 30-day average. In summary, the 2013 S&L analysis examined load profile data for Unit 1 for the period from January 1, 2011, through July 31, 2013, and estimated NO
Based on the emission rates summarized in Table 1 above, the S&L analysis examined the 30-day emission rate for Unit 1 assuming several combinations of startup events and loading profiles. The highest controlled 30-day average emission rate for several selected scenarios is presented in Table 2. The full analysis, including selected spreadsheets that contain the emission rate modeling for certain operating scenarios, is available in the docket for this proposed rule.
The supplemental information submitted by SRP on November 13, 2013, also included a report from RMB. In this report, RMB stated that it used equations for calculating the UPL, which is a statistical technique that examines an existing set of data points and predicts the chances (
RMB stated that it applied the equations for calculating UPL values to CEMS data for Unit 1, as well as to the CEMS data from three SCR-equipped coal-fired boilers that it considered comparable to Unit 1.
RMB then indicated that if the emission limit were considered a “never to be exceeded value,” an additional compliance margin should be incorporated given that the 99th percentile value does not account for the entire potential range of operating conditions that may occur. RMB indicated that rounding upwards to the next highest reasonable interval, 0.080 lb/MMBtu, would provide an approximate 10 percent compliance margin, and proposed that this value represents the lowest achievable NO
SRP provided additional information to EPA on April 28, 2014, that included documentation on SCR design parameters for Unit 2, the number of historical startup events occurring within single 30-day periods for Units 1 and 2, and expected future operation of Units 1 and 2.
In proposing a unit-specific limit for Unit 1, we have reviewed each of the analyses provided by SRP including the emission spreadsheets developed by S&L for several load profile scenarios. In addition, we have compared SRP's emission estimates for certain load profiles with actual Unit 1 emission data as reported to the Air Markets Program Data (AMPD).
With regard to the RMB analysis, we are unable to assess fully this analysis, as it lacked documentation regarding many of its components. In particular, RMB did not identify the UPL equation(s) it used or the emission rate characteristics, data distribution, number of emission rates, or t- or z-scores. RMB did not present specific evidence that the two SCR-equipped units are representative of how Coronado will perform when carefully operated after installation of SCR. In particular, RMB did not address the possibility that the SCR systems on these two units malfunctioned or were incorrectly operated during the data period. Accordingly, we are unable to evaluate RMB's assertions regarding its UPL calculations.
More fundamentally, we do not consider a UPL analysis to be necessary or appropriate for use in establishing an emission limit for Coronado Unit 1. Because the UPL method is a statistical technique, it is essentially an analytical tool that can be applied to any data set
By contrast, the data set available here is much more extensive, represents continuous data collected over a long period of time, and covers a wider range of unit operations. In particular, the UPL analyses performed by RMB for Coronado Unit 1 and the three SCR-equipped coal-fired boilers examined actual emission data from CEMS (or in the case of Coronado Unit 1, modeled emission data based on actual load operation) that consisted of thousands of data points collected continuously over periods of time ranging from eight months to over a year. As noted above, this is a different context than rulemakings in which EPA has employed the UPL method to develop category-wide emission standards based on, at most, a few dozen data points. Given the size and scope of the data set available in this instance, we propose to find that the use of the UPL method is not appropriate.
Finally, we do not agree with RMB's suggestion that the emission limit for Coronado Unit 1 should be rounded up to provide an additional compliance margin. We note that the UPL methodology used by EPA for MACT standard development does not include rounding up to the next highest reasonable interval as suggested by RMB. Given the conservative nature of the assumptions in the S&L analysis, we do not consider additional compliance margin appropriate in this instance.
Accordingly, in evaluating an appropriate limit for Coronado Unit 1, we have relied primarily upon the information provided in the S&L analysis. This analysis found that an emission rate of 0.065 lb/MMBtu would be appropriate for a scenario consisting of low-load cycling operations (with steam reheat) and three cold startups within a 30-day period. As described above, we consider this to be a reasonable estimate of SCR performance for Coronado Unit 1. We are are therefore proposing a limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu on a rolling 30-BOD basis.
SRP also provided documentation in its April 28, 2014 letter of Unit 2 design parameters and indicated that it is proceeding with the installation of a low-load temperature-control system (
In our final rule published on December 5, 2012, establishing the NO
The information subsequently provided by SRP supports the assertion that the emission limit in the Consent Decree of 0.080 lb/MMBtu represents BART for this unit. In particular, the fact that SRP has already installed a low-load temperature-control system at this unit in order to meet the 0.080 lb/MMBtu limit suggests that a lower limit would not be achievable on a 30-BOD basis. As a result, we propose to set a unit-specific NO
In addition, we propose to revise the work practice standard at 40 CFR 52.145(f)(10) to require the operation of the SCR at all times that Unit 2 is in operation, consistent with technological
The Arizona RH FIP incorporates by reference certain provisions of the Arizona Administrative Code that establish an affirmative defense for excess emissions due to malfunctions.
The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for seven pollutants, including NO
The other requirements of the CAA that are applicable to Coronado are:
• Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 40 CFR part 60, subpart D;
• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU;
• Compliance Assurance Monitoring, 40 CFR part 64;
• BART and other visibility protection requirements under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 169A and 40 CFR part 51, subpart P; and
• Interstate transport visibility requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Today's proposed revisions would not affect the applicable requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, or Compliance Assurance Monitoring requirements. Therefore, we propose to find that these revisions would not interfere with these requirements.
The proposed revisions would alter the specific emission limits that constitute BART for NO
With respect to the CAA's reasonable progress requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) and 169A, we note that in a September 3, 2014, final rule, we set reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for Arizona that accounted for the emission reductions projected to result from implementation of BART at Coronado (among other sources).
Finally, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that all SIPs contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with other states' required measures to protect visibility. In our final rule of September 3, 2014, we determined that control measures in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP were sufficient to fulfill this requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM
EPA is proposing to revise the Arizona RH FIP to replace a plant-wide BART compliance method and emission limit for NO
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only two facilities and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. Each of the owners of facilities affected
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
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 will not have substantial direct effects on any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. EPA is not proposing to revise any technical standards or impose any new technical standards in this action.
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. We expect that Coronado will install the same control technology in order to meet the revised emission limits as would have been necessary to meet the previously finalized limits. As shown in Tables 4 and 5 above, the difference in NO
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), EPA proposes to determine that this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Visibility.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(i)
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A)
(B)
(10)
(ii)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a public meeting.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public meeting and webinar to obtain input on potential revisions to regulations for the Prohibition on Use of Lead Pipes, Solder and Flux. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) prohibits the use or introduction into commerce of pipes, pipe or plumbing fittings or fixtures, solder and flux that are not lead free. These revisions are necessary due to SDWA amendments enacted by Congress in the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011 and the Community Fire Safety Act of 2013.
The public meeting will be held on April 14, 2015 (1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time). This meeting will also be simultaneously broadcast as a webinar, available on the Internet. Persons wishing to participate in the meeting or webinar must pre-register by April 7, 2015, as described in the
More information is available at the following EPA Web site:
To participate in the webinar, you must pre-register by April 7, 2015, at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Michigan has applied to EPA for final authorization of the revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Michigan's application with regards to federal requirements and is proposing to authorize the State's program revisions.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before June 1, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2014-0689, by one of the following methods:
Judith Greenberg, Michigan Regulatory Specialist, RCRA/TSCA Programs Section, RCRA Branch, Land and Chemicals Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, LR-8J, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Judith Greenberg can be reached by telephone at (312) 886-4179 or via email at
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and request EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
We have made a tentative decision that Michigan's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Michigan final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in the authorization application. Michigan will have responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its program revision application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Michigan, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this tentative decision, once finalized, is that a facility in Michigan subject to RCRA would have to comply with the authorized state requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Michigan has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include among others, authority to:
1. Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
2. Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and
3. Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Michigan will be authorized are already effective, and will not be changed by EPA's final action.
If EPA receives adverse comments on this authorization, we will address all public comments in a later
Michigan initially received final authorization on October 16, 1986, effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to Michigan's program on November 24, 1989, effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608); on January 24, 1991, effective June 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517); on October 1, 1993, effective November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244); on January 13, 1995, effective January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095); on February 8, 1996, effective April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742); on November 14, 1997, effective November 14, 1997 (62 FR 61775); on March 2, 1999, effective June 1, 1999 (64 FR 10111); on July 31, 2002, effective July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49617); on March 9, 2006, effective March 9, 2006 (71 FR 12141); on January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1077), effective January 7, 2008; and on March 2, 2010, effective March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9345).
On June 9, 2014, Michigan submitted its final application seeking authorization of hazardous waste program revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We have determined, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Michigan's program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we propose to grant Michigan final authorization for the following program changes:
The most significant differences between the state rules we are proposing to authorize and federal rules are summarized below. It should be noted that this summary does not describe every difference or every detail regarding the differences that are described. Members of the regulated community are advised to read the complete rules to ensure that they understand the requirements with which they will need to comply.
There are aspects of the Michigan program which are more stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent requirements are or will become part of the federally enforceable RCRA program when authorized by the EPA, and must be complied with in addition to the state requirements which track the minimum federal requirements. These more stringent requirements are found at (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):
Michigan does not allow containment buildings, making the state requirements more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR 262.10(f), (k)(1) and (k); 262.11(d); 262.41(b); 263.12; 40 CFR part 264 subpart DD; 40 CFR 265 subpart DD; and 40 CFR part 264 appendix I, Tables 1 and 2.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9220 are more stringent than the federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 since the State's listing of F019 includes recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption of wastewater treatment sludge generated from zinc phosphating, when zinc phosphating is used in the automobile assembly process, while the federal analog at 40 CFR 261.31 has separate recordkeeping requirements for generators claiming the exemption, rather than having the recordkeeping requirements as a condition of the exemption.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(1), (2), (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i); R 299.9608(1), (6) and (8); R 299.9615; and R 299.9702(1) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR 265.56(b), 265.71, 265.72, 265.142(a), 265.174, 265.190(a), 265.193, 265.194, 265.197, 265.201, and 265.340(b)(1) since the State rules include provisions that require compliance with standards equivalent to 40 CFR part 264 rather than 40 CFR part 265.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9601(2)(a) and R 299.9602 are more stringent since the rules impose requirements regarding environmental and human health standards generally.
Michigan's rules at R 299.9615(4) are more stringent since the State rules require tank systems to comply with Michigan 1941 Act 207 standards (which govern above-ground storage tanks).
Michigan's rules at R 299.9623(9) are more stringent since the State rules require incinerators to comply with Michigan Part 55 standards (which address air pollution).
Michigan's rules at R 299.9629(7)-(7)(c) are more stringent since the State rules require timely notification of an exceedance of a groundwater surface water interface standard based on acute toxicity and established pursuant to part 201 and part 31 of act 451 and implementation of interim measures to prevent exceedance at the monitoring wells along with a proposal and schedule for completing corrective action to prevent a discharge that exceeds the standard.
Michigan's rules at R 299.11002(1) and (2) are more stringent than the federal analogs at 40 CFR 260.11(d) and (d)(1) since the State adopts updated versions of the “Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.”
There are also aspects of Michigan's revised program which are broader in scope than the federal program. State provisions that EPA determines are broader in scope are not part of the federally authorized program and are not federally enforceable. Michigan's program revisions include the following rules that are broader in scope than the federal program (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):
R 299.9226, R 299.9501(3)(d) (second sentence only) and R 299.9507, as amended effective November 5, 2013.
The following Michigan administrative rules that were broader in scope than the federal program were rescinded effective November 5, 2013 (references are to the Michigan Administrative Code):
R 299.9221 (Table 203b), R 299.9223 (Table 204b), R 299.9904, R 299.9905, R 299.9906, and R 299.11101, R 299.11102, R 299.11103, R 299.11104, R 299.11105, R 299.11106, and R 299.11107.
Michigan will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of the proposed authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of the authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Michigan is not yet authorized.
Michigan is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian Country within the State, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within the State of Michigan;
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian Country.
Therefore, authorizing Michigan for these revisions would not affect Indian Country in Michigan. EPA would continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian Country. It is EPA's long-standing position that the term “Indian lands” used in past Michigan hazardous waste approvals is synonymous with the term “Indian Country.”
Codification is the process of placing a state's statutes and regulations that comprise a state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. Michigan's rules, up to and including those revised October 19, 1991, have previously been codified through incorporation-by-reference effective April 24, 1989 (54 FR 7421, February 21, 1989); as amended effective March 31, 1992 (57 FR 3724, January 31, 1992). We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart X, for the codification of Michigan's program changes until a later date.
This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by state law (see
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.
EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply to this rule.
As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the executive order.
Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing state rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection; Administrative practice and procedure; Confidential business information; Hazardous materials transportation; Hazardous waste; Indians-lands; Intergovernmental relations; Penalties; Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to request approval to establish a new information collection for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.
Written comments on this notice must be received by June 4, 2015, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Robert Martin, Records Officer; Email:
The USDA SBIR Program Office proposes to contact Phase II awardees to determine their success in achieving commercial application of a market ready technology that was funded under the USDA SBIR Program. The survey would collect information from Phase II companies that received funding during the years of 1994 to 2014.
Data from the survey will be used to provide information that currently does not exist. The data will be used internally by the USDA SBIR Office to identify past and current activities of Phase II grantees in the areas of technology development, commercialization success, product development or services, and factors that may have prevented the technology from entering into the market place. Depending on the results of the survey, information from the survey will be used to highlight commercialization successes within the small business community; improve and refine program interactions with, and responsiveness to, the small business community; potentially refocus the strategies that are used to accomplish SBIR objectives for commercialization; and identify areas in need of improvement and enhancement. This survey will not be used to formulate or change policies. Rather, it will be used to enable the USDA SBIR Office to be responsive to its constituents and document successes within the USDA SBIR Program.
The objectives of the SBIR Program are to: Stimulate technological innovations in the private sector; strengthen the role of small businesses in meeting Federal research and development needs; increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from USDA-supported research and development efforts; and foster and encourage participation by women-owned and socially and economically disadvantaged small business firms in technological innovations.
The USDA SBIR program is carried out in three separate phases:
1. Phase I awards to determine, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas that appear to have commercial potential.
2. Phase II awards to further develop work from Phase I that meets particular program needs and exhibits potential for commercial application.
3. Phase III awards where commercial applications of SBIR-funded Research/Research and Development (R/R&D) are funded by non-Federal sources of capital; or where products, services or further research intended for use by the Federal Government are funded by follow-on non-SBIR Federal Funding Agreements.
The USDA SBIR Program is administered by NIFA of the USDA. NIFA exercises overall oversight for the policies and procedures governing SBIR grants awarded to the U.S. small business community, representing approximately 2.5% to 2.8% of the USDA extramural R/R&D budget. This represents approximately $201M in Phase II grants awarded to the U.S. small business community from 1994 to 2014.
A total of 499 USDA SBIR Phase II grants were awarded to small businesses between 1994 and 2014, and the USDA SBIR Program plans to contact past Phase II awardees to determine their success in achieving commercial application of a market ready technology under Phase III.
The survey will be administered through a USDA led contract where a contractor will perform an initial web based survey administered through a secure Internet link with a telephone interview and/or in person interview as a follow-up with SBIR Phase II grantees. Both the web based survey and telephone/in person interviews will consist of a series of questions that relate to the commercial status of the technology developed with USDA SBIR Phase II funding as well as general questions regarding the USDA SBIR Program. The USDA SBIR Program office will coordinate the initial contact with the Phase II companies in an effort to introduce the scope of the survey, provide straightforward instructions and facilitate the survey work that the contractor will initiate and complete. Phase II companies that do not respond within two weeks to the initial contact from the USDA SBIR Program Office will be sent a second request by email
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the Department's annual adjustments to the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be used in determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. These guidelines are used by schools, institutions, and facilities participating in the National School Lunch Program (and Commodity School Program), School Breakfast Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program. The annual adjustments are required by section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The guidelines are intended to direct benefits to those children most in need and are revised annually to account for changes in the Consumer Price Index.
Vivian Lees, Branch Chief, Operational Support Branch, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, or by phone at (703) 305-2322.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
The affected programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.553, No. 10.555, No. 10.556, No. 10.558 and No. 10.559 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).
Pursuant to sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(4)), and sections 3(a)(6) and 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(6) and 1773(e)(1)(A)), the Department annually issues the Income Eligibility Guidelines for free and reduced price meals for the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR part 210), the Commodity School Program (7 CFR part 210), School Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220), Summer Food Service Program (7 CFR part 225) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR part 226) and the guidelines for free milk in the Special Milk Program for Children (7 CFR part 215). These eligibility guidelines are based on the Federal income poverty guidelines and are stated by household size. The guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk in accordance with applicable program rules.
In accordance with the Department's policy as provided in the Food and Nutrition Service publication
“Income,” as the term is used in this notice, does
The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2015 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85, respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar.
This notice displays only the annual Federal poverty guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services because the monthly and weekly Federal poverty guidelines are not used to determine the Income Eligibility Guidelines. The chart details the free and reduced price eligibility criteria for monthly income, income received twice monthly (24 payments per year), income received every two weeks (26 payments per year) and weekly income.
Income calculations are made based on the following formulas: Monthly income is calculated by dividing the annual income by 12; twice monthly income is computed by dividing annual income by 24; income received every two weeks is calculated by dividing annual income by 26; and weekly income is computed by dividing annual income by 52. All numbers are rounded upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four in the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the territories represent an increase of 1.7 percent over last year's level for a family of the same size. The income eligibility guidelines table follows below.
Section 9(b)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1).
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“Department”) announces adjusted income eligibility guidelines to be used by State agencies in determining the income eligibility of persons applying to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC). These income eligibility guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the WIC Regulations.
Effective Date July 1, 2015.
Donna Hines, Chief, Policy Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, FNS, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2746.
This notice is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.
This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.557, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, 48 FR 29100, June 24, 1983, and 49 FR 22675, May 31, 1984).
Section 17(d)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(A)), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish income criteria to be used with nutritional risk criteria in determining a person's eligibility for participation in the WIC Program. The law provides that persons will be income-eligible for the WIC Program only if they are members of families that satisfy the income standard prescribed for reduced-price school meals under section 9(b) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)). Under section 9(b), the income limit for reduced-price school meals is 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, as adjusted. Section 9(b) also requires that these guidelines be revised annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual revision for 2015/2016 was published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at 80 FR 3236, January 22, 2015. The guidelines published by HHS are referred to as the “poverty guidelines.”
Section 246.7(d)(1) of the WIC regulations (Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations) specifies that State agencies may prescribe income guidelines either equaling the income guidelines established under section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act for reduced-price school meals, or identical to State or local guidelines for free or reduced-price health care. However, in conforming WIC income guidelines to State or local health care guidelines, the State cannot establish WIC guidelines which exceed the guidelines for reduced-price school meals, or which are less than 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. Consistent with the method used to compute income eligibility guidelines for reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program, the poverty guidelines were multiplied by 1.85 and the results rounded upward to the next whole dollar. At this time, the Department is publishing the maximum and minimum WIC income eligibility guidelines by household size for the period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. Consistent with section 17(f)(17) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(17)), a State agency may implement the revised WIC income eligibility guidelines concurrently with the implementation of income eligibility guidelines under the Medicaid Program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396,
State agencies that do not coordinate implementation with the revised Medicaid guidelines must implement the WIC income eligibility guidelines on July 1, 2015. The first table of this Notice contains the income limits by household size for the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, and all Territories, including Guam.
Because the poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than for the 48 contiguous States, separate tables for Alaska and Hawaii have been included for the convenience of the State agencies.
42 U.S.C. 1786.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection for the development and maintenance of a central repository containing information about authorized WIC foods as approved by various WIC State agencies.
Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2015.
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
Comments may be sent to: Steve Porter, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 528, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Steve Porter at 703-305-2196 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Steve Porter at 703-305-2721.
The WIC Program is administered by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). FNS provides grant funding and issues regulations which are utilized by WIC State agencies to operate the WIC Program and distribute benefits through local WIC clinics. The program operates throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and in 34 Indian Tribal Organizations.
The USDA Food and Nutrition Service previously included WIC State agencies in burden calculations for the NUPC database. WIC State agencies have been removed from this burden calculation and will instead be included in the burden calculation associated with the final regulations for WIC Electronic Benefit Transfer promulgated as a result of The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296). The remainder of this abstract provides a brief description of WIC program operations and recent modifications to the NUPC database.
WIC State agencies are required to authorize eligible foods on their WIC food list by federal regulations at 7 CFR part 246. Under these regulations, State agencies must review food products for eligibility in accordance with Federal regulations and State agency policies. State agencies are not required to authorize all food products eligible under federal regulations, but generally select foods based on factors such as cost, availability and acceptability to participants. After review, the State agency develops a list of food items available to WIC participants for purchase. State agencies require Authorized Vendors (
WIC State agencies currently operating Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems provide their Authorized Vendors with an electronic file containing the State agency's current list of authorized foods. This food list is known as the Authorized Products List (APL). In State agencies where EBT systems are operational, as products are scanned at the checkout lane, the UPC or PLU is matched to the State specific APL. Food items matching the APL, and which are presented in quantities less than or equal to the remaining benefit balance associated with the participant's WIC EBT card, are approved for purchase. Unmatched items, or items in excess of the available account balance, may not be purchased with WIC benefits.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a National Universal Product Code (NUPC) database for use by all WIC State agencies as they implement Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) statewide. As a result of this legislation, FNS has adopted a plan to expand the number of data elements contained in the existing NUPC database while simultaneously attempting to reduce the burden on WIC State agency employees tasked with creating State specific APL's by assembling food product information in an easily accessible repository.
NUPC database modifications and expansion activities have allowed for the storage and retrieval of additional data elements for each WIC authorized food to include: Nutrition facts panel, ingredients, special processing practices (
The NUPC database will provide all WIC State agencies with access to a central repository containing comprehensive information about authorized WIC foods. State agencies may choose to use the NUPC database to create an initial list of authorized foods eligible for redemption by WIC Program participants. Subsequently, State agencies may use the NUPC database to maintain their list of authorized foods and to create an APL for distribution to Authorized Vendors when operating in the EBT environment.
The estimated time per response varies by type of respondent. FNS expects all respondents will expend 12 hours per respondent per year to develop, maintain, and troubleshoot the electronic systems for use in transmitting information. The estimated time required to develop, maintain, and troubleshoot electronic systems is amortized over the expected number of responses. FNS also expects all respondents will expend 2 seconds per response to transmit information to FNS electronically. Since the time required to actually transmit the information to FNS is considered negligible (total of 40 minutes per year for all respondents), it was omitted from the burden calculation. FNS expects that Food Manufacturers or Distributors will expend 6 hours per response to gather and format the requested information. Authorized Vendors are expected to expend 1 hour per response to gather and format the requested information.The estimated time per response for Food Manufacturers or Distributors is expected to be 9 hours per response ((12 hours per year/4 responses per year) + 6 hours per response = 9 hours per response).
The estimated time per response for Authorized Vendors is expected to be 7 hours per response ((12 hours per year/2 responses per year) + 1 hour per response = 7 hours per response).
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting; correction.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a document in the
David Mussatt, 312-353-8311.
In the
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 Missouri Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. CST.
In the
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. CST.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New York Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12:00 p.m. via conference call on Friday, April 10, 2015. The purpose of the planning meeting is for the Advisory Committee to discuss plans to conduct a public meeting on the over policing of communities of color in New York.
The meeting will be conducted via conference call. Persons with hearing impairments must first dial the Federal Relay Service
Members of the public who call-in 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.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in ERO by 30 days after the meeting date. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Observer Policy Committee will meet to review scientific information affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 16, 2015 beginning at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton (formerly Sheraton Colonial), One Audubon Ave., Wakefield, MA 01880.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Observer Committee will review and discuss updated information and analyses for the draft Environmental Assessment for the NMFS-led omnibus amendment to establish provisions for Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) across all Council-managed fisheries; consider additional options for industry-funded portside sampling and electronic monitoring (EM) in the Atlantic herring fishery, to be implemented immediately in the IFM amendment (versus a framework adjustment); develop Committee recommendations; review/discuss updated information related to herring/mackerel economic analysis in omnibus IFM amendment; discuss other elements of IFM amendment and develop Committee recommendations; review Draft Action Plan and timeline for completion of IFM amendment. They will address other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
On March 16, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a
Applications for immediate consideration should be received no later than close of business April 13, 2015. Applications will continue to be accepted until June 30, 2016, for appointments to fill future vacancies that may arise.
Please send requests for consideration to Braeden Young, Office of Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, either by email at
Braeden Young, Office of Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-1093.
For more information on the United States-Brazil CEO Forum, please see the Request for Applicants. The Terms of Reference may be viewed at:
As delineated in the Request for Applicants, to be considered for membership, please submit the following information as instructed in the
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 June 1, 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 Walter Ikehara, (808) 725-5175 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Fishermen in Federally-managed fisheries in the western Pacific region are required to provide certain information about their fishing activities, catch, and interactions with protected species by submitting reports to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), per 50 CFR part 665. These data are needed to determine the condition of the stocks and whether the current management measures are having the intended effects, to evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and to monitor and respond to accidental takes of endangered and threatened species, including seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, submission via Vessel Monitoring System device or online, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
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.
Xylem Water Systems USA LLC (Xylem), operator of Subzone 37D, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities located in Auburn, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 23, 2015.
Xylem already has authority to produce centrifugal and submersible pumps and related controllers. The current request would add a finished product (pump demonstration cutaways) and certain foreign-status materials and components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Xylem from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Xylem would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to centrifugal and submersible pumps (free), pump demonstration cutaways (free), and controllers (1.5%) for the foreign status components and materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority.
Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: strainer parts; shaft coupling parts; cast iron bases; non-asbestos gaskets; plastic resins; electric current filtration devices; polyester rope; pressure transducers; and, fluid sight glasses (duty rate ranges from free to 6.5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 11, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
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 June 1, 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 Andy Collins, at (808) 694-3922 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. Mokupapapa Discovery Center (Center) is an outreach arm of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument that reaches 60,000 people each year in Hilo, Hawai`i. The Center was created eight years ago to help raise support for the creation of a National Marine Sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Since that time, the area has been proclaimed a Marine National Monument and the main messages we are trying to share with the public have changed to better reflect the new monument status, UNESCO World Heritage status and the joint management by the three co-trustees of the Monument. We therefore are seeking to find out if people visiting our Center are receiving our new messages by conducting an optional exit survey.
Surveys will be conducted by in-person interview as people exit the Center. Interviewers will record responses on paper, and later transfer them to an electronic database.
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.
On September 24, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from the Republic of Korea.
Effective March 31, 2015.
Brian Davis (Hyosung) or David Cordell (Hyundai), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7924 or (202) 482-0408, respectively.
On September 24, 2014, the Department published the
The scope of this order covers large liquid dielectric power transformers (LPTs) having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and 8504.90.9540.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
For Hyosung, we revised our margin program by adjusting Hyosung's reported U.S. duty expenses for certain sales transactions. We are also including U.S. freight expenses that were excluded in the
We made some changes to our calculation programs for Hyundai with respect to oil and certain other expenses. We also used the latest revised databases for U.S. sales and the Cost of Production based on post-preliminary questionnaires and responses.
As a result of the aforementioned recalculations of Hyosung's and Hyundai's weighted-average dumping margins, the weighted-average dumping margin for the three non-selected companies also changed.
As a result of this review, the Department determines the following weighted-average dumping margins
The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on
We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 29.93 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2015.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to OMB within 30 days of the notice's publication by email at
•
•
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Eileen Chotiner, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5467; email:
This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Senior Corps Foster Grand Parent pilot case study for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Anthony Nerino, at (202) 606-3913 or email to
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 the Corporation for National and Community Service, 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 the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
The case study instrument will involve interviews and focus groups
Interview and focus group data will be collected via taped and written responses to telephone conversations. Data analysis will focus on identifying and understanding factors associated the process (opportunity costs, benefits, obstacles and preparation) related to the decision to use a model approach to tutoring and educational interventions.
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 1, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-502-7411.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
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:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a live Board meeting of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat.770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
April 28, 2015 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; April 29, 2015 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Hilton Garden Inn Austin Downtown/Convention Center, 500 N Interstate 35, Austin, TX 78701
Monica Neukomm, Policy Advisor, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone number 202-287-5189, and email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be submitting renewals of information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each ICR listed in the
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without modifications including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Kevin Roland, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, (4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4588; fax number: 202-564-3755; email address:
Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public dockets for these ICRs. The dockets can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be submitting the “Information Collection Request Renewal for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3)” (EPA ICR No. 2192.06, OMB Control No. 2040-0270) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0090, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Brenda D. Parris, Technical Support Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone (513) 569-7961 or email at
Supporting documents that explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA requests comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
UCMR 3 “Assessment Monitoring” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for all large systems (those systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 people) and very large systems (those systems serving more than 100,000 people), and for a nationally representative sample of 800 small systems (those systems serving 10,000 or fewer people). The “Screening Survey” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for all very large systems, 320 randomly-selected large systems, and 480 randomly selected small systems. “Pre-Screen Testing” began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for a sample of 800 small, undisinfected ground water systems (those systems serving 1,000 or fewer people).
This notice proposes renewal of the currently approved UCMR 3 ICR, (OMB Control No. 2040-0270), which covers the period 2012-2014. This ICR renewal accounts for activities conducted during 2015-2017. The complete five-year UCMR 3 period of 2012-2016 overlaps with the applicable ICR period only during 2015 and 2016. PWSs will only be involved in active monitoring during 2015 (
This information collection does not require respondents to disclose confidential information.
• Fewer PWSs participate during the ICR period of 2015-2017 than in 2012-2014. Only one third of the systems monitor for UCMR 3 contaminants in 2015-2017; two-thirds of the systems have already monitored for UCMR 3 contaminants in 2012-2014.
• The schedule of activities for PWSs differs. Some initial activities were conducted by all systems during the previous ICR period. These activities will not take place during the second ICR period of 2015-2017.
• The schedule of activities differs for participating states. Management and support activities for states vary with the UCMR 3 monitoring schedule. States are expected to incur less burden during this second UCMR 3 ICR period of 2015-2017.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, 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 the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary Kuiper or John Popeo, at the FDIC address above.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 24, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
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
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 24, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to engage through Valparaiso Enterprises, Inc., Valparaiso, Nebraska, in general insurance activities in a town of less than 5,000 in population, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A).
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and section 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 April 15, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Children's Bureau; Administration on Children, Youth and Families; ACF, HHS.
Notice.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5106a, the Children's Bureau (CB) announces the opportunity for public comment on the policy interpretation of section 106(b)(2)(B)(x) articulated in question 2.1A.4 #8 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM), which concerns the public disclosure of findings or information about a case of child abuse or neglect which results in a child fatality or near fatality.
Submit written or electronic comments on or before June 29, 2015.
Interested persons may submit comments to
Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Policy Division, 8th Floor, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email address:
Section 106(b)(2)(B)(x) of CAPTA requires a certification by the State Governor that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a statewide program, relating to child abuse and neglect that includes “provisions which allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality.” We revised our policy interpretation of the statutory provision regarding public disclosure of information in cases of child abuse or neglect which have resulted in a child fatality or near fatality found in section 106(b)(2)(B)(x) of CAPTA in September 2012 with the addition of CWPM question 2.1A.4 #8. This interpretation requires States to develop procedures for the release of information including, but not limited to: the cause of and circumstances regarding the fatality or near fatality; the age and gender of the child; information describing any previous reports or child abuse or neglect investigations that are pertinent to the child abuse or neglect that led to the fatality or near fatality; the result of any such investigations; and the services provided by and actions of the State on behalf of the child that are pertinent to the child abuse or neglect that led to the fatality or near fatality. States may allow exceptions to the release of information in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the child, parents and family or when releasing the information would jeopardize a criminal investigation, interfere with the protection of those who report child abuse or neglect or harm the child or the child's family. States must also ensure compliance with other federal confidentiality restrictions when implementing the confidentiality provisions under CAPTA, including the confidentiality requirements applicable to titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act (the Act) and in accordance with 45 CFR 1355.30, which requires that records maintained under title IV-E and IV-B of the Act are subject to the confidentiality provisions in 45 CFR 205.50. Among other things, 45 CFR 205.50 restricts the release or use of information concerning individuals receiving financial assistance under these programs to certain persons or agencies that require the information for specified purposes.
We also revised several CWPM answers in section 2.1A to bring them in line with the policy as outlined in the new question and answer (Q/A). CWPM section 2.1A.1, questions 1, 2, 6, and 8; and CWPM section 2.1A.4, questions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were all revised. At that time, Q/A 2.1A.4 #2, was deleted, but it was updated and reissued in August 2013. This Q/A clarifies that when child abuse or neglect results in the death or near death of a child, the State must provide for the disclosure of the information required by section 2.1A.4, Q/A #8 of the CWPM, but that the provision should not be interpreted to require disclosure of information which would fall within the specific exceptions that states are allowed to establish under section 2.1A.4, Q/A #8 of the CWPM. The full Q/A 2.1A.4 #2 can be found at:
We seek comment from state agencies and other stakeholders about the revised policy interpretation at CWPM, section 2.1A.4, Q/A #8, or any other revised policies in section 2.1A of the CWPM noted above.
We encourage stakeholder respondents to address the following questions:
(1) Please describe any challenges you've had obtaining information about child fatalities and near fatalities which resulted from child abuse and neglect from a state. Have there been improvements in obtaining the information since CB revised the policy in CWPM section 2.1.A in September 2012?
(2) What concerns, if any, do you have with the definition of near fatalities in a state?
(3) Has a state responded that the state cannot disclose information due to confidentiality protections? If so, describe the information requested and the confidentiality provision cited by the state.
(4) Does your state offer a public report of the child fatalities review panel/commission? If so, does the report contain the required disclosure of information? Is the report a barrier to obtaining information?
We encourage state agency respondents to address the following questions:
(1) What challenges, if any, have you faced implementing the revised policy? Has the revised policy improved your disclosure process and policies?
(2) Are there challenges in applying the disclosure policy while also ensuring that you adhere to confidentiality protections?
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing support for the World Health Organization (WHO) Drug Dictionary (available at
Although you can comment on this notice at any time, to ensure that the Agency considers your comments submit either electronic or written comments by May 5, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the documents to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.
Submit electronic comments to
Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993-002,
The use of a common dictionary to code concomitant medications is an important component of study data standardization. Generally, controlled terminology standards specify the key concepts that are represented as definitions, preferred terms, synonyms, codes, and code system. The analysis of study data is greatly facilitated by the use of controlled terms for clinical or scientific concepts that have standard, predefined meanings and representations. WHO Drug Dictionary contains unique codes as drug names and corresponding medicinal product information, including active ingredients and the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system for the therapeutic uses. Typically, sponsors and applicants use WHO Drug Dictionary to code and analyze concomitant medications taken by subjects during the course of clinical trials.
Although use of WHO Drug Dictionary codes are not required at this time, FDA now supports and encourages the use of WHO Drug Dictionary coded concomitant medications used in clinical trials. For purposes of this notice, “supported” means the receiving Center has established processes and technology to support receiving, processing, reviewing, and archiving files in the specified standard.
FDA is now encouraging sponsors and applicants to provide WHO Drug Dictionary codes for concomitant medication data in investigational studies provided in regulatory submissions (
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 1, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Virginia Recta, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-164), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0840,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry #226 entitled “Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis.” It is intended to provide recommendations to industry regarding the presentation and statistical analyses of TAS data submitted to CVM as part of a study report to support approval of a new animal drug. These recommendations apply to TAS data generated from both TAS and field effectiveness studies conducted in companion animals (
This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Target Animal Safety Data Presentation and Statistical Analysis.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Respondents: Current healthy marriage program applicants and participants, program managers and facilitators, and experts in the field.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring Odalys Fernandez from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application for a period of 6 years. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Fernandez was convicted of five felony counts under Federal law for conduct involving health care fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and that this pattern of conduct is sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. Ms. Fernandez was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Ms. Fernandez failed to request a hearing. Ms. Fernandez's failure to request a hearing constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing concerning this action.
This order is effective March 31, 2015.
Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Kenny Shade, Division of Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr. (ELEM-4144), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4640.
Section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)) permits debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct which involves bribery, payment of illegal gratuities, fraud, perjury, false statement, racketeering, blackmail, extortion, falsification or destruction of records, or interference with, obstruction of an investigation into, or prosecution of any criminal offense, and FDA finds, on the basis of the conviction and other information, that such individual has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe the individual may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products.
On November 9, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered judgment against Ms. Fernandez after a jury found her guilty of five counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347, and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349.
FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony convictions referenced herein. The factual basis for these convictions is as follows: Ms. Fernandez was a registered nurse working for Ideal Home Health Inc. (Ideal), which was a business in Miami-Dade County, FL. Ideal purportedly provided skilled nursing services to Medicare beneficiaries who required home health services. As a
From on or about August 17, 2007, through on or about March 19, 2009, Ms. Fernandez conspired with others to defraud Medicare.
Ms. Fernandez and her coconspirators submitted, and caused the submission of, false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, and concealed the submission of these false and fraudulent claims.
Ms. Fernandez and her coconspirators falsified and caused Medicare beneficiaries to falsify weekly visit/time record sheets, and falsified skilled nursing progress notes representing that she had administered insulin injections and provided other medical services to Medicare beneficiaries. She caused Ideal to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for home health benefits by falsely representing that she had provided these health services. As a result of these fraudulent claims, she caused Medicare to make payments to Ideal of approximately $82,040. Ms. Fernandez engaged in this criminal conduct repeatedly over a period of approximately 19 months.
As a result of her convictions, on September 8, 2014, FDA sent Ms. Fernandez a notice by certified mail proposing to debar her for 6 years from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on the finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act, that Ms. Fernandez was convicted of felonies under Federal law for conduct involving health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and the Agency found, on the basis of the conviction and other information, that Ms. Fernandez had demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. This conclusion was based on the fact that Ms. Fernandez had legal and professional obligations to ensure that she submitted accurate medical claims for services she provided. Instead, Ms. Fernandez submitted, and caused the submission of, false weekly visit/time records and false daily blood sugar/insulin log sheets. She engaged in this conduct repeatedly over a period of almost 2 years. Her convictions indicate that she knowingly and willfully disregarded her legal and professional obligations to keep accurate medical records and to submit accurate claims for the services she provided. Having considered the conduct that forms the basis of her conviction and the fact that this conduct occurred in the course of her profession and showed a disregard for the obligations of her profession and the law, FDA found that Ms. Fernandez has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe that, if she were to provide services to a person that has an approved or pending drug application, she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products. The proposal offered Ms. Fernandez an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her with 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. The proposal was received on September 12, 2014. Ms. Fernandez failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and has waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Odalys Fernandez has been convicted of five counts of a felony and one count of conspiracy to commit a felony under Federal law for conduct involving health care fraud and, on the basis of the conviction and other information, finds that Ms. Fernandez has demonstrated a pattern of conduct sufficient to find that there is reason to believe she may violate requirements under the FD&C Act relating to drug products.
Based on the factors under section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act, FDA finds that each offense be accorded a debarment period of 3 years. In the case of a person debarred for multiple offenses, FDA shall determine whether the periods of debarment shall run concurrently or consecutively (section 306(c)(2)(A)). FDA has concluded that the 3-year periods of debarment for the five counts of health care fraud shall run concurrently. The 3-year period of debarment for the conspiracy conviction shall run consecutively to the periods of debarment for health care fraud convictions, resulting in a total debarment period of 6 years.
As a result of the foregoing findings, Odalys Fernandez is debarred for 6 years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
Any application by Ms. Fernandez for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0563 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; requests for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a request for additional comments on the chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) information that a sponsor of an investigational new drug application (IND) should provide in its IND in order to meet regulatory requirements when commercially available foods or dietary supplements containing live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) are used as investigational new drugs in early phase clinical trials. The request for additional comments on the CMC information is related to the guidance entitled, “Early Clinical Trials with Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information; Guidance for Industry,” dated February 2012 (February 2012 guidance).
Submit either electronic or written comments on the requested CMC information by May 29, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the February 2012 guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-7800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the requested CMC information to
Jessica T. Walker, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing a request for additional comments on the CMC information that a sponsor of an IND should provide in its IND in order to meet the requirements under § 312.23 (21 CFR 312.23), when commercially available foods or dietary supplements containing LBPs are subject to study as investigational new drugs in early phase clinical trials.
In the
FDA is considering modifying the February 2012 guidance to address the CMC information that should be provided in an IND, under certain conditions. Specifically, FDA is considering whether to revise the guidance to address when the label on the commercially available product(s) would be considered adequate to satisfy the requirement for CMC information under § 312.23. For example, we are considering whether the label would be adequate to satisfy the CMC information when the following conditions are met: (1) The LBP product that is proposed for investigational use is a commercially available food or dietary supplement; (2) the investigation does not involve a route of administration, dose, patient population, or other factor that significantly increases the risk (or decreases the acceptability of risk) associated with the use of the food or dietary supplement; (3) the investigation is not intended to support a marketing application for a drug claim for the food or dietary supplement; and (4) the investigation is conducted in compliance with the requirements for INDs (part 312), the requirements for review by an institutional review board (21 CFR part 56), and with the requirements for informed consent (21 CFR part 50). FDA is seeking public comment on this issue.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding the requested CMC information to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the February 2012 guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Critical Path Innovation Meetings.” This guidance describes a Critical Path Innovation Meeting (CPIM), a means by which FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and investigators from industry, academia, government, and patient advocacy groups can communicate to improve efficiency and success in drug development. The goals of the CPIM are to discuss a methodology or technology proposed by the meeting requester and for CDER to provide general advice on how this methodology or technology might enhance drug development. The discussions and background information submitted through the CPIM are nonbinding on both FDA and CPIM requesters.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Alicia Barbieri Stuart, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4547, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3852.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Critical Path Innovation Meetings.” The guidance describes the purpose and scope of a CPIM and how to request such a meeting. A CPIM provides the opportunity to discuss a methodology or technology proposed by the meeting requester and for CDER to provide general advice on how the methodology or technology might enhance drug development. During a CPIM, CDER will identify some of the larger gaps in existing knowledge that requesters might consider addressing in the course of their work. The discussions and background information submitted through the CPIM are nonbinding on both FDA and CPIM requesters. The CPIM initiative meets Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) V Reauthorization Goal IX.A, “Enhancing Regulatory Science and Expediting Drug Development” by “Promoting Innovation Through Enhanced Communication Between FDA and Sponsors During Drug Development.”
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Critical Path Innovation Meetings.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in 21 CFR part 312 (investigational new drug applications) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collection of information in 21 CFR part 314 (new drug applications) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collection of information resulting from formal meetings between interested persons and FDA has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0429.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by June 1, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Administration for Community Living, 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Room 4716, Washington, DC 20001, attention Melvenia Wright.
Melvenia Wright, Program Specialist, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20001. Telephone: (202) 357-3486; email
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency request or requirements that members of the
The Protection and Advocacy Voting Access Annual Narrative Report from the Protection and Advocacy Systems is required by federal statute and regulation, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Public Law 107-252, title II, subtitle D, section 291, Payments for Protection and Advocacy to Assure Access for Individuals with Disabilities (42 U.S.C. 15461). The report is provided in writing to the Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD). Each eligible Protection and Advocacy System (P&As) must prepare and submit an annual report at the end of every fiscal year by the 31st of December. The report addresses the activities conducted with the funds provided during the year. The information collected from the annual report will be aggregated into an annual profile of how the P&As have utilized the funds and review the P&As activities carried out for each of the seven mandated area. These areas include full participation in the electoral process; education, training and assistance; advocacy and education around HAVA implementation efforts; training and education of election officials, poll workers and election volunteers regarding the rights of voters with disabilities and best practices; assistance in filing complaints; assistance to State and other governmental entities regarding the physical accessibility of polling places; and obtaining training and technical assistance on voting issues. The PAVA annual narrative report will also provide an overview of the goals and accomplishments for each P&A as well as permit the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) to track voting progress to monitor grant activities and create the bi-annual report to Congress.
ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 55 Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&A) respond annually which should be an average burden of 20 hours per State per year or a total of 1,100 hours for all states annually.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on April 15, 2015, from 9:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (EDT) and will include a session that is closed to the public.
The closed meeting will include the review of grant applications, which contain budget information, including the description of how an agency prices its services, information on proposed business relationships and subcontracts. Grant applications also contain personal information and contact information on agency principles. Discussion of proposed funding and awardees would be made public prior to the required congressional notification of grant award. Since the closed meeting will include discussion and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by Initial Review Groups and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants, it will be closed to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and (c)(9)(B) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d).
The open session of the meeting will be held from 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. and will include consideration of minutes from the SAMHSA CSAT NAC meeting of August 27, 2014, Director's report, discussion of SAMHSA's role regarding treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders, budget update, Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Medication Assisted Treatment panel discussions, and a recovery presentation and discussion.
The meeting will be held at the SAMHSA building, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Great Falls Conference Room, Rockville, MD 20850. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available and will be limited to the open sessions of the meeting. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before April 5, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact on or before April 5, 2015. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.
The open meeting session may be accessed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at
Substantive meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Council Web site at:
Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Council Web site,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on our proposed collection of certain information. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies must publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by June 1, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, we invite comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(s) and 348), food irradiation is subject to regulation under the food additive premarket approval provisions of the FD&C Act. The regulations providing for uses of irradiation in the production, processing, and handling of food are found in part 179 (21 CFR part 179). To ensure safe use of a radiation source, § 179.21(b)(1) requires that the label of sources bear appropriate and accurate information identifying the source of radiation and the maximum (or minimum and maximum) energy of the emitted radiation. Section 179.21(b)(2) requires that the label or accompanying labeling bear adequate directions for installation and use and a statement supplied by us that indicates maximum dose of radiation allowed. Section 179.26(c) requires that the label or accompanying labeling bear a logo and a radiation disclosure statement. Section 179.25(e) requires that food processors who treat food with radiation make and retain, for 1 year past the expected shelf life of the products up to a maximum of 3 years, specified records relating to the irradiation process (
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We base our estimate of burden for the recordkeeping provisions of § 179.25(e) on our experience regulating the safe use of radiation as a direct food additive. The number of firms who process food using irradiation is extremely limited. We estimate that there are four irradiation plants whose business is devoted primarily (
No burden has been estimated for the labeling requirements in §§ 179.21(b)(1), 179.21(b)(2), and 179.26(c) because the information to be disclosed is information that has been supplied by FDA. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Patricio Garcia, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1535, Silver Spring MD 20993-0002,
In the
On April 30, 2015, the Agency is adding three Agenda items to the original five agenda items posted in the March 13, 2015,
On May 1, 2015, the committee will discuss key issues related to a potential pre- to postmarket shift in clinical data requirements for modifications to cochlear implants in pediatric patients. These issues are categorized into three broad areas for discussion:
1. Cochlear implant changes (
2. Appropriate premarket clinical data requirements to support pre- to postmarket shift (
3. Clinical study design considerations (
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
On February 5, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0782. The approval expires on March 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to applicants of new drug applications (NDAs) and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) regarding the development and submission of near infrared (NIR) analytical procedures used during the manufacture and analysis of pharmaceuticals. This draft guidance only pertains to the development and validation of NIR analytical procedures and does not provide recommendations concerning the set up and qualification of NIR instruments or their maintenance and calibration.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 1, 2015.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
John L. Smith, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1757.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Development and Submission of Near Infrared Analytical Procedures.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to applicants of NDAs and ANDAs regarding the development and submission of NIR analytical procedures used during the manufacture and analysis of pharmaceuticals (including raw materials, in-process materials and intermediates, and finished products). It also provides recommendations regarding how the concepts described in the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guidance for industry, “Q2(R1) Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology” (
This draft guidance only pertains to the development and validation of NIR analytical procedures and does not provide recommendations concerning the set up and qualification of NIR instruments or their maintenance and calibration.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the submission and development of NIR analytical procedures. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for NDAs, ANDAs, supplements to applications, and annual reports have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Children's Bureau; Administration on Children, Youth and Families; ACF, HHS
Notice.
In accordance with title IV-E of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673), the Children's Bureau (CB) announces the opportunity for public comment on our suspension and termination policies for the title IV-E adoption assistance program, articulated in the Child Welfare Policy Manual. We similarly announce the opportunity to provide public comment about any other policy areas of concern relating to the title IV-E adoption assistance program.
Submit written or electronic comments on or before June 29, 2015.
Interested persons may submit comments to
Kathleen McHugh, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Policy Division, 8th Floor, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email address:
The Social Security Act only permits a title IV-E agency to terminate a child or youth's title IV-E adoption assistance subsidy under three delineated circumstances: (1) The child has attained the age of 18, or the age that the agency has chosen pursuant to sec. 475(8)(B)(iii) and (iv) of the Social Security Act (or the age of 21 if the title IV-E agency has determined that the child has a mental or physical disability which would warrant continuation of assistance); (2) the title IV-E agency determines that the adoptive parents are no longer legally responsible for support of the child; or (3) the title IV-E agency determines that the adoptive parents are no longer providing any support to the child.
CB has interpreted the law to prohibit a title IV-E agency from automatically suspending a title IV-E adoption assistance payment on the basis that suspending title IV-E adoption assistance is equivalent to terminating title IV-E adoption assistance. See Child Welfare Policy Manual, section 8.2D.5, Question and Answer #3 (available at
The statute also requires adoptive parents to keep the title IV-E agency apprised of any circumstances that would impact a child's continued eligibility for title IV-E adoption assistance, or would impact the appropriate amount of the payment. See the Social Security Act at sec. 473(a)(4)(B). However, the statute does not specify a recourse for title IV-E agencies if a parent does not provide such information. CB has explained in the Child Welfare Policy Manual that title IV-E agencies may not suspend or terminate title IV-E adoption assistance if adoptive parents do not respond to requests for information about whether the parents are providing any support to the child, or whether the adoptive parents remain legally responsible for their adopted child. See Child Welfare Policy Manual, section 8.2, Question and Answer #1 (
We seek comment from title IV-E agencies and other stakeholders about the title IV-E adoption assistance suspension and termination policies. We invite agencies and stakeholders to share their experiences and concerns about how title IV-E agencies implement the suspension and termination policies, and any difficulties they have had ensuring that they are paying title IV-E adoption assistance funds appropriately.
In particular, we encourage respondents to address the following questions:
(1) Should jurisdictions have authority to suspend adoption assistance payments under any circumstances? If so, what specific circumstances should be the basis for suspension?
(2) If suspension was to be permitted, what processes should be required in connection with suspension, and what processes should be required for reinstatement?
More generally, we invite title IV-E agencies and other stakeholders to share their broader concerns about the title IV-E adoption assistance program that are unrelated to suspending or
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; revision and extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing. CBP is proposing to add burden hours for four new collections of information, including Electronic Ocean Export Manifest, Electronic Air Export Manifest, Electronic Rail Export Manifest, and Vessel Stow Plan (Export). There are no changes to the existing forms or collections within this OMB approval. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before June 1, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates 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, including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
• Name of the vessel or carrier
• Name and address of the shipper
• Port Where the Report is Made
• Nationality of the Ship
• Name of the Master
• Port of Loading
• Port of Discharge
• B/L Number (Master and House)
• Marks and Numbers
• Container numbers
• Seal Numbers
• Number and Kinds of Packages
• Description of Goods
• Gross Weight (lb. or kg)
• Measurement (per HTSUS)
• In-bond number
• AES ITN number or Exemption statement
• Split shipment indicator
• Port of split shipment
• Hazmat Indicator
• Chemical Abstract Service ID Number
• Vehicle Identification Number or Product Identification Number
• Mode of transportation (containerized or non-containerized)
• Exporting Carrier
• Marks of nationality and registration
• Flight Number
• Port of Lading
• Port of Unlading
• Scheduled date of departure
• Consolidator
• De-Consolidator
• Air Waybill type (Master, House, Simple, or Sub)
• Air Waybill Number
• Number of pieces and unit of measure
• Weight (lb. or kg.)
• Number of house air waybills
• Shipper name and address
• Consignee name and address
• Cargo description
• AES ITN number or AES Exemption statement
• Split air waybill indicator
• Hazmat indicator
• UN Number
• In-bond number
• Mode of transportation (containerized or non-containerized)
• Manifest number
• Mode of transportation (containerized or non-containerized)
• Port of Departure from the United States
• Date of Departure
• Train Number
• Rail car order/Car locator message
• Hazmat Indicator
• 6-character Hazmat code
• Marks and Numbers
• SCAC (Standard Carrier Alpha Code) identification code for exporting carrier
• Bill of Lading Number (Master and House)
• Shipper name and address
• Consignee name and address
• Notify Party name and address
• AES ITN or AES Exemption Statement
• Cargo Description
• Weight
• Quantity and Unit of Measure
• Split Shipment Indicator
• Portion of Split Shipment
• In-bond number
• Seal Number
• Mexican Pedimento Number
• Place where the rail carrier takes possession of the cargo shipment
• Port of Unlading
• Container Numbers (for containerized shipments) or the rail car numbers
• Data for empty rail cars (Empty indicator and rail car number)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 30, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2014.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2014) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2015), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.
II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.
III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 58.22(a).
Project/Activity: The Spokane Tribe of Indians requested a waiver of 24 CFR 58.22(a) for the demolition and new construction of the West End Community Center serving the Spokane Tribe in Wellpinit, WA. The waiver requested clearance for the demolition of the old community center prior to the Request for Release of Funds (RROF).
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 58.22(a) provides that no entity may
Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: December 10, 2014.
Reason Waived: It was determined that the project would further the HUD mission and advance HUD program goals to develop viable, quality communities. It was further determined that the Spokane Tribe of Indians did not knowingly violate the regulation, no HUD funds were committed, and based on the environmental assessment and field inspection, granting the waiver will not result in any unmitigated, adverse environmental impact.
Contact: Lauren Hayes, Office of Environment and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7248, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4270.
• Regulations: 24 CFR 92.251(c) and 24 CFR 92.504(d).
Project/Activity: HUD, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Treasury, developed the Physical Inspection Alignment Pilot Program to align physical inspection criteria and reduce the number of inspections for each property to no more than one visit per year while meeting the requirements of each federal funding source with a vested financial interest in the property. The waiver permitted pilot grantees to use the Uniform Physical Condition Standards as the minimum inspection standard for HOME-assisted rental property rather than Housing Quality Standards as currently required by 24 CFR 92.251(c) and allows for more frequent inspections than are required for inspection frequency under 24 CFR 92.504(d). The following participating jurisdictions were granted a limited waiver of HOME property standards for participating in HUD's Physical Inspections Alignment Pilot Program: the State of Kentucky, the State of Louisiana, the State of Minnesota, the State of Missouri, the State of New Mexico, the State of Texas, the State of Wisconsin and the State of Vermont.
Nature of Requirements: The regulation at 24 CFR 92.251(c) identifies the property standards for property acquired with HOME assistance. The regulation at 24 CFR 92.504(d) requires the participating jurisdiction to inspect each project at project completion and during the period of affordability to determine that the project meets the property standards of 24 CFR 92.251.
Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: November 5, 2014.
Reasons Waived: The waiver was granted to reduce duplicative inspection for grantees participating in the Physical Inspection Alignment Pilot Program. HUD estimates that one periodically-scheduled physical inspection may result in 20,000 fewer property inspections per year by federal agencies, which will reduce the cost of program oversight and create efficiencies for the government, property owners, and for residents of affordable housing whose apartments are subject to inspection. The waiver was effective until December 31, 2014 and limited to Combined Funding Properties included in the 2014 Physical Inspection Alignment Pilot Program.
Contact: Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7164, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 570.200(h).
Project/Activity: On October 21, 2014, HUD issued a CPD Notice implementing procedures to govern the submission and review of consolidated plans and action plans for FY 2015 funding prior to the enactment of a FY 2015 HUD appropriation bill. These procedures apply to any Entitlement, Insular or Hawaii nonentitlement grantee with a program year start date prior to, or up to 60 days after, HUD's announcement of the FY 2015 formula program funding allocations for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA formula funding. Any grantee with an FY 2015 program year start date during the period starting October 1, 2014, and ending August 16, 2015 or 60 days after HUD announcement of FY 2015 allocation amounts (whichever comes first), is advised not to submit its consolidated plan/action plan until the FY 2015 formula allocations have been announced.
Nature of Requirement: The Entitlement CDBG program regulations provide for situations in which a grantee may incur costs against its CDBG grant prior to the award of its grant from HUD. Under the regulations, the effective date of a grantee's grant agreement is either the grantee's program year start date or the date that the grantee's annual action plan is received by HUD, whichever is later. This waiver allowed grantees to treat the effective date of the FY 2015 program year as the grantee's program year start date or date or the date that the grantee's annual action plan is received by HUD, whichever is
Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: September 25, 2014, for effect on October 21, 2014.
Reason Waived: Under the provisions of the CPD Notice, a grantee's action plan may not be submitted to (and thus received by) HUD until several months after the grantee's program year start date. Lengthy delays in the receipt of annual appropriations by HUD, and implementation of the policy to delay submission of FY 2015 Action Plans, may have negative consequences for CDBG grantees that intend to incur eligible costs prior to the award of FY 2015 funding. Some activities might otherwise be interrupted while implementing these revised procedures. In addition, grantees might not otherwise be able to use CDBG funds for planning and administrative costs of administering their programs. In order to address communities' needs and to ensure that programs can continue without disturbance, this waiver allowed grantees to incur pre-award costs on a timetable comparable to that under which grantees have operated in past years. HUD advised grantees that this waiver is available for use by any applicable CDBG grantee whose action plan submission is delayed past the normal submission date because of delayed enactment of FY 2015 appropriations for the Department. This waiver authority is only in effect until August 16, 2015.
Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community and Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1577.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi).
Project/Activity: Spokane County, WA requested a waiver of 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) to allow the use of prior Low and Moderate Income Summary Data (LMISD) for an infrastructure activity in the town of Fairfield in order to demonstrate compliance with the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective requirements.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) requires that the most recently available decennial census information must be used to the fullest extent feasible, together with the section 8 income limits that would have applied at the time the income information was collected by the Census Bureau, to determine whether there is a sufficiently large percentage of low- and moderate-income persons residing in the area served by a CDBG funded activity. The HUD-produced Low and Moderate Income Summary Data provide this data to grantees. On June 10, 2014, HUD issued new Low and Moderate Income Summary Data, with an effective date of July 1, 2014 for use by grantees.
Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: November 4, 2014.
Reason Waived: The Fairfield water line infrastructure activity had been in the planning stage for many months, and was included in the county's FY 2014 Annual Action Plan. However, funds were not obligated by the county to the activity prior to July 1, 2014 and July 1 was the county's program year start date. The service area for this activity no longer qualified under the new LMISD. However, the county explained that the town of Fairfield's demographic characteristics, with a population of 665, almost remained the same since the previous LMISD was issued, and that the American Community Survey (ACS) sampling methodology resulted in this change, not a
Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community and Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1577.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi).
Project/Activity: King County, WA requested a waiver of 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) to allow the use of prior Low and Moderate Income Summary Data (LMISD) for two infrastructure activities in order to demonstrate compliance with the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective requirements.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 570.208(a)(l)(vi) requires that the most recently available decennial census information must be used to the fullest extent feasible, together with the section 8 income limits that would have applied at the time the income information was collected by the Census Bureau, to determine whether there is a sufficiently large percentage of low- and moderate-income persons residing in the area served by a CDBG funded activity. The HUD-produced Low and Moderate Income Summary Data provide this data to grantees. On June 10, 2014, HUD issued new Low and Moderate Income Summary Data, with an effective date of July 1, 2014 for use by grantees.
Granted By: Clifford Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: November 18, 2014.
Reason Waived: The request pertained to two infrastructure activities, which had been in the planning stage for many months, and were included in the county's FY 2014 Annual Action Plan. However, funds were not obligated by the county to these activities prior to July 1, 2014. The county documented that the available Low and Moderate Income Summary Data covered an area larger than the actual service areas for the two activities, and was not representative of the income characteristics of the activity service area residents. It was determined that unless the waiver was granted to the county, these activities that directly benefit the health and safety of residents would not be implemented due to the lack of expertise and funds needed to conduct special surveys to qualify the service areas. The waiver allowed the county to continue to use the prior Low and Moderate Income Summary Data to demonstrate compliance with the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective requirements.
Contact: Steve Johnson, Director, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Office of Community and Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1577.
• Regulation:
Project/Activity: Louisville-Jefferson County, KY Metro Government requested a waiver of § 576.403(c) to allow the Legal Aid Society to provide legal services under the homelessness prevention component to program participants who want to stay in their units, even if the units do not meet the habitability standards. The waiver would allow those program participants receiving the legal services to receive the case management required at § 576.401(d) and (e) even if their units do not meet the habitability standards. The waiver was contingent upon the commitment of the recipient, its subrecipient, Legal Aid Society, and the subrecipient(s) providing the required case management to work with the property owners to bring the units into compliance with the habitability standards or assist the program participants to move if the units are unsafe.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at § 576.403(c) states that the recipient or subrecipient cannot use ESG funds to help a program participant remain in or move into housing that does not meet the ESG minimum habitability standards for permanent housing.
Granted By: Cliff Taffet, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
Date Granted: December 10, 2014.
Reason Waived: HUD recognized that in certain instances, the best way to help program participants avoid homelessness is to keep them in their housing until better housing can be located, or their existing housing can be brought up to code. Legal services provide an important resource for persons who are at risk of homelessness, who need immediate assistance to help them avoid moving to the streets or emergency shelters. In some instances, it is not feasible to inspect a unit to ensure that it meets the habitability standards prior to the provision of the legal services assistance necessary to prevent homelessness for the individual or family. Also in some cases, the habitability requirement actually prohibits eligible program participants from receiving the legal services that could assist them to make the unit habitable and stabilize them in their housing.
Contact: Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-4300.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).
Project/Activity: St. James A.M.E Tower Apartments, FHA Project Number 031-018NISUP, Newark, NJ. The Owners have requested deferral of repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan on this project due to their inability to repay the loan in full upon prepayment of the 236 Loan.
Nature of Requirement: Section 219.220(b)(1995) governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project (Transfer of Physical Assets (TPA)) if the Secretary so requires at the time of approval of the TPA.” Either of these actions would typically terminate FHA involvement with the property, and the Flexible Subsidy Loan would be repaid, in whole, at that time.
Granted by: Biniam T. Gebre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: December 30, 2014.
Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver of the requirement to defer repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Operating Assistance Loan to allow the much needed preservation and moderate rehabilitation of the project. The project will be preserved as an affordable housing resource of Newark, NJ.
Contact: John Ardovini, Restructuring Analyst, Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2636.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).
Project/Activity: CWA Apartments II FHA Number TN43L000016 is a project based Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) contract encumbering a76-units for low- income families located in Nashville, Tennessee. The project consists of 76 two-bedroom units. The contract expires on August 31, 2017. On September 1, 1994, a Flexible Subsidy Loan was awarded in the amount of $1,659,585 at one percent per annum.
Nature of Requirement: Section 219.220(b) governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects prior to May 1, 1996 states: “Assistance that has been paid to a project owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project. . .” Either of these actions would typically terminate FHA involvement with the property, and the Flexible Subsidy Loan would be repaid, in whole, at that time.
Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 7, 2014.
Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver because good cause was shown that it is in the public's best interest to grant this waiver. The owner executed and recorded a Rental Use Agreement that extended the affordability of the property for
Contact: Marilynne Hutchins, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight (OAMPO), Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4323.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).
Project/Activity: CWA Apartments I Contract number TN43-L000-015 apartments CWA Apartments I is a 176-unit multifamily project which consists of 20 two-bedroom units and 156 three-bedroom units. The property was financed with a mortgage insured pursuant to Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act, which has now matured and is paid in full. The Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract covers all 176 units. The HAP contact expires on August 31, 2017. In 1995, the project was awarded a Flexible Subsidy Loan in the amount of $3,508,629 with one percent interest rate. As of September 29, 2014, the Flexible Subsidy Loan's unpaid balance is $4,141,194, including accrued interest.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b)(1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects states, “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”
Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 7, 2014.
Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver because good cause was shown that it is in the public's best interest to grant this waiver. The owner executed and recorded a Rental Use Agreement that extended the affordability of the property for 20 years and amended the Residual Receipts Note to reflect the monthly payments. These documents were simultaneously assumed by the purchaser.
Contact: Marilynne Hutchins, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight (OAMPO), Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4323.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).
Project/Activity: Cathedral Terrace Apartments FHA number 063-44007 is a 240-unit high-rise project for low- income and very low-income tenants. The mortgage was insured pursuant to Section 236(j)(1) of the National Housing Act and received its final endorsement on November 22, 1974, in the amount of $4,919,500. A Section 8 Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) contract subsidizes 224 units and expires on June 30, 2034. The mortgage matured on November 1, 2014, which triggered the repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Loans
Nature of Requirement: The regulation at 24 CFR 219.220(b) (1995), which governs the repayment of operating assistance provided under the Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Properties, states “Assistance that has been paid to a project Owner under this subpart must be repaid at the earlier of the expiration of the term of the mortgage, termination of mortgage insurance, prepayment of the mortgage, or a sale of the project.”
Granted by: Biniam Gebre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: December 30, 2014.
Reason Waived: The owner requested and was granted waiver to permit the deferment of repayment of the Flexible Subsidy Loans, plus accrued interest for a period of one year. The requested waiver was for the subject property only. The owner executed and recorded a Rental Use Agreement that would be superior to all liens. The Rental Use Agreement extended the project affordability 20 years from the date of the original mortgage maturity.
Contact: Judith Bryant, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight (OAMPO), Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6174, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-4891.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.
Project/Activity: Maple Ride of Plover Memory care is a 20 bed memory care facility. The facility does not meet the FHA “Bathroom “requirements at 24 CFR 232.7. The project is located in Plover, WI.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates in a board and care home or assisted living facility that not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents. Also, the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.
Granted By: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 7, 2014.
Reason Waived: The project is for memory care, all rooms have half-bathrooms and the resident to full bathroom ratio is 5:1.
Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 232.7.
Project/Activity: Senior Suites of Urbandale is an assisted living and memory care facility. The facility does not meet the FHA “Bathroom “requirements at 24 CFR 232.7. The project is located in Urbandale, IA.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation mandates that in a board and care home or assisted living facility that the not less than one full bathroom must be provided for every four residents. Also, the bathroom cannot be accessed from a public corridor or area.
Granted By: Biniam Gebre, Acting, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: November 24, 2014.
Reason Waived: The project is currently FHA insured and presents no additional financial risks to HUD.
Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 232.505(a), 232.520, 232.540(b), 232.605 and 232.620.
Project/Activity: Supplemental Loans to Finance Purchase and Installation of Fire Safety Equipment.
Nature of Requirement: Waiver of provisions 232.505(a), 232.520, 232.540(b), 232.605 and 232.620 that do not reflect current processing requirements, as these regulatory procedures and protocols were established in 1974.
Granted By: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 21, 2014.
Reason Waived: There is an urgent need to install automatic fire sprinkler systems in nursing homes due to a new federal mandate.
Contact: Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 2337, Washington, DC 20401, telephone (202) 402-2419.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
Project/Activity: Teaneck Senior Housing, Teaneck, NJ, Project Number: 031-EE077/NJ39-S091-004.
Nature of Requirement: Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to closing.
Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 3, 2014.
Reason Waived: The project is economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources.
Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
Project/Activity: Allen House, Millstone, NJ, Project Number: 031-EE083/NJ39-S101-006.
Nature of Requirement: Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to closing.
Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 3, 2014.
Reason Waived: The project is economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources.
Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
Project/Activity: Our Lady of Assumption Apts., Abbeville, LA, Project Number: 064-EE243/LA48-S091-012.
Nature of Requirement: Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to closing.
Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 3, 2014.
Reason Waived: The project is economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources.
Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
Project/Activity: Bill Sorro Community, San Francisco, CA, Project Number: 121-HD097/CA39-Q101-003.
Nature of Requirement: Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 36 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis.
Granted by: Carol J. Galante, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: October 22, 2014.
Reason Waived: Additional time was needed in order to meet the construction lender's loan requirement for this capital advance upon completion mixed-finance project.
Contact: Catherine M. Brennan, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 6180, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3000.
• Regulation: Requirements of Mortgagee Letter 2011-22, Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide, Insurance Requirements.
Project/Activity: Extension of initial waiver issued November 27, 2013, providing an exemption to the insurance requirements defined in Mortgagee Letter 2011-22, Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide.
Nature of Requirement: Section 2.1.9 of the Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide, Insurance Requirements, defines the condominium project insurance requirements that must be met for issuance of FHA condominium project approval. The extension of the initial waiver allows for acceptance of individual insurance policies issued to the unit owners for Manufactured Housing, Detached and Common Interest Condominium Projects unable to satisfy the insurance requirements.
Granted by: Biniam Gebre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
Date Granted: November 27, 2014.
Reason Waived: The extension of the waiver previously issued that allows unit owners to obtain and maintain their own insurance coverage is required to ensure the continued availability of a condominium unit as an affordable housing option. Issuance of the extension is consistent with the Department's objectives to expand the availability of FHA mortgage insurance, while providing appropriate safeguards.
Contact: Joanne B. Kuczma, Housing Program Officer, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2137.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).
Project/Activity: Olean Housing Authority (NY093), Olean NY.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 1, 2014.
Reason Waived: The final approval of the annual audit was postponed due to three weather related cancellations of meetings of the Board of Commissioners. The audit was completed in December 2013, but was inadvertently not submitted. Due to the Departments' delayed response and the fact that the audited financials have been submitted and approved, the housing authority was granted a one-time waiver.
Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).
Project/Activity: The Municipality of Fajardo (RQ036) Fajardo, PR
Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 13, 2014.
Reason Waived: The audited reporting requirements were delayed due to the unforeseen death of your predecessor auditor. The additional time was needed to enable the successor auditor to review and process for final approval. Due to the Departments' delayed response and the fact that the audited financial report was approved on August 28, 2014, the housing authority was granted this one-time waiver.
Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).
Project/Activity: City of Mesa Housing Authority (AZ005) Mesa AZ.
Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 14, 2014.
Reason Waived: The delayed submission was a result of the process to implement a new ERP Integrated Information System during 2013. The agency is component unit and must wait until the city-wide audit was complete before processing the audited financial data. The agency incurred a turnover in staff prior to closing your 2013 books and that additional time was needed for IPA review and final submission. Due to the Department's delayed response and the fact that your audited financial report was approved on July 22, 2014, the housing authority was granted this one-time waiver.
Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).
Project/Activity: South Tucson Housing Authority (AZ025) South Tucson, AZ
Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: November 19, 2014.
Reason Waived: The delayed submission was a result of the City of South Tucson's inability to obtain an extension from OMB to complete its Single Audit requirement. The agency was a component unit and waited until the city-wide audit was completed before processing the audited financial data for submission. Due to the Department's delayed response and the fact that the audited financial report was approved on August 27, 2014, the housing authority was granted a one-time waiver.
Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment
• Regulation: 24 CFR 5.801(d)(1).
Project/Activity: Mercedes Housing Authority (TX029) Mercedes, TX
Nature of Requirement: The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) no later than nine months after the housing authority's (HA) fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: November 26, 2014.
Reason Waived: The delayed submission was due to issues between the independent auditor and the Texas State Board. The State Board required the agency to seek a second review from another independent auditor. However, due to human resource issues and scheduled vacation, the advising auditor could not complete the audit in time to submit your audited financial data by the due date. The agency's audited financial data was approved on September 4, 2014, therefore, the housing authority was granted a one-time waiver.
Contact: Judy Wojciechowski, Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 475-7907.
• Regulation: Notices PIH 2013-3 and PIH 20013-26: Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs—Temporary Compliance Assistance.
Project/Activity: PIH Notice 2013-3 was issued to establish temporary guidelines for public housing agencies (PHAs) in fulfilling certain public housing and housing choice voucher requirements during the current and upcoming fiscal year to alleviate some of the burden on already stressed PHA resources. The reduction of burden provided in this notice involved offering PHAs the option to comply with certain alternative requirements to existing regulations, and if they opted to do so the existing regulation would be waived. Issuance of this notice was reported in HUD's Quarterly Regulatory Waiver report published in the
Nature of Requirement: The alternative requirements to regulatory requirements that were offered under the original notice and extended by the second notice were the following: The notice allows PHAs to use participants' actual past income to verify income, which would be a waiver of the requirement to project expected income in 24 CFR 5.609(a)(2). The notice allows households to self-certify as to having assets of less than $5,000, which would be a waiver of the requirement under 24 CFR 5.609(b)(3), 982.516(a)(2)(ii), and 960.259(c) for PHAs to verify assets. The notice allows a streamlined reexamination of income for elderly families and disabled families on fixed incomes, which would be a waiver of the requirement in 24 CFR 982.516 and 960.257 for PHAs to undertake the complete process for income verification and rent determination for families on fixed incomes. The notice allows PHAs to establish a payment standard of not more than 120 percent of the fair market rent without HUD approval as a reasonable accommodation, which would be a waiver of 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2)(B)(ii), which allows a PHA to establish a payment standard for the housing choice voucher program only but within limits currently permitted but designated for approval only by a HUD field office.
Granted By: Sandra B. Henriquez, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Dates Granted: January 2013 through March 2015.
Reason Waived: The waivers and alternative requirements were granted because they would help facilitate the ability
Contact: Todd Thomas, Senior Program Specialist, Public Housing Management and Occupancy Division, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-402-5849.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(c), 982.503(c)(4)(ii) and 982.503(c)(5).
Project/Activity: Dunn County Housing Authority (DCHA), McKenzie County Housing Authority (MCHA), Bowman County Housing Authority (BCHA), Adams County Housing Authority (ACHA), Hettinger County Housing Authority (HCHA), Billings County Housing Authority (BCHA), Slope County Housing Authority (SCHA), Golden Valley County Housing Authority (GVCHA), Stark County Housing Authority (SCHA), ND.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c) establishes the methodology for establishing exception payment standards for an area. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 503(c)(4)(ii) states that HUD will only approve an exception payment standard amount after six months from the date of HUD approval of an exception payment standard amount above 110 percent to 120 percent of the published fair market rent (FMR). HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(5) states that the total population of a HUD-approved exception areas in an FMR area may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 17, 2014.
Reason Waived: These waivers were granted because of increased economic activity due to natural resource exploration.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(c), 982.503(c)(4)(ii) and 982.503(c)(5).
Project/Activity: Burleigh County Housing Authority (BCHA), Bismarck, ND.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c) establishes the methodology for establishing exception payment standards for an area. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 503(c)(4)(ii) states that HUD will only approve an exception payment standard amount after six months from the date of HUD approval of an exception payment standard amount above 110 percent to 120 percent of the published fair market rent (FMR). HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.503(c)(5) states that the total population of a HUD-approved exception areas in an FMR area may not include more than 50 percent of the population of the FMR area.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: November 19, 2014.
Reason Waived: These waivers were granted because of increased economic activity due to natural resource exploration.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Arvada Housing Authority (AHA), Arvada, CO.
Nature of Requirement: 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 1, 2014.
Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a more accessible unit. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the client could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of her adjusted income toward the family share, the AHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: West Valley Housing Authority (WVHA), Dallas, OR.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 23, 2014.
Reason Waived: The applicant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in her current unit that met her needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the client could remain in her unit and pay no more than 40 percent of her adjusted income toward the family share, the WVHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Housing Authority of Grays Harbor County (HAGHC), Aberdeen, WA.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 10, 2014.
Reason Waived: The applicant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to remain in her current unit that met her needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the client could remain in her unit and pay no more than 40 percent of her adjusted income toward the family share, the HAGHC was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Rhode Island Housing (RHI), Providence, RI.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 17, 2014.
Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a unit that meets her needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the family could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share, RHI was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA), San Francisco, CA.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 17, 2014.
Reason Waived: The applicant was a person with disabilities who required an exception payment standard to move to a unit that met his needs. To provide this reasonable accommodation so that the client could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of his adjusted income toward the family share, the SFHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: Howard County Housing (HCH), Columbia, MD.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 29, 2014.
Reason Waived: The participant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a new unit. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the family could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of its adjusted income toward the family share, HCH was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
Project/Activity: City of Roseville Housing Authority (CRHA), Roseville, CA.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 982.505(d) states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent (FMR) for the unit size.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 29, 2014.
Reason Waived: The applicant, who is a person with disabilities, required an exception payment standard to move to a new unit. To provide this reasonable accommodation so the family could move to a new unit and pay no more than 40 percent of his adjusted income toward the family share, the CRHA was allowed to approve an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA), Honolulu, HI.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 20, 2014.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since HPHA had technical difficulties in submitting its certification. HPHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Fort Wayne Housing Authority (FWHA), Fort Wayne, IN.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: November 7, 2014.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since the executive director had a death in his family at the time the SEMAP certification was due. FWHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC, 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Housing Authority of the City of Meriden (HACM), Meriden, CT.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 17, 2014.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since the SEMAP certification had been submitted timely, but incorrectly into PICTEST. HACM was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Palm Beach County Housing Authority (PBCHA), West Palm Beach, FL.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 17, 2014.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since the SEMAP certification had been submitted timely, but with an error message that could not be validated. PBCHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 985.101(a).
Project/Activity: Mercer County Housing Authority (MCHA), Aledo, IL.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 985.101(a) states a PHA must submit the HUD-required Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) certification form within 60 calendar days after the end of its fiscal year.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: December 29, 2014.
Reason Waived: This waiver was granted since it the executive director was new and notification emails regarding SEMAP submission were sent to the wrong email address. MCHA was permitted to submit its SEMAP certification after the due date.
Contact: Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0477.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.327(b).
Project/Activity: Asa'Carsarmiut Tribe of Mountain Village, Alaska 99632-0249; Stebbins Community Association of Stebbins, Alaska 99671; Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority of Nome, Alaska 99762; Native Village of Kivalina of Kivalina, AK 99750.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.327(b) requires Indian tribes in Alaska not located on a reservation to notify HUD in writing by September 15th that they or their Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) intends to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP) for the following fiscal year. If the tribe or their TDHE does not notify HUD, or notifies HUD that they do not intend to submit an IHP, HUD allocates the tribe's need formula data in the Indian Housing Block Grant formula to the tribe's regional tribe or regional corporation. HUD is required to allocate IHBG funds within 60 days of an appropriation, and prior notification ensures that HUD can properly allocate Alaska tribes' need data and make formula allocations in a timely manner.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: November 24, 2014.
Reason Waived: HUD granted the waiver because the tribes and TDHE would have lost out on critical Indian Housing Block Grant funding for the year. The waiver would not delay HUD's process because the Congressional appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year had not yet occurred. As such, the Department believed that there was good cause to waive the notification requirements of 24 CFR 1000.327(b).
Contact: Glenda N. Green, Director for the Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Suite 5156, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-6967.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.
Project/Activity: Pueblo de Cochiti of Cochiti Pueblo, NM 87072-0070.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 20, 2014.
Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because of the unexpected resignation of the Executive Director based on health issues. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.
Contact: Cheryl Dixon, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Seventh FL, Suite 7301, Albuquerque, NM 87103-0906, telephone (505) 346-6924.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.
Project/Activity: Hopi Tribal Housing Authority of Polacca, AZ 86042.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 22, 2014.
Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because a new Executive Director was in the process of being hired. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.
Contact: Cristal Quinn, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7206.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.
Project/Activity: Resighini Rancheria of Klamath, CA 95548-0529.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 22, 2014.
Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because of new staff turnover, which resulted in technological problems in completing the IHP. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.
Contact: Sarah Olson, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7233.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.
Project/Activity: Cahto Indians of the Laytonville Rancheria, Laytonville, CA 95454-1239.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 22, 2014.
Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because there were no housing funds available to pay the housing staff salary prior to completing the IHP. The Tribe needed time to re-hire the staff person to complete and submit the IHP. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.
Contact: Daniel Celaya, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian, Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7193.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.
Project/Activity: Big Valley Tribe of Pomo Indians, Lakeport, CA 95453.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 22, 2014.
Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because a new Executive Director was in the process of being hired. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.
Contact: Sarah Olson, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development, One N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-7233.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 1000.224.
Project/Activity: Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Summit Lake, NV.
Nature of Requirement: HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 1000.224 that the Secretary may waive the applicability of the requirement to submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP), in whole or in part, for a period of not more than 90 days, if the Secretary determines that an Indian tribe has not complied with, or is unable to comply with, those requirements due to exigent circumstances beyond the control of the Indian Tribe.
Granted By: Jemine A. Bryon, Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
Date Granted: October 28, 2014.
Reason Waived: A waiver was requested because the Tribal Council went through an internal reorganization; the person responsible for preparing the IHP was no longer associated with the Tribal Council. The Tribal Council will assign another council member to complete the IHP. The waiver was provided for no more than 90 days on the basis of exigent circumstances beyond its control.
Contact: Leticia Rodriguez, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Southwest Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 500 Gold Ave. SW., Seventh FL, Suite 7301, Albuquerque, NM 87103-0906, telephone (505) 346-6926.
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Cancellation of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the meeting of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pecos District Resource Advisory Council's (RAC) Lesser Prairie-Chicken (LPC) Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACEC) Livestock Grazing Subcommittee originally scheduled for the time a date listed below is cancelled.
The LPC ACEC Subcommittee was originally scheduled to meet on March 31, 2015, at 1 p.m. in the Roswell Field Office, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201.
Adam Ortega, Roswell Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2909 West 2nd Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201, 575-627-0204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The 10-member Pecos District RAC elected to create a subcommittee to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Pecos District, about possible livestock grazing within the LPC ACEC. The Pecos District RAC met on March 10, 2015, and voted to pass on Subcommittee's management recommendations for the LPC ACEC to the BLM's Pecos District, making the
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before February 28, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 15, 2015. 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the environmental assessment and associated step-down plans, including the Habitat Management Plan, Integrated Pest Management Plan, and the Visitor Services Plan, for Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge in Oktibbeha, Noxubee, and Winston Counties, Mississippi. In the final CCP, we describe how we will manage the Refuge for the next 15 years.
You may obtain a copy of the CCP and FONSI by writing to: Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, 13723 Bluff Lake Rd., Brooksville, MS 39739. Alternatively, you may download the documents from our Internet Site:
Steve Reagan, Project Leader, 662-323-5548,
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. We started the process through a notice in the
Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is located within three counties (Noxubee, Oktibbeha, and Winston) in east-central Mississippi, and is approximately 17 miles south-southwest of Starkville and approximately 120 miles north-northeast of Jackson, the capital of Mississippi. The Refuge is currently 48,219 acres. The primary establishing legislation for the Refuge is Executive Order 8444, dated June 14, 1940. Established as Noxubee NWR in 1940, the Refuge was subsequently renamed
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.
We made copies of the Draft CCP/EA available for a 60-day public review and comment period via a
We developed three alternatives for managing the Refuge (Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative C selected for implementation. This alternative will manage refuge resources to optimize native wildlife populations and habitats under a balanced and integrated approach, not only for federally listed species (red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW)) and migratory birds, but also for other native species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, Northern bobwhite, paddlefish, and forest-breeding birds.
This alternative also provides opportunities for the six priority public uses (
Under this alternative, the Refuge would favor management that restores historic forest conditions while achieving Refuge purposes.
Active manipulation of habitats and populations would occur as necessary to maintain biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. Silvicultural treatments within bottomland hardwood habitats would receive low priority, but may be used to promote recruitment of red oak species within the overstory of those flooded forested habitats used by waterfowl. The Refuge would attempt to increase brood survival of waterfowl by managing shallow water aquatic habitats to produce and sustain protective shrub-scrub cover with fringe area of the Refuge's lakes. Manipulation of water level would be the primary tool used to produce the desired shrub-scrub cover.
The Refuge would participate in wood duck banding programs and try to obtain Refuge quotas as assigned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's national Migratory Bird program, and limit human access to key areas used by waterfowl to reduce disturbance during critical life cycle stages.
Habitat manipulations used to benefit RCWs could include silvicultural practices (
In order to sustain forest resources for future RCW habitat, harvesting of existing mature forests as part of regeneration efforts within present and future partitions may occur. No additional, non-historic pine habitats outside currently active partitions would be maintained or converted for support of the RCW. Refuge staff and possibly contractors would continue to scientifically monitor RCWs through observation and nest and fledge checks.
The current level of visitor services programs would be expanded for the general public, and attempts made to provide more access for users with disabilities and youth. This alternative would establish a “Connecting People with Nature” area to consolidate activities and users requiring greater support to enjoy wildlife dependent activities.
All existing wildlife-dependent uses and the supporting facilities would be maintained and, if resources are available, enhanced through possible increase and better maintenance in overlooks, boardwalks, and trails. An effort would be made to increase visitor safety and enjoyment through establishment of parking areas, improved management of vehicle flow, creation of paved walking and biking trails, and roadside bike lanes along Bluff Lake and Loakfoma Roads. Refuge regulatory and informational signs would receive priority.
Public activities found compatible include bicycle, boating, and picnicking in association with wildlife-dependent activities, geocaching for environmental education, recreational fishing and hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before March 7, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 15, 2015. 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.
A request for removal has been received for the following resource:
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
The meeting will be held on April 27, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at The Savitz Organization, 1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 703-414-3163.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at The Savitz Organization, 1845 Walnut Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.
On March 23, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District
The proposed consent decree resolves the United States' claims against: Richard Middleton, Circle Environmental, Inc. and Waterpollutionsolutions.com, Inc. (collectively the “Settling Defendants”), for cost recovery under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) relating to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment at the Circle Environmental #1 and #2 Superfund Sites (the “Sites”) in Terrell County, Georgia. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, Settling Defendants will reimburse the United States' past costs in connection with the removal actions at the Sites in the amount of $285,000. In return, the United States agrees not to sue or take administrative action against Settling Defendants under Section 107 of CERCLA for past response costs. The case remains open against BSJR, LLC.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury for a copy of the consent decree with Appendices, or $4.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) for a copy of the consent decree without Appendices.
Notice.
On March 31, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 30, 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-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard information collection codified in regulation 29 CFR 1910.1450. The Standard applies to any Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) laboratory that uses hazardous chemicals in accordance with the Standard's definitions for
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997,” 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 30, 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-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 information collection. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) includes respondents born from 1980 through 1984 and lived in the United States when the survey began in 1997. The primary objective of the survey is to study the transition from full-time schooling to the establishment of careers and families. The longitudinal focus of the survey requires information to be collected about the same individuals over many years in order to trace their education, training, work experience, fertility, income, and program participation. Research based on the NLSY97 contributes to the formation of national policy in the areas of education, training, employment programs, and school-to-work transitions. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because there have been a few modifications to the existing NLSY97 questionnaire. The BLS Authorizing Statute authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
On March 31, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 408(b)(2) Regulation,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 30, 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-EBSA, 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:
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 408(b)(2) regulation information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 2550.408(b)(-2(c) that require certain retirement plan service providers to disclose information about their compensation and potential conflicts of interest to responsible plan fiduciaries. These disclosure requirements provide guidance for compliance with a statutory exemption from ERISA prohibited transaction provisions. Failing to satisfy the 408(b)(2) regulation disclosure requirements may result in provision of services prohibited by ERISA section 406(a)(1)(C), with consequences for both the responsible plan fiduciary and the covered service provider. ERISA section 408(b)(2) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
By application dated on February 6, 2015, a state workforce official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of Levi Strauss & Company, Eugene, Oregon. The determination was issued on January 14, 2015 and the Notice of Determination was published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that worker separations at Levi Strauss & Co., Eugene, Oregon are not attributable to increased imports of articles or a shift in production of articles to a foreign country.
The request for reconsideration asserts that although the workers are engaged in service-related activities, the workers perform production forecasting activities and order management support of Levi Strauss' production of clothing and apparel. The reconsideration application concludes that both activities drive production and has been shifted to a foreign country.
The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, announces the availability of approximately $27 million in grant funds authorized by the Workforce Investment Act and the Second Chance Act of 2007 for Training to Work 3—Adult Reentry. ETA plans to award approximately 20 grants of up to $1,360,000 each to serve male and female ex-offenders, referred to in the FOA as returning citizens.
This FOA provides the opportunity for organizations to develop and implement career pathways programs in demand sectors and occupations for men and women, including veterans, and people with disabilities, who are at least 18 years old and who are enrolled in work release programs. The purpose of this program is to assist returning citizens transition back into their communities by gaining industry-recognized credentials and securing employment.
The complete FOA and any subsequent FOA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is May 1, 2015. Applications must be received no later than 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Brinda Ruggles, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 202-693-3437.
The Grant Officer for this FOA is Melissa Abdullah.
The National Science Board's Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) and Subcommittee on Facilities (SCF), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1 p.m. EDT.
Chairmen's remarks and discussion of NSF's draft response
Closed.
This meeting will be held by teleconference. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
The ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on April 7, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss Consequential Steam Generator Tube Rupture (C-SGTR). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 27 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0074 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the
(a) Installation of an additional non-safety-related battery;
(b) Revision to the annex building internal configuration by converting a shift turnover room to a battery room, adding an additional battery equipment room, and moving a fire area wall;
(c) Increase in the height of a room in the annex building; and
(d) Increase in thicknesses of certain annex building floor slabs.
In addition, the proposed changes also include reconfiguring existing rooms and related room, wall, and access path changes and making changes to the corresponding Tier 1 information in appendix C to the Combined Licenses.
These changes were necessary as part of structural and layout design modifications to the annex building.
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4. of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14323A649.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14323A623 and ML14323A629, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14323A635 and ML14323A640, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 13-038, “Annex Building Structure and Layout Changes” (LAR-13-038).
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14323A649, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, to allow departures from the certified Design Control Document Tier 1, Table 3.3-1, “Definition of Wall Thickness for Nuclear Island Buildings, Turbine Building, and Annex Building,” and Figure 3.3-11A, “Annex Building Plan View at Elevation 100′-0″ (sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI)). The proposed changes include non-system based design descriptions and other detailed information related to these design descriptions and associated ITAAC, such changes to concrete floor thicknesses, annex building wall location descriptions, and the interior configuration of the annex building as described in the licensee's request dated August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 27, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML14323A649), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of December 23, 2014.
By letter dated August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment would depart from Tier 2 material previously incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Evaluation Report (UFSAR). Additionally, these Tier 2 changes involve changes to Tier 1 Information in the UFSAR, and the proposed amendment would also revise the associated material that has been included in Appendix C of each of the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 COLs. The requested amendment would revise the Tier 2 UFSAR information by revising UFSAR to (1) install an additional non-safety-related battery; (2) revise the annex building internal configuration; (3) increase the height of Containment Filtration Room A (Room 40551) by 4 feet from elevation (EL.) 146′-3″ to 150′-3″; and (4) increase concrete thicknesses from 6 inches to 8 inches in a number of floor slabs.
Additionally, the licensee proposed consistency and editorial changes to Tier 1 Table 3.3-1, as well as the corresponding information in Appendix C. These changes were necessary as part of a design modification to the structure and layout of the annex building.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on August 22, 2014, and revised by letter dated September 23, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated October 30 and November 6, 2014. The exemption and amendment were issued on December 23, 2014 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML14323A609).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from March 5, 2015 to March 18, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on March 17, 2015.
Comments must be filed by April 30, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 1, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0073 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0073, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.