| Page Range | 17307-17682 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 17372 - Creating Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons and Eligible Businesses Through Strengthened “Section 3” Requirements | |
| 80 FR 17459 - Prospective Grant of Start-Up Exclusive Evaluation Option License Agreement: Pre-Clinical Evaluation and Commercial Development of Anti-Tyrosine Kinase-Like Orphan Receptor 1 Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Treatment of Human Cancers | |
| 80 FR 17512 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 80 FR 17541 - Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company-Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of Norfolk Southern Railway Company | |
| 80 FR 17545 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements | |
| 80 FR 17542 - First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 234, Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) | |
| 80 FR 17541 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification Procedures for Products and Parts | |
| 80 FR 17310 - Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company Model HA-420; Single-Place Side-Facing Seat Dynamic Test Requirements | |
| 80 FR 17312 - Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company (Honda) Model HA-420, HondaJet; Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) System | |
| 80 FR 17473 - Light Lists-Changes in Distribution Methods | |
| 80 FR 17388 - Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review | |
| 80 FR 17387 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Reviews | |
| 80 FR 17392 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review | |
| 80 FR 17429 - EQI and POM SFIREG; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17430 - Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17373 - Discrimination on the Basis of Sex; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 17515 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17415 - Applications for New Awards; Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program | |
| 80 FR 17420 - Applications for New Awards; Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need | |
| 80 FR 17515 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17514 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability & PRA; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17390 - Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 80 FR 17428 - Adequacy Status of the Kenosha and Sheboygan Counties, Wisconsin Area Submitted 8-Hour Ozone Early Progress Plans for Transportation Conformity Purposes | |
| 80 FR 17409 - Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 80 FR 17512 - South Carolina Electric and Gas Company | |
| 80 FR 17392 - Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 17359 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Intent To Establish the Fans and Blowers Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards | |
| 80 FR 17355 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Intent To Establish the Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group To Negotiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for Energy Conservation Standards | |
| 80 FR 17413 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 17372 - Consolidated Cruise Ship Security Regulations-Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 17533 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 17528 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 17538 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 17526 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 17540 - Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17541 - Notice of Public Comments on FY 2016 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program | |
| 80 FR 17380 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red Snapper Management Measures | |
| 80 FR 17510 - Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 17509 - Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 17508 - Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 17511 - Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 17546 - Art Advisory Panel-Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17426 - Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville LLC; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Jacksonville Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 80 FR 17425 - Technical Conference on Environmental Regulations and Electric Reliability, Wholesale Electricity Markets, and Energy Infrastructure; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 80 FR 17476 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Enhancement of Survival Permit Applications; Greater Sage-Grouse Umbrella Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances for Wyoming Ranch Management | |
| 80 FR 17430 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 17447 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records Notice | |
| 80 FR 17371 - Asset Management Plan | |
| 80 FR 17386 - National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule | |
| 80 FR 17438 - National Dialogue and Pilot To Reduce Reporting Compliance Costs for Federal Contractors and Grantees | |
| 80 FR 17450 - Jun Yang: Debarment Order | |
| 80 FR 17439 - Procedures for Meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 80 FR 17444 - Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 29 Toxicological Profiles | |
| 80 FR 17368 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 17411 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Quarterly Financial Report | |
| 80 FR 17386 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Service Annual Survey | |
| 80 FR 17408 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2016 Government Units Survey | |
| 80 FR 17507 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Request To Be Selected as Payee | |
| 80 FR 17495 - Oil Country Tubular Goods From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews | |
| 80 FR 17394 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force Conducting Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational Testing Within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range | |
| 80 FR 17475 - Notice of the 2015 Meeting Schedule for Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 17486 - 2015 Meeting Schedule of the Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road Vehicle Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 17502 - Meeting of the Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact | |
| 80 FR 17442 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies | |
| 80 FR 17469 - Committee Name: Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 17445 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Animal Food Labeling; Declaration of Certifiable Color Additives | |
| 80 FR 17501 - Webinar Meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice | |
| 80 FR 17483 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, AZ | |
| 80 FR 17474 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL | |
| 80 FR 17472 - Enforcement Actions Summary | |
| 80 FR 17485 - Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL; Correction | |
| 80 FR 17480 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL | |
| 80 FR 17486 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tuzigoot National Monument, Camp Verde, AZ, and the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ | |
| 80 FR 17470 - Intent to Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Claims Management Branch Program | |
| 80 FR 17540 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 17434 - Jim Burke Automotive, Inc.; Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 17435 - City Nissan Inc., Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 17437 - TT of Longwood, Inc.; Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 17430 - National Payment Network, Inc.; Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 17307 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of the Portland, ME, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Area | |
| 80 FR 17432 - Matt Blatt Inc. and Glassboro Imports, LLC; Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 17463 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 17459 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 17462 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 17471 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 17481 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ | |
| 80 FR 17488 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ | |
| 80 FR 17466 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 17479 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College, Beloit, WI | |
| 80 FR 17467 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 80 FR 17477 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Camp Verde, AZ | |
| 80 FR 17366 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 17343 - Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions | |
| 80 FR 17502 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 80 FR 17374 - Migratory Bird Permits; Abatement Permit Regulations | |
| 80 FR 17363 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Intent To Establish the Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group To Negotiate Potential Energy Conservation Standards | |
| 80 FR 17440 - Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17522 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 17538 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to Provide for the Clearance of Additional Standard Emerging Market Sovereign Single Names | |
| 80 FR 17534 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Harmonization of Phlx Rules | |
| 80 FR 17525 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rules Change To Amend Listing Rules for New CDX Indexes Available for Clearing | |
| 80 FR 17528 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Stock-Option Order Handling | |
| 80 FR 17518 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 17537 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Additional European Sovereign CDS Contracts | |
| 80 FR 17516 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Default Management Committee and Address OTC Products That Are Subject to CME's Base Financial Safeguards | |
| 80 FR 17516 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 17445 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 17542 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 80 FR 17452 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
| 80 FR 17545 - Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC); Nominations | |
| 80 FR 17333 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Idaho; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference | |
| 80 FR 17475 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 17446 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17442 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17447 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 17441 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17441 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17507 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Vinyl Chloride Standard | |
| 80 FR 17391 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Permitting, Vessel Identification, and Reporting Requirements for Deepwater Shrimp Fisheries in the Western Pacific Region | |
| 80 FR 17344 - Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan | |
| 80 FR 17465 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, With Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 17441 - Office of Dietary Supplements VDSP Commutability Study 2 | |
| 80 FR 17307 - Irish Potatoes Grown in Southeastern States; Suspension of Marketing Order Provisions | |
| 80 FR 17324 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, MI | |
| 80 FR 17352 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Amendment 14 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan | |
| 80 FR 17407 - Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council: Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17327 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California; Regional Haze Progress Report | |
| 80 FR 17326 - Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System | |
| 80 FR 17331 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Great Falls | |
| 80 FR 17428 - Issuance of an Experimental Use Permit | |
| 80 FR 17511 - Open Meeting on General Records Schedule (GRS) 6.1, Email Managed Under a Capstone Approach | |
| 80 FR 17314 - Regulations Revising Rules Regarding Agency for a Consolidated Group | |
| 80 FR 17413 - Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 17653 - Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities | |
| 80 FR 17585 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Pumps | |
| 80 FR 17499 - Crepe Paper From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review | |
| 80 FR 17496 - Chloropicrin From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review | |
| 80 FR 17490 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam; Institution of Five-Year Reviews | |
| 80 FR 17493 - Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From China and India; Institution of Five-Year Reviews | |
| 80 FR 17547 - Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013: Implementation in HUD Housing Programs | |
| 80 FR 17414 - Notice of Availability of Revised Consumer Information Publication |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Justice Programs Office
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this 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.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to abolish the Portland, Maine, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and redefine Androscoggin, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc Counties, ME, to the Portsmouth, New Hampshire, survey area and Franklin and Oxford Counties, ME, and Coos County, NH, to the Portsmouth area of application. These changes are necessary because the closure of the Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick left the Portland wage area without an activity having the capability to conduct a local wage survey.
Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2838 or by email at
On December 9, 2014, OPM issued a proposed rule (79 FR 72997) to abolish the Portland, Maine, appropriated fund FWS wage area and redefine Androscoggin, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc Counties, ME, to the Portsmouth, New Hampshire, survey area and Franklin and Oxford Counties, ME, and Coos County, NH, to the Portsmouth area of application. These changes are necessary because the closure of NAS Brunswick in May 2011 left the Portland wage area without an activity having the capability to conduct a local wage survey. The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, made a majority recommendation to define the entire wage area to the Portsmouth wage area. The proposed rule had a 30-day comment period, during which OPM received no comments.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim rule with request for comments.
This rule continues the previous suspension of the marketing order regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states (order). Representatives of the Virginia/North Carolina Irish potato industry met and requested that the suspension of all provisions of the order, and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder be continued through March 1, 2017. The request was based on the belief that the industry needs more time to study changes in the industry, and any new developments which could affect the need for, or status of the order. If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will propose to terminate the order.
Effective April 2, 2015 through March 1, 2017; comments received by June 1, 2015 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this 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:
Corey E. Elliott, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, 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 rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 104 and Marketing Order No. 953, both as amended (7 CFR part 953), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
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. A 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 rule continues the previous suspension of the marketing order regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states. Even though the Committee does not function under the suspended order and regulations, representatives of the Virginia/North Carolina Irish potato industry met on December 18, 2013, and requested that the suspension of all provisions of the order, and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder be continued through March 1, 2017. The request was based on the belief that the industry needs more time to study changes in the industry, and any new developments which could affect the need for, or status of, the order.
Marketing Order 953 has been in effect since 1948. The order provides for the establishment of grade, size, quality, maturity, and inspection requirements for Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states. The order also authorizes reporting and recordkeeping functions required for the operation of the order. The order, when functioning, is funded by assessments imposed on handlers.
The Southeastern Potato Committee (Committee) members met on February 17, 2011, and unanimously recommended suspension of the marketing order for a three year period ending on March 1, 2014. They recommended the suspension to eliminate the expense of administering the marketing order, while determining the effects of not having regulations in place. The Committee members wanted the industry to have the alternative of reactivating the order, if deemed appropriate. The rule completing that action was published in the
Prior to the December 18, 2013, meeting, USDA sent letters to members of the industry, most of whom were former Committee members. The letter informed them that the suspension of the order would be ending, and of the need to review the state of the industry and determine what action the industry wanted to take in regards to the order. The letter also asked that they make others in the industry aware of the upcoming decision and the opportunity to express their position on what to do with the order. USDA also sent out several follow-up emails, and made several telephone calls to industry representatives in an effort to increase participation in the meeting.
On December 18, 2013, industry representatives of the Virginia/North Carolina Irish potato industry met and unanimously recommended extending the suspension of the order for an additional three years. During their discussion, several industry members expressed concerns that the quality problems experienced prior to promulgation of the order could resurface and additional time was necessary to evaluate if the order is needed. The representatives believe extending the suspension for three more years would provide the industry with further opportunity to study changes in the industry and any new developments, which could affect the need for the order. The representatives also supported suspension rather than termination as they agreed it would be less complicated to reactivate the existing program if it is needed than to promulgate a new marketing order. Several of the industry representatives also indicated that they had spoken with other industry members who could not attend the meeting, and they too were in support of suspension.
If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, AMS will publish a proposal to terminate the order.
It is hereby determined that Federal Marketing Order No. 953, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, do not tend effectuate the declared policy of the Act. This action suspends, through March 1, 2017, the provisions of Federal Marketing Order No. 953, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, including but not limited to: Provisions of the order dealing with the establishment and the responsibilities of the Committee; provisions of the order dealing with expenses and the collection of assessments; all rules and regulations; and, all information collection and reporting requirements.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action 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 10 handlers of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states who are subject to regulation under the order and approximately 20 potato producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Using prices reported by AMS' Market News Service, the average F.O.B. price for Southeastern potatoes for the 2012-13 marketing season was around $25 per hundredweight. USDA has estimated production for the 2012-13 season at approximately 600,000 hundredweight of potatoes. Based on this information, average annual receipts for handlers would be less than $7,000,000. Information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service indicates that the average producer price for Irish potatoes grown in North Carolina and Virginia in 2012 was approximately $12.16 per hundredweight. Considering estimated production, average producer revenue would be about $400,000 for the 2012-13 season. Therefore, the majority of Southeastern potato handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues the previous suspension of the order and the associated rules and regulations through March 1, 2017. At a meeting on February 17, 2011, the Committee recommended that the order and all of its provisions be suspended through March 1, 2014. The Committee made this decision based on questions regarding the continued need for the order and its associated costs. Industry representatives met on December 18, 2013, and unanimously recommended extending the suspension of the order for three additional years. The continued suspension was recommended to give the industry more time to study changes in the industry, and any new developments which could affect the need for, or the status of, the order. If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, AMS will publish a proposal to terminate the order. Authority for this action is provided in section 8c(16)(A) of the Act.
Suspension of the order and its corresponding regulations relieves handlers of quality, inspection, and assessment burdens during the suspension period. Also, handler reports will not be required. Suspension of the order is therefore expected to reduce the regulatory burden on handlers and growers of all sizes.
Even though the Committee does not function under the suspended order and regulations, industry members met and considered two alternatives to this action at the December meeting. The first alternative was to reactivate the order. This alternative received little support as most believe the administrative costs of the order still outweighed the benefits. Industry members also considered terminating the order. However, some members indicated that quality concerns that the order had resolved could return and more time was needed to study changes within the industry. Therefore, both alternatives were rejected.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Southeastern Irish potato 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.
In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Further, the industry's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Southeastern Irish potato industry and interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in industry deliberations. The December 18, 2013, meeting was an open meeting and entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational aspects of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on the continuation of the previous suspension of the marketing order regulating Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the industry's request, and other information, it is determined that Federal Marketing Order No. 953 suspended by this interim rule, as herein set forth, does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 601-674, 7 CFR part 953 is suspended effective April 2, 2015, through March 1, 2017.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Honda Aircraft Company HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with a side-facing passenger seat. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is April 1, 2015, and is applicable on March 25, 2015. We must receive your comments by May 1, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2015-0720] using any of the following methods:
□
□
□
□
Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
Bob Stegeman, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4140, fax 816-329-4090, email
The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type certificate for their new Model HA-420 aircraft. On October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification basis to amendment 23-62.
The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines.
The HA-420 design incorporates the installation of a side-facing belted passenger seat as a customer configuration option. The implication of the term belted is that the passenger seat will be used during takeoff and landing and so must comply with the provisions of §§ 23.562, 23.785, and any additional requirements that the FAA determines are applicable. In this case, the approval of a side-facing seat to these provisions is considered new and novel and as such will require special conditions and specific methods of compliance to certificate.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Side facing passenger seat intended for taxi/takeoff and landing.
The seat is to incorporate design features that reduce the potential for injury in the event of an accident. In a severe impact, a 2-point seatbelt and the adjacent padded wall will restrain the occupant. In addition to the design features intended to minimize occupant injury during an accident sequence, the adjacent forward wall/bulkhead interior structure will have padding or at least be pliable enough to absorb impact energy, which will provide some protection to the head of the occupant.
The Code of Federal Regulations states performance criteria for forward and aft facing seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning side-facing seats. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in addition to the requirements of parts 21 and 23, special conditions are needed to address the installation of this seat installation/restraint.
Part 23 was amended August 8, 1988, by amendment 23-36, revised the emergency landing conditions that must be considered in the design of the airplane. Amendment 23-36 revised the static load conditions in § 23.561 and added a new § 23.562 that required dynamic testing for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent of amendment 23-36 is to provide an improved level of safety for occupants on part 23 airplanes. Because most seating is forward-facing in part 23 airplanes, the pass/fail criteria developed in amendment 23-36 focused primarily on these forward- and aft-facing seats. Since the regulations do not address side-facing seats, these criteria should be documented in special conditions.
The FAA decision to review compliance with these regulations stems from the fact that the current regulations do not provide adequate and appropriate standards for the type certification of this type of seat. These requirements are substantially similar to other single place side-facing seat installations approved for use on several different part 23 and part 25 aircraft.
Accordingly, these special conditions are for the Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420 side-facing seat location. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420 airplanes.
In addition to the airworthiness standards in §§ 23.562, amendment 23-50 and 23.785, amendment 23-49, the following special condition provides injury criteria and installation/testing guidelines that represent the minimum acceptable airworthiness standard for single-place side-facing seats:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(1) One longitudinal test with the SID ATD or its equivalent, un-deformed floor, no yaw, and with all lateral structural supports (armrests/walls).
(2) One longitudinal test with the Hybrid II ATD, deformed floor, with 10 degrees yaw, and with all lateral structural supports (armrests/walls).
(3) A vertical (15 G's) test is to be conducted with modified Hybrid II ATDs using existing pass/fail criteria.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Honda Aircraft Company HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the use of an electronic engine control system instead of a traditional mechanical control system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is April 1, 2015, and is applicable on March 25, 2015.
We must receive your comments by May 1, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2015-0723] using any of the following methods:
□
□
□
□
Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
John G. VanHoudt, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 816-329-4142, fax 816-329-4090.
The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type certificate for their new Model HA-420. On October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification basis to amendment 23-62.
The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines.
The HA-420 airplane will use an electronic engine control system (FADEC) instead of a traditional mechanical control system. Even though the engine control system will be
The regulatory requirements in 14 CFR part 23 for evaluating the installation of complex systems, including electronic systems and critical environmental effects, are contained in § 23.1309. However, when § 23.1309 was developed, the use of electronic control systems for engines was not envisioned. Therefore, § 23.1309 requirements were not applicable to systems certificated as part of the engine (reference § 23.1309(f)(1)). Parts of the system that are not certificated with the engine could be evaluated using the criteria of § 23.1309. However, the integral nature of these systems makes it unfeasible to evaluate the airplane portion of the system without including the engine portion of the system.
In some cases, the airplane that the engine is used in will determine a higher classification than the engine controls are certificated for; requiring the FADEC systems be analyzed at a higher classification. As of November 2005, FADEC special conditions mandated the classification for § 23.1309 analyses for loss of FADEC control as catastrophic for any airplane using FADEC. This is not to imply an engine failure is classified as catastrophic, but that the digital engine control must provide an equivalent reliability to mechanical engine controls.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendments 23-1 through 23-62, thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).
The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Electronic engine control system.
As defined in the summary section, this airplane makes use of an electronic engine control system instead of a traditional mechanical control system is a novel design for this type of airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. Mandating a structured assessment to determine potential installation issues mitigates the concerns that the addition of a full authority engine controller does not produce a failure condition not previously considered.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the model HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the model HA-420 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420 airplanes.
a. The installation of the electronic engine control system must comply with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through (d) at amendment 23-62. The intent of this requirement is not to reevaluate the inherent hardware reliability of the control itself, but rather determine the effects, including environmental effects addressed in § 23.1306 and 23.1308 on the airplane systems and engine control system when installing the control on the airplane. When appropriate, engine certification data may be used when showing compliance with this requirement; however, the effects of the installation on this data must be addressed.
b. For these evaluations, the loss of FADEC control will be analyzed utilizing the threat levels associated with a catastrophic failure.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations regarding the agent for an affiliated group of corporations that files a consolidated return (consolidated group). The final regulations provide guidance concerning the identity and authority of the agent for a consolidated group. These final regulations affect all corporations in consolidated groups.
Gerald B. Fleming at (202) 317-6975 or Richard M. Heinecke at (202) 317-6065 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in these final 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) under control number 1545-1699. The collection of information in these final regulations is in paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5)(iii), (c)(6)(i)(B), (c)(6)(ii), (c)(6)(iv), (c)(7)(i)(A), (c)(7)(i)(B), (c)(7)(ii), and (f)(3) of § 1.1502-77. The collection of information is necessary to make certain that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner), agent for the consolidated group, and members of the group are each informed of the proper identity of the agent for any given period, and are able to timely exercise their privileges and fulfill their responsibilities with respect to the filing of a consolidated return.
For more information, see Rev. Proc. 2015-26, IRB 2015-15, the revenue procedure published to accompany the final regulations that provides instructions with respect to all communications relating to the identification of an agent for a consolidated group.
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 return information are confidential, as required by section 6103.
This Treasury Decision contains final regulations that amend 26 CFR part 1, under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) (Final Regulations). Section 1502 authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for corporations that join in filing consolidated returns and provides that such rules may be different from the provisions of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code that would apply if such corporations filed separate returns. These Final Regulations provide guidance under § 1.1502-77 with respect to the agent for a group of affiliated corporations that file a consolidated return (agent), including rules for identifying and communicating with the agent, and determining the scope of the agent's authority.
The Final Regulations apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after April 1, 2015. Regulations in effect before April 1, 2015 will continue to apply to consolidated tax years beginning before April 1, 2015.
Contemporaneously with the publication of the Final Regulations in the
On June 28, 2002, the IRS and the Treasury Department promulgated final regulations under § 1.1502-77 in TD 9002, 67 FR 43538, to provide rules concerning the identity and authority of the agent and the designation of a new agent. These regulations were amended by TD 9255 (71 FR 13001) (March 14, 2006) and TD 9343 (72 FR 40066) (July 23, 2007). (The June 28, 2002 regulations and amendments are collectively referred to in this preamble as the 2002 Regulations.)
On June 29, 2002, the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2002-43 to prescribe instructions for all communications relating to the determination of a substitute agent and the designation of a substitute agent by a terminating common parent.
On May 30, 2012, the IRS and the Treasury Department proposed regulations that would replace the 2002 Regulations (2012 Proposed Regulations). The 2012 Proposed Regulations were published in the
Under the 2002 Regulations, the common parent of a group ceased to be the agent if its existence terminated under applicable law, if it became disregarded as an entity separate from its owner for federal tax purposes (a disregarded entity), or if it became an entity classified as a partnership for federal tax purposes. In such cases, the common parent could generally designate its successor, another member of the group, or a group member's successor as the substitute agent for the group (provided such designee was a domestic corporation for federal tax purposes). However, any such designation required affirmative approval by the Commissioner.
Although in general a common parent must be a domestic corporation, a common parent could be an entity created or organized under the laws of a foreign country and treated as a domestic corporation by reason of section 7874 (treating a foreign corporation as a domestic corporation as a result of certain outbound inversion transactions) or an election under section 953(d) to treat a foreign insurance company as a domestic corporation (foreign common parent). In recognition of the logistical problems this could create, the 2002 Regulations
Finally, the 2002 Regulations provided certain rules relating to partnerships and partners subject to sections 6221 through 6234 of the Code, enacted by section 402 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 324) (TEFRA), generally providing that the Commissioner would deal directly with a member that was the tax matters partner (TMP) regarding specified matters for the partners in a TEFRA partnership even if the TMP is not the agent.
The 2012 Proposed Regulations retained the general rules, concepts, and examples of the 2002 Regulations. However, the 2012 Proposed Regulations renumbered, restructured, and revised the 2002 Regulations to minimize the circumstances under which the identity of the agent would not be clear. The 2012 Proposed Regulations also increased the number of situations in which the identity of the agent would be determined without action by taxpayers or the Commissioner. The proposed changes are described in the following paragraphs 4.A. through 4.G.
The 2002 Regulations generally permitted a terminating agent to designate the substitute agent. However, the IRS observed that terminating agents, to the extent they designated at all, tended to designate their successors rather than another member of their group. To simplify the procedures and align them with taxpayers' practices, the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided that if an agent had a sole successor (default successor), the default successor would automatically become the group's agent when the prior agent ceased to exist, such as in a merger. The terminating agent would not be permitted to designate an agent unless there was no default successor, in which case the agent could only designate an entity that was a member of the group for the consolidated return year (or a successor of such a member). The 2012 Proposed Regulations also prescribed limited circumstances under which the Commissioner could replace a default successor.
The 2012 Proposed Regulations included disregarded entities and partnerships among the entities permitted to be agents for prior years in which they or their predecessors were not treated as disregarded. Thus, if a common parent converted or merged into a disregarded entity or partnership, whether by reason of a state law merger, a state law conversion, or a federal tax election, the continuing or successor juridical entity (whether a disregarded entity or partnership) would continue as the agent for the prior periods.
In general, the Code and regulations governing the treatment of TEFRA partnerships provide that the Commissioner will deal with the TMP regarding specified matters for the partners in a TEFRA partnership. See generally, sections 6221 through 6234. The 2002 Regulations provided two TEFRA specific rules relating to members that were partners in a TEFRA partnership. Under the first rule, a subsidiary that was the TMP of a TEFRA partnership would act in its own name regarding partnership matters, without requiring any action by the agent. Under the second rule, the Commissioner would deal with a subsidiary that was a partner in a TEFRA partnership in the performance of an examination of the TEFRA partnership. This second rule, however, appeared to create some confusion in the context of other provisions of the 2002 Regulations.
To provide more clarity with respect to the second rule, the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided that: (1) The agent will generally act as agent for a member that is a partner in a TEFRA partnership regarding all matters related to the partnership, including execution of a settlement agreement under section 6224(c) (as illustrated in
Although the 2002 Regulations required the Commissioner to approve any designation, in practice, designation approval requests were denied only rarely. To simplify procedures, and thereby conserve resources and enhance efficiency, the 2012 Proposed Regulations eliminated the requirement. However, to ensure that IRS records accurately reflect the identity of an agent, the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided that a default successor, or a terminating agent that has no default successor, must notify the IRS (in writing in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner) when the default successor or an entity designated by a terminating agent becomes the group's new agent.
The 2012 Proposed Regulations provided several limited circumstances in which the Commissioner could designate or replace an agent, either on its own initiative or at the request of other members. Examples were included in the 2012 Proposed Regulations to illustrate the circumstances in which an agent may be designated.
The 2012 Proposed Regulations did not provide the Commissioner with the ability to replace a domestic default successor under circumstances in which it could not replace the common parent.
As previously noted, the 2002 Regulations did not preclude foreign entities from acting as agent, but provided that the Commissioner could designate a domestic substitute agent. The IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that such an entity may have the best access to information, but also that these situations present unique logistical issues. Accordingly, the 2012 Proposed Regulations did not preclude a foreign entity from being the agent and preserved the Commissioner's discretion to replace a foreign entity.
Questions arose under the 2002 Regulations with respect to the actions that could be performed by a terminating agent during the “winding up” period following its dissolution. Because winding up statutes vary widely among the states, the IRS and the
The rules adopted in these Final Regulations are consistent with those set forth in the 2012 Proposed Regulations. The Final Regulations, however, make several revisions to the 2012 Proposed Regulations. First, as further described in section 5.A. of this preamble, the Final Regulations expand the circumstances under which the Commissioner may replace an agent on the Commissioner's own accord. Second, the Final Regulations clarify that a terminating agent without a default successor may only designate an agent with respect to a completed year. See section 5.A.iii. of this preamble. Third, the Final Regulations organize the provisions that permit the Commissioner to designate an agent into two categories: (1) Those provisions that authorize the Commissioner to replace an agent on the Commissioner's own accord, with or without a written request from a member; and (2) a provision described in section 5.B. of this preamble permitting the Commissioner to replace an agent pursuant to a member's written request. Fourth, as described in section 5.C. of this preamble, the Final Regulations allow an agent to resign under certain circumstances. Fifth, the Final Regulations clarify that an agent other than the common parent generally serves as agent under the same terms and with the same rights as the common parent. A significant exception to this general rule discussed in section 5.A.iii. of this preamble applies in the case of an agent designated by the Commissioner, in that such an agent may not designate an agent upon its termination unless the Commissioner designated the agent solely because a prior agent terminated without a default successor and without designating an agent (other than in the case of a group structure change as defined in § 1.1502-33(f)(1)).
In addition, the Final Regulations contain clarifying and non-substantive changes to the text of the 2012 Proposed Regulations and redesignate the 2002 Regulations as § 1.1502-77B (§ 1.1502-77A continues to apply for consolidated return years beginning before June 28, 2002).
The Final Regulations prescribe four circumstances in which the Commissioner may designate an agent on the Commissioner's own accord. Three of the circumstances are adopted from the 2012 Proposed Regulations: The Commissioner may designate an agent if (1) a terminating agent has no default successor and fails to designate an agent; (2) the Commissioner believes that the agent or its default successor exists but such entity fails to timely respond to notices properly sent by the Commissioner; or (3) the agent is or becomes a foreign entity (for example, through the agent's continuance into a foreign jurisdiction or certain transactions subject to the inversion rules of section 7874). The Final Regulations add an additional situation to the second circumstance so that the Commissioner may designate an agent where the agent either fails timely respond to notices or fails to perform its obligations as agent. Finally, the Final Regulations add a fourth circumstance: The Commissioner may designate a new agent for a current year if a previously designated agent ceases to be a member of the group.
The IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that there may be situations in which an agent is failing to perform its obligations as agent under the Code or regulations. Neither the 2002 Regulations nor the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided a remedy to designate an agent in such situations. As a result, members would not be able to accurately file a return, determine their federal tax liability, or obtain refunds, and the Commissioner might have to deal with each member separately by “breaking agency” pursuant to § 1.1502-77(f)(2)(i) of the 2012 Proposed Regulations. This could, in turn, result in significant uncertainty and undue burden for group members as well as the Commissioner. For example, assume the Commissioner breaks agency for a consolidated return year that has ended (completed year) and then one or more members files a claim for refund of income taxes paid for that year. Because of the uncertainty as to which member(s) would be entitled to all or a portion of the refund, the Government would likely be forced to interplead all potential member-claimants in an ensuing refund case.
The preamble to the 2012 Proposed Regulations requested comments with respect to this issue, but no comments were received. Nevertheless, the IRS and the Treasury Department have considered this issue and determined that the best interests of all concerned would be served by providing the Commissioner the authority to replace an agent that fails to perform its obligations as agent as prescribed by federal tax law. Accordingly, the Final Regulations provide that the Commissioner may, with or without a written request from a member, designate an agent to replace any agent that fails to perform its obligations as agent as prescribed by the Code or regulations promulgated thereunder.
The 2012 Proposed Regulations did not provide guidance for situations in which an agent previously designated by the Commissioner ceases to be a member during a consolidated return year that is not a completed year (current year). Thus, under the 2012 Proposed Regulations, there could be situations in which a group would have a non-member agent or no agent at all. The Final Regulations address these issues by requiring that the agent for the current year be a member of the group. An agent designated by the Commissioner will generally continue as the agent in successive consolidated return years except in three circumstances: (1) If the Commissioner specifies a limited or specific period of agency in the designation; (2) if the agent ceases to be a member of the group; or (3) if the agent is replaced pursuant to the Final Regulations.
The Final Regulations also provide an additional circumstance in which the Commissioner may designate an agent on the Commissioner's own accord. Specifically, the Final Regulations permit the Commissioner, with or without a written request from a member, to designate an agent for the current year if an agent previously designated by the Commissioner ceases to be a member of the group without leaving a default successor in the group. In that situation, a member of the group should request that the Commissioner designate an agent.
The Proposed Regulations permitted an agent that terminates without a default successor to designate an agent. If a terminating agent had no default successor and failed to designate an agent, the Commissioner could
Finally, to prevent groups from nullifying a designation made by the Commissioner, the Final Regulations provide that a designating agent may not designate as an agent any entity that the Commissioner previously replaced as agent. The designating agent may, however, submit a request that the Commissioner designate as agent the entity previously replaced as agent.
The 2002 Regulations and the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided a mechanism whereby upon the written request from a member, the Commissioner could, but was not required to, replace an agent previously designated by the Commissioner. The Final Regulations retain this provision to permit a member to request that the Commissioner designate a new agent in circumstances other than the specifically enumerated circumstances in which the Commissioner may designate an agent on the Commissioner's own accord.
Under the 2002 Regulations, a common parent remained the agent for any year for which it was the common parent, with only a termination of the common parent terminating that agency. However, the IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that there could be circumstances in which an agent would want to resign and have another entity take its place as agent. For example, assume P, the common parent of the P consolidated group, becomes a subsidiary of the group in a transaction under § 1.1502-75(d) (resulting in a group structure change described in § 1.1502-33(f)(1)), and the group continues with N as the new common parent and agent. If unrelated X acquires the stock of P, P would leave the group but would still be the agent for the years during which it was the group's common parent. In that situation, it might be more efficient for all concerned if P were to resign as agent in favor of another member. Although the 2012 Proposed Regulations did not include a mechanism for an existing agent to resign, the preamble to the 2012 Proposed Regulations requested comments with respect to this issue. No comments were received. Nevertheless, the IRS and the Treasury Department have considered the issue and determined that it would be in the best interests of all concerned and sound tax administration for agents to have the ability to resign, at least in limited situations.
Accordingly, the Final Regulations provide a mechanism for agents to resign with respect to completed years. However, there are four conditions that must be met. First, the agent must provide written notice to the Commissioner that it no longer intends to be the agent for a completed year. Second, an entity that could have been designated by the resigning agent upon its termination must consent, in writing, to be the agent for that year. Third, immediately after its resignation takes effect, the resigning agent must not be the agent for the current year. Fourth, the Commissioner must not object to the agent's resignation. If these conditions are satisfied, the new agent must notify each member of the group that it has become the agent.
The Final Regulations apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after April 1, 2015. The 2002 Regulations, redesignated as § 1.1502-77B, and Rev. Proc. 2002-43 continue to apply with respect to consolidated return years beginning on or after June 28, 2002, and before April 1, 2015. However, the new rules permitting the resignation of agents may be relied upon for completed years otherwise governed by the 2002 Regulations (or any predecessor regulations).
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 is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations will affect affiliated groups of corporations that have elected to file consolidated returns, which tend to be larger entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.
The principal author of these final regulations is Richard M. Heinecke, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1502-77B also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502 and 6402(j).
The revision reads as follows:
(g)
(h)
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Qualified real estate investment trust subsidiaries (within the meaning of section 856(i)(2));
(ii) Qualified subchapter S subsidiaries (within the meaning of section 1361(b)(3)(B)); and
(iii) Eligible entities with a single owner (within the meaning of § 301.7701-3 of this chapter).
(4)
(5)
(i) Each corporation that was a member of the group during any part of such year (except that any reference to a subsidiary does not include the common parent);
(ii) Each corporation whose income was included in the consolidated return for such year, notwithstanding that the tax liability of such corporation should have been computed on the basis of a separate return, or as a member of another consolidated group, under the provisions of § 1.1502-75; and
(iii) Except as indicated otherwise, a successor of any of the foregoing corporations.
(6)
(7)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(A) Any notice of deficiency or other communication mailed to the predecessor agent, even if no longer in existence, is considered as having been properly mailed to the agent; and
(B) The Commissioner is not required to act on any communication (including, for example, a claim for refund) submitted on behalf of the group by any person (including the default successor) other than the predecessor agent.
(ii)
(5)
(ii)
(B) The terminating agent may not designate as agent any entity that was previously replaced as agent by the Commissioner pursuant to paragraphs (c)(6)(i)(A)(
(iii)
(iv)
(A) Any notice of deficiency or other communication mailed to the agent, even if no longer in existence, is considered as having been properly mailed to the agent; and
(B) The Commissioner is not required to act on any communication (including, for example, a claim for refund) submitted on behalf of the group by any person.
(6)
(A)
(
(
(
(
(B)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) Any notice of deficiency or other communication mailed to the agent, even if no longer a member, is considered as having been properly mailed to the agent; and
(B) The Commissioner is not required to act on any communication (including, for example, a claim for refund) submitted on behalf of the group by any person.
(7)
(A) It provides written notice to the Commissioner that it no longer intends to be the agent for that completed year;
(B) An entity described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(A) of this section consents, in writing, to be the agent with respect to that completed year;
(C) Immediately after its resignation takes effect, the resigning agent will not be the agent for the current year; and
(D) The Commissioner does not object to the agent's resignation.
(ii)
(8)
(d)
(1) The agent makes any election (or similar choice of a permissible option) that is available to a subsidiary in the computation of its separate taxable income, and any change in an election (or similar choice of a permissible option) previously made by or for a subsidiary, including, for example, a request to change a subsidiary's method or period of accounting;
(2) All correspondence concerning the income tax liability for the consolidated return year is carried on directly with the agent;
(3) The agent files for all extensions of time, including extensions of time for payment of tax under section 6164, and any extension so filed is considered as having been filed by each member;
(4) The agent gives waivers, gives bonds, and executes closing agreements, offers in compromise, and all other documents, and any waiver or bond so given, or agreement, offer in compromise, or any other document so executed, is considered as having also been given or executed by each member;
(5) The agent files claims for refund, and any refund is made directly to and in the name of the agent and discharges any liability of the Government to any member with respect to such refund;
(6) The agent takes any action on behalf of a member of the group with respect to a foreign corporation including, for example, elections by, and changes to the method of accounting of, a controlled foreign corporation in accordance with § 1.964-1(c)(3);
(7) Notices of claim disallowance are mailed only to the agent, and the mailing to the agent is considered as a mailing to each member;
(8) Notices of deficiencies are mailed only to the agent (except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section), and the mailing to the agent is considered as a mailing to each member;
(9) Notices of final partnership administrative adjustment under section 6223 with respect to any partnership in which a member of the group is a partner may be mailed to the agent, and, if so, the mailing to the agent is considered as a mailing to each member that is a partner entitled to receive such notice (for other rules regarding partnership proceedings, see paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section);
(10) The agent files petitions and conducts proceedings before the United States Tax Court, and any such petition is considered as also having been filed by each member;
(11) Any assessment of tax may be made in the name of the agent, and an assessment naming the agent is considered as an assessment with respect to each member; and
(12) Notice and demand for payment of taxes is given only to the agent, and such notice and demand is considered as a notice and demand to each member.
(e)
(1) The making of the consent required by § 1.1502-75(a)(1);
(2) Any action with respect to the subsidiary's liability for a federal tax other than the income tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Code (including, for example, employment taxes under chapters 21 through 25 of the Code, and miscellaneous excise taxes under chapters 31 through 47 of the Code); and
(3) The making of an election to be treated as a Domestic International Sales Corporation under § 1.992-2.
(f)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) Any subsidiary or any disregarded entity owned by a subsidiary that is designated as tax matters partner of a TEFRA partnership will act in its own name and perform its responsibilities under sections 6221 through 6234 and the accompanying regulations without requiring any action by the agent (but see paragraph (d)(9) of this section regarding the mailing of a final partnership administrative adjustment to the agent); and
(B) The Commissioner may at any time communicate directly with a subsidiary or a disregarded entity owned by a subsidiary that is a partner in a TEFRA partnership, without having to deal with each member separately pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, whenever the Commissioner determines that such direct communication will facilitate the conduct of an examination, appeal, or settlement with respect to the partnership.
(3)
(g)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(B)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(ii)
(B)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(ii)
(ii)
(ii)
(h)
(i) [Reserved]
(j)
(2)
26 U.S.C. 7805.
(b) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the S64 drawbridge across Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, at Ontonagon, Ontonagon County, Michigan. The drawbridge was replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006 and the operating regulation is no longer applicable or necessary.
This rule is effective April 1, 2015.
The docket for this final rule, [USCG-2015-0082] is available at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone (216) 902-6085, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the S64 drawbridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.639, was replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or value.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
The S64 drawbridge across the Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the removal of the drawbridge and completion of the fixed bridge that replaced it. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.639,that pertained to the former drawbridge.
The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.639 from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) since it governs a bridge that is no longer able to be opened.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.639 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes the regulation governing the S64 drawbridge since the bridge has been replaced with a fixed bridge. This Final Rule seeks to update the CFR by removing language that governs the operation of the S64 drawbridge, which in fact is no longer a drawbridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be “significant” under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will have no effect on small entities since this drawbridge has been replaced with a fixed bridge and the regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no longer applicable. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
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 does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides 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 rule involves removing drawbridge operating regulations. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Correcting amendments.
The Coast Guard published a final rule in the
This rule is effective April 1, 2015.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email call or email Mr. Jorge Arroyo, Office of Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1563, email
To view the final rule published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other documents in the docket for this rulemaking, go to
On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule to expand the applicability of notice of arrival and automatic identification system (AIS) requirements and make related amendments regarding AIS. 80 FR 5282. We have identified two errors in this correction document.
In the final rule, we revised the definition of “VTS User” (Vessel Traffic Service User) in 33 CFR 161.2. 80 FR 5334. Paragraph (3) of that definition should only have included vessels required to install and use a Coast Guard type-approved AIS, instead the definition included all vessels equipped with a Coast Guard type-approved AIS whether it is required or not. The definition published in the final rule is inconsistent with the discussion in the preambles of both the NPRM and final rule which encourage all vessel owners to use AIS. 73 FR 76295, 76301, December 16, 2008; and 80 FR 5311, Jan. 30, 2015. The definition of “VTS User” in the final rule is also inconsistent with our authority to impose VTS User requirements.
Also in the final rule at paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of 33 CFR 164.46, we omitted the word “self-propelled” when describing vessels certificated to carry more than 150 passengers that are
As discussed above, the published definition of “VTS User” in 33 CFR 161.2 and AIS applicability paragraph (b)(1)(iii) in § 164.46 each contain an error which is misleading and needs to be corrected.
Harbors, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Accordingly, 33 CFR parts 161 and 164 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70114, 70119; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
33 U.S.C. 1222(5), 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Sec. 164.13 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 8502. Sec. 164.46 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 70114 and Sec. 102 of Pub. L. 107-295. Sec. 164.61 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 6101.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the California Regional Haze (RH) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) documenting that the State's existing plan is making adequate progress to achieve visibility goals by 2018. The revision consists of the California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report that addresses the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to describe progress in achieving visibility goals in Federally designated Class I areas in California and nearby states. EPA is taking final action to approve California's determination that the existing RH SIP is adequate to meet these visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at this time.
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0586 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available electronically at
Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at
EPA proposed on September 29, 2014, to approve the California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report (“Progress Report” or “Report”) as a revision to the California RH SIP.
EPA's proposed action provided for a public comment period that, upon request, was extended to 60 days ending on November 28, 2014.
The California RH SIP is based on a number of air quality programs that represent some of the most stringent air pollution controls in the country. These measures include those to achieve ozone, fine particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide NAAQS. Emission reductions also are achieved by installing and operating BART controls on the Valero refinery as required by the RHR. Other measures, for example, are related to innovative programs to reduce mobile source emissions or conserve energy. In essence, the State's plan to improve visibility in its Class I areas is inextricably linked to emission reductions from a variety of programs. Given the plan's reliance on a range of control measures, CARB's Progress Report appropriately summarizes all the emission reductions that the RH SIP encompasses.
CARB did include emissions from oil and gas production. Two source categories are listed for each of the four pollutants (NO
It is difficult to determine whether the limited, minor increases in the Oil and Gas inventory are attributable to any increase in production. We consider any potential growth in this sector a prospective issue for the State to address in its next RH SIP revision due in 2018. Nonetheless, according to the Emission Inventory 2013 Almanac (Appendix B), the following trends are discernable:
•
•
Regarding ammonia, the RHR does not require the inclusion of ammonia in the emission inventory. In EPA's General Principles for developing the progress reports, we explained that “[b]ecause nearly all of the initial regional haze SIPs . . . considered only SO
EPA is taking final action to approve the California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report submitted to EPA on June 16, 2014, as meeting the applicable RHR requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). With 29 Class I areas in California, we commend CARB on the Progress Report, and in particular, the development of the case studies in Appendix D that provide an analysis of wildfire impacts at three of the IMPROVE monitors. The comprehensive evaluation of the California RH SIP due in 2018 for the next ten-year planning period is the next opportunity to reassess progress and make any necessary adjustments.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Organic carbon, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(454) The following plan was submitted on June 16, 2014, by the Governor's Designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
(
(
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Montana. On July 13, 2011, the Governor of Montana's designee submitted to EPA a second 10-year maintenance plan for the Great Falls area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year period
This final rule is effective May 1, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0353. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Adam Clark, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA, covering a second 10-year period.
Along with the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan, the State submitted a CO maintenance plan for the Billings, Montana maintenance area, and an alternative strategy for monitoring continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in all of the State's CO maintenance areas on July 13, 2011.
In a document published on December 1, 2014, we proposed approval of the Great Falls second 10-year maintenance plan and the associated “Alternative Monitoring Strategy.” (79 FR 71057)
The comment period for our December 1, 2014 proposed rule was open for 30 days. We did not receive any comments on the proposed action.
EPA is approving the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan submitted on July 13, 2011. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA requirements and EPA has determined it is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year maintenance period out to 2022.
EPA is also approving the State's Alternative Monitoring Strategy, submitted on June 22, 2012, for the Great Falls CO maintenance area. We are not approving application of the Alternative Monitoring Strategy in other areas of Montana with this action, as the Alternative Monitoring Strategy must be considered on a case-by-case basis specific to the circumstances of each particular CO maintenance area rather than broadly.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) Revisions to the Montana State Implementation Plan, revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Great Falls, as submitted by the Governor's Designee on July 13, 2011, and the associated Alternative Monitoring Strategy for Great Falls, as submitted by the Governor's Designee on June 22, 2012.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and approved by the EPA. In this action, the EPA is also notifying the public of corrections to typographical errors and minor formatting changes to the IBR tables. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at the EPA's Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the EPA Regional Office.
This action is effective April 1, 2015.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460; or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, or at (206) 553-6706.
The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, the EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between the EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997,
Since the publication of the last IBR update, the EPA approved into the Idaho SIP the following regulatory changes:
1. IDAPA 58.01.01 (Rules for the Control of Air pollution in Idaho): section 624.
2. City and County Ordinances: City of Sandpoint Chapter 8 Air Quality (4-8-1 through 4-8-14), City of Clifton Ordinance No. 120, City of Dayton Ordinance #287, Franklin City Ordinance No. 2012-9-12, Franklin County Ordinance No. 2012-6-25, City of Oxford Memorandum of Understanding, City of Preston Ordinance No. 2012-1, City of Weston Ordinance No. 2012-01.
3. EPA-Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements: The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC—Nampa Factory, Nampa, Idaho (Permit No. T2-2009.0105, date issued 12/23/2011).
IDAPA 58.01.01 (Rules for the Control of Air pollution in Idaho): sections 006, 107, 220, 222, 617, 618, 620, 622 and 623.
1. City and County Ordinances: City of Sandpoint Ordinance No. 965 (2/21/1995 City adoption date).
2. EPA-Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements: Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Sandpoint, Idaho (State effective date 10/31/2001), The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC—Nampa Factory, Nampa, Idaho (Permit No. T2-2009.0105, date issued 9/7/2010).
In this action, the EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of January 15, 2015. The EPA is also correcting typographical errors, including omission and capitalization errors in subsection 52.670(c), table entries 006, 124, and 220. The EPA is also reformatting dates (
The EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Idaho SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, the EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for Idaho.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(1) Material listed as incorporated by reference in paragraphs (c) and (d) was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The material incorporated is as it exists on the date
(2)(i) EPA Region 10 certifies that the rules and regulations provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules and regulations which have been approved as part of the State implementation plan as of January 15, 2015.
(ii) EPA Region 10 certifies that the source-specific requirements provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated source-specific requirements which have been approved in the notebook “40 CFR 52.670(d)—Source Specific Requirements” as part of the State implementation plan as of January 15, 2015.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the EPA Region 10 Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
(c)
(d)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, information collection requirements associated with the Commission's
The amendment to 47 CFR 74.802(b)(2), published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014 is effective on April 1, 2015.
For additional information contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on March 17, 2015, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1205.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule announces the approval of the Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West Coast) Catch Sharing Plan (Plan), with modifications recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and issues implementing regulations for 2015. These actions are intended to conserve Pacific halibut, provide angler opportunity where available, and minimize bycatch of overfished groundfish species. The sport fishing management measures in this rule are an additional subsection of the regulations for the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) published on March 17, 2015.
This rule is effective April 1, 2015. The 2015 management measures are effective until superseded.
Additional requests for information regarding this action may be obtained by contacting the Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115. For information regarding all halibut fisheries and general regulations not contained in this rule contact the International Pacific Halibut Commission, 2320 W. Commodore Way Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98199-1287; or this final rule also is accessible via the Internet at the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Sarah Williams, 206-526-4646, email at
This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at
The IPHC has promulgated regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery in 2015, pursuant to the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). Pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) at 16 U.S.C. 773b, the Secretary of State accepted the 2015 IPHC regulations as provided by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) at 16 U.S.C. 773-773k. NMFS published these regulations on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13771).
The Halibut Act provides that the Regional Fishery Management Councils may develop, and the Secretary may implement, regulations governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen in U.S. waters that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. To that end,
NMFS implements the allocation scheme in the Plan through annual regulations for Area 2A. The proposed rule describing the changes the Council recommended to the Plan and resulting proposed Area 2A regulations for 2015 was published on February 3, 2015 (80 FR 5719). The proposed rule was developed prior to the IPHC's decision on a TAC for Area 2A, therefore it did not include final allocations for the relevant areas and subareas. The IPHC held its annual meeting January 26-30, 2015, and selected at TAC of 970,000 pounds for Area 2A. This final rule accounts for that information.
For 2015, this final rule contains only those regulations implementing the Plan in Area 2A. NMFS published the complete IPHC regulations, which apply to commercial, treaty Indian, and recreational fisheries, separately on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13771). Therefore anyone wishing to fish for halibut in Area 2A should read both this final rule and the March 17, 2015 final rule that implements the IPHC regulations.
This final rule announces the approval of several Council-recommended changes to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Area 2A Plan and implements the Plan through annual management measures. For 2015, the Council recommended and NMFS implements in this final rule, several changes to the non-Indian allocations in order to provide the California recreational fishery with an allocation that is closer to recent effort while not substantially reducing the remaining non-Indian allocations. The Council recommendation increases the California sport fishery allocation from 1 to 4 percent of the non-tribal allocation by reducing the Washington and Oregon sport and the commercial allocations each by 1 percent.
Additionally for 2015, the Council recommended several minor changes to the Plan that would: (1) Remove a reference to the “fall salmon troll fisheries” as a trigger for the rollover of quota from the directed halibut fishery to the incidental salmon troll fishery because there is no defined “fall” salmon fishery; (2) make several changes to the Columbia River subarea including modifying the Oregon contribution to a fixed percentage of the Oregon sport allocation, setting the nearshore fishery allocation to 500 pounds, removing the spring and summer fisheries thus allowing the quota to be used continuously, and adding all flatfish species to the list of incidentally caught fish allowed to be landed with halibut; (3) make several changes to the Oregon central coast subarea including clarifying that the allocation to the Columbia river subarea comes from the total Oregon sport allocation and not from this area's spring fishery, adding incidental flatfish retention consistent with the change in the Columbia River subarea, modifying the spring all depth season allocation from 61 to 63 percent, and removing the provision that allocated a portion of the spring fishery to the Southern Oregon subarea; (4) modify the allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea from 2 to 4 percent of the Oregon sport allocation after the Columbia River allocation has been subtracted; (5) make several changes to the California subarea including modifying the season structure to a 7 days per week fishery when open, with a season length that is based on attainment of the quota instead of a set season, allowing inseason action through joint NMFS, IPHC, and CDFW consultation; and (6) modify the name of the NMFS Northwest Regional Office to “NMFS West Coast Regional Office”, to reflect the recent merger of NMFS offices.
This final rule also implements the allocation for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, Washington. The Plan provides that incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, Washington, will be allowed when the Area 2A TAC is greater than 900,000 lb (408.2 mt), provided that a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.5 mt) is available above the state of Washington recreational allocation of 214,100 lb (97.1 mt). In 2015, the TAC is set at 970,000 lb (439.99 mt); therefore, the allocation for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish fishery is 10,348 lb (4.69 mt). The Council considered whether any changes to the landing restrictions adopted for this fishery in 2014 were necessary for 2015, but because this allocation is similar to recent allocations, the Council made no changes. Therefore, the 2015 incidental halibut landing restrictions are: 75 pounds dressed weight of halibut for every 1,000 lbs dressed weight of sablefish, except that 2 additional halibut may be landed. These restrictions can be found in the groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.231(3)(iv).
The Plan allocates 15 percent of the non-Indian commercial TAC to the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A. For 2015, the allocation for the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A is 29,035 lb (13.17 mt). The Council approved a range of landing restrictions for public review at its recent March meeting. The final landing restrictions will be addressed at its April 2015 meetings.
NMFS accepted comments on the proposed rule for the Area 2A Plan and annual management measures through March 5, 2015. NMFS received 4 public comment letters: one comment letter each from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recommending season dates for halibut sport fisheries in each state, and one comment from an individual.
On February 3, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule to modify the Plan and recreational management measures for Area 2A (80 FR 5719). Because the proposed rule was finalized before the IPHC determined the TAC for Area 2A, the final subarea allocations based on the TAC and Plan are included for the first time in the final rule. The allocations in this rule are consistent with the final Area 2A TAC of 970,000 lbs and the 2015 Plan as recommended by the Council. Also, season dates as recommended by the states following determination of the TAC are included in the final rule. There are no other substantive changes from the proposed rule.
The sport fishing regulations for Area 2A, included in section 26 below, are consistent with the measures adopted by the IPHC and approved by the Secretary of State, but were developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and promulgated by the United States under the Halibut Act. Section 26 refers to a section that is in addition to and corresponds to the numbering in the IPHC regulations published on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13771).
(1) The total allowable catch of halibut shall be limited to:
(a) 214,110 pounds (97.1 metric tons) net weight in waters off Washington;
(b) 187,259 pounds (84.9 metric tons) net weight in waters off Oregon; and
(c) 25,220 pounds (11.4 metric tons) net weight in waters off California.
(2) The Commission shall determine and announce closing dates to the public for any area in which the catch limits promulgated by NMFS are estimated to have been taken.
(3) When the Commission has determined that a subquota under paragraph (8) of this section is estimated to have been taken, and has announced a date on which the season will close, no person shall sport fish for halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless a reopening of that area for sport halibut fishing is scheduled in accordance with the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A, or announced by the Commission.
(4) In California, Oregon, or Washington, no person shall fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure a halibut in any manner that prevents the determination of minimum size or the number of fish caught, possessed, or landed.
(5) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut in the waters off the coast of Washington is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit on land in Washington for halibut caught in U.S. waters off the coast of Washington is two halibut.
(6) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut caught in the waters off the coast of Oregon is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit for halibut on land in Oregon is three daily bag limits.
(7) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut caught in the waters off the coast of California is one halibut. The possession limit for halibut on land in California is one halibut.
(8) The sport fishing subareas, subquotas, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows, except as modified under the in-season actions in 50 CFR 300.63(c). All sport fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the quota for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.
(a) The area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., is not managed in-season relative to its quota. This area is managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of 57,393 lbs (26 mt).
(i) The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is May 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, and 30. The fishing season in western Puget Sound (west of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is open May 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, and 30.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(b) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (2)(a) of section 26 and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N. lat.) (North Coast subarea), is 108,030 lbs (49 mt).
(i) The fishing seasons are:
(A) Commencing on May 14 and continuing 2 days a week (Thursday and Saturday) until 108,030 lbs (49 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until May 23.
(B) If sufficient quota remains the fishery will reopen on June 4 and/or June 6, continuing 2 days per week (Thursday and Saturday) until there is not sufficient quota for another full day
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(iii) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined in groundfish regulations at § 660.70(a).
(c) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N. lat.), and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.) (South Coast subarea), is 42,739 lbs (19.4 mt).
(i) This subarea is divided between the all-waters fishery (the Washington South coast primary fishery), and the incidental nearshore fishery in the area from 47°31.70′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of a boundary line approximating the 30 fm depth contour. This area is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated as described by the following coordinates (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area):
(1) 47°31.70′ N. lat, 124°37.03′ W. long;
(2) 47°25.67′ N. lat, 124°34.79′ W. long;
(3) 47°12.82′ N. lat, 124°29.12′ W. long;
(4) 46°58.00´ N. lat, 124°24.24′ W. long.
The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 40,739 lbs (18.5 mt) for the primary fishery and 2,000 lbs (0.9 mt) for the nearshore fishery. The primary fishery commences on May 3, and continues 2 days a week (Sunday and Tuesday) until May 19. If the primary quota is projected to be obtained sooner than expected, the management closure may occur earlier. Beginning on May 31 the primary fishery will be open at most 2 days per week (Sunday and/or Tuesday) until the quota for the south coast subarea primary fishery is taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. The fishing season in the nearshore area commences on May 3, and continues 7 days per week. Subsequent to closure of the primary fishery, the nearshore fishery is open 7 days per week, until is 42,739 lbs (19.4 mt) is projected to be taken by the two fisheries combined and the fishery is closed by the Commission or September 30, whichever is earlier. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred in-season to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(iii) Seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30-fm depth contour and during days open to the primary fishery, lingcod may be taken, retained and possessed when allowed by groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.360, subpart G.
(iv) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA and/or Westport Offshore YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA are areas off the southern Washington coast established to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(d). The Westport Offshore YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(e).
(d) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.), and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N. lat.) (Columbia River subarea), is 10,254 lbs (4.65 mt).
(i) This subarea is divided into an all-depth fishery and a nearshore fishery. The nearshore fishery is allocated 500 pounds of the subarea allocation. The nearshore fishery extends from Leadbetter Point (46°38.17′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long.) to the Columbia River (46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long.) by connecting the following coordinates in Washington 46°38.17′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long. 46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long and connecting to the boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour in Oregon. The nearshore fishery opens May 4, and continues 3 days per week (Monday-Wednesday) until the nearshore allocation is taken, or September 30, whichever is earlier. The all depth fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 4 days a week (Thursday-Sunday) until 9,754 lbs (4.4 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
(iii) Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, during days open to the all depth fishery only.
(iv) Taking, retaining, possessing, or landing halibut on groundfish trips is only allowed in the nearshore area on days not open to all-depth Pacific halibut fisheries.
(e) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N. lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N. lat.) (Oregon Central Coast subarea), is 175,633 lbs (79.6 mt).
(i) The fishing seasons are:
(A) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences July 1, and continues 7 days a week, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery of 21,076 lbs (9.56 mt), or any in-season revised subquota, is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N. lat. and 42°40.50′ N. lat. is defined at § 660.71(k).
(B) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open May 14-16, 28-30, June 11-13, and 25-27. Back-up dates will be July 9-11 and 23-25. The projected catch for this season is 110,649 lbs (50.2 mt). If sufficient unharvested quota remains for additional fishing days, the season will
(C) If sufficient unharvested quota remains, the third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be open August 7, 8, 21, 22, September 4, 5, 18, 19, October 2, 3, 16, 17, 30, 31, or until the combined spring season and summer season quotas in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain, OR, are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline in July whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August. No halibut fishing will be allowed in the summer season fishery unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. Additional fishing days may be opened if sufficient quota remains after the last day of the first scheduled open period on August 7. If, after this date, an amount greater than or equal to 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning (insert date of first back up dates) and ending October 31. If after September 7, an amount greater than or equal to 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, and the fishery is not already open every Friday and Saturday, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning September 10 and 11, and ending October 31. After September 7, the bag limit may be increased to two fish of any size per person, per day. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open and what the bag limit is.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.
(iii) During days open to all-depth halibut fishing, no Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species, when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations.
(iv) When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.
(v) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not possess any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined at § 660.70(f).
(f) The quota for landings into ports in the area south of Humbug Mountain, OR (42°40.50′ N. lat.) to the Oregon/California Border (42°00.00′ N. lat.)(Southern Oregon subarea) is 7,318 lbs (3.3 mt).
(i) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 7 days per week until the subquota is taken, or October 31, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut per person with no size limit.
(g) The quota for landings into ports south of the Oregon/California Border (42°00.00′ N. lat.) and along the California coast is 25,220 lb (11.4 mt).
(i) The fishing season will be open May 1-15, June 1-15, July 1-15, August 1-15, and September 1-October 31, or until the subarea quota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce any closure by the Commission on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.
(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.
Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. This action is consistent with the Pacific Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off the U.S. West Coast.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in association with the proposed rule for the 2014 Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan. The final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, if any, and NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. NMFS received no comments on the IRFA. A copy of the FRFA is available from the NMFS West Coast Region (see
This rule implements changes to the Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) that addresses the commercial and recreational fisheries within Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West Coast). The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) sets the overall Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and the CSP governs the allocation of that TAC between tribal and non-tribal fisheries, and among non-tribal fisheries. The Council, with input from industry, the states, and the tribes, may recommend changes to the CSP. (Note that the IPHC also sets the commercial fishery opening date(s), duration, and vessel trip limits to ensure that the quota for the non-tribal fisheries is not exceeded.) For non-tribal fisheries, the CSP governs allocations of the TAC between various components of the commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries, and these allocations may vary depending on the level of the TAC. Seasons, gear restrictions, and other management measures implemented through domestic regulations are then used to meet the allocations and priorities of the CSP. There were no significant issues raised by the public comments in response to IRFA.
These regulations directly affect fin-fish harvesting and charterboat businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the US, including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts, not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide (See 79 FR 33647, effective July 14, 2014). For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is now defined as one with annual receipts, not in excess of $7.5 million. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full time, part time,
To determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this rule, NMFS reviewed the number of IPHC issued licenses and other information. In 2014, 591 vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut. IPHC issued licenses for: The directed commercial fishery and the incidental fishery in the sablefish primary fishery in Area 2A (166 licenses in 2014); incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (425 licenses in 2014); and the charterboat fleet (127 licenses in 2013, the most recent year available). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. These license estimates overstate the number of vessels that participate in the fishery. IPHC estimates that 60 vessels participated in the directed commercial fishery, 100 vessels in the incidental commercial (salmon) fishery, and 13 vessels in the incidental commercial (sablefish) fishery. Recent information on charterboat activity is not available, but prior analysis indicated that 60 percent of the IPHC charterboat license holders may be affected by these regulations. There are no projected reporting or record keeping requirements with this rule. There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries; therefore, none of these changes will have a disproportionate negative effect on small entities versus large entities.
The major effect of halibut management on small entities is from the internationally set TAC decisions made by the IPHC. Based on the recommendations of the states, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing in this final rule minor changes to the Plan to provide increased recreational and commercial opportunities under the allocations that result from the TAC.
The IPHC increased the Area 2A TAC by 1% from 960,000 lbs (2014) to 970,000 lbs (2015). Within this 1% increase, different subgroups are being affected differently because of the CSP allocation formula.
The 2A Halibut Catch Sharing Plan, as outlined above, allocates the TAC at various levels. The commercial fishery is further divided into a directed commercial fishery that is allocated 85 percent of the commercial allocation of the Pacific halibut TAC, and incidental catch in the salmon troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent of the commercial allocation. The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53.30′ N. lat.), Oregon, and California. North of 46°53.30′ N. lat. (Pt. Chehalis), the Plan allows for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt). The Plan also divides the sport fisheries into seven geographic subareas, each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits. The non-tribal allocation is divided into four shares. At the first level, there are specific percentage allocations for tribal and non-tribal fisheries. The non-tribal portion is then allocated to commercial components and to recreational components. The commercial component is then apportioned into directed, incidental troll, and incidental sablefish fisheries. The recreational portions for Oregon and Washington are furthered apportioned into area subquotas and these subquotas are further split into seasonal or depth fisheries (nearshore vs all depths). There may be gear restrictions and other management measures established as necessary to minimize the potential for the allocations to be exceeded.
At the September meeting, the Council adopted a range of Plan alternatives for public review. For 2015, the Council adopted two types of Plan changes that are discussed separately below. The first were the routine recreational fishery adjustments proposed by the states each year to accommodate the needs of their fisheries. The second were allocation changes to both the non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries in order to increase the California allocation. The Council made final Plan change recommendations from this range at its November meeting.
For the non-allocation Plan changes the Council considered changes to the Columbia River, Oregon Central Coast, Southern Oregon, and California subareas. For the Columbia River subarea the Council considered: (1) Status quo seasonal management in a spring and summer fishery and one alternative which removes the seasonal split in the Columbia River subarea to allow for a single continuous season; (2) status quo allocation contributions from Washington and Oregon in equal amounts and one alternative that modifies the Oregon contribution to the Columbia River subarea to 2.3 percent of the Oregon sport allocation; and (3) status quo nearshore fishery allocation of 1,500 pounds and one alternative that modifies the Columbia River nearshore area allocation to 500 pounds. The Council recommended and this final rule implements each of the alternatives for the Columbia River subarea because the status quo alternatives do not match the needs of the fishery. The status quo season structure with an early and late season was rejected because this structure would unnecessarily strand quota later in the year when effort decreases substantially. The status quo Oregon contribution was rejected because it does not match recent effort in this subarea in Oregon. The status quo nearshore allocation was rejected because the allocation did not match the effort in the nearshore area, leaving a large portion of the allocation unavailable for harvest in other areas.
For the Oregon Central Coast subarea, the Council considered three all-depth season structures and modifications to the allocation from the Oregon Central Coast spring fishery to the Southern Oregon subarea. For the season structure, the Council considered three alternatives: Status quo, which would separate spring and summer seasons; Alternative 1a, which would combine the spring and summer season and open the fishery on May 1; and Alternative 1b, which is the same as 1a, except begin on the first weekend in May that avoid negative tides. For the allocation change the Council considered: Status quo, which allocates a portion of the spring fishery to the Southern Oregon subarea, and one alternative, which allocates a portion of the overall Oregon Central Coast subarea allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea. The Council recommended and this final rule implements the status quo alternative for the season structure and the one alternative for the allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea. The season structure alternatives were rejected because they did not match the needs of this fishery. The allocation in this area is generally caught very quickly, therefore keeping separate seasons allows for two distinct seasons. The status quo alternative allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea was rejected because it does not allow the Southern Oregon subarea an individual
For the Southern Oregon subarea, the Council considered three alternative season dates: Status quo, opening May 1, seven days per week; Alternative 1, open June 1, seven days per week; and Alternative 2, open July 1 seven days per week. The Council recommended and this final rule implements the status quo alternative because the other alternatives do not match the recent effort in this area and does not match the input the ODFW received at their public meetings.
In the Columbia River and Central Oregon Coast subareas, the Council considered three alternatives to incidental groundfish retention allowances: status quo, only Pacific cod and sablefish are allowed; Alternative 1, revise the bottomfish restrictions such that all groundfish except rockfish and lingcod would be allowed when halibut are onboard; and Alternative 2, revise the bottomfish restrictions such that other flatfish, in addition to Pacific cod and sablefish, would be allowed when halibut are onboard. The Council recommended and this final rule implements Alternative 2 because it allows incidentally caught flatfish species to be landed with halibut without increasing the catch of overfished species. Status quo was rejected because it would not allow incidentally caught flatfish species to be landed. Alternative 1 was rejected because it would likely increase the take of overfished groundfish species to levels that would restrict other fisheries due to the small allocations of overfished species.
For the California subarea, the Council considered three alternatives: Status quo, fixed season open May 1-July 31 and September 1-October 31, no inseason adjustment; Alternative 1, one month season between May 1 and October 31, to be determined preseason, with inseason adjustment as needed; Alternative 2, 15 consecutive day season between May 1 and October 31, to be determined preseason, with inseason adjustment as needed. The Council recommended and this final rule implements a modified Alternative which allows for a seven day a week fishery, that will be determined preseason through joint consultation between NMFS and CDFW, and allows for inseason adjustment as necessary. The other three alternatives were rejected because they either did not allow for inseason adjustment or predetermined the season dates which would unnecessarily restrict the season.
No alternatives were considered for the NMFS recommended change to the Regional Office name because it is administrative in nature and simply updates the name of the region from “Northwest” to “West Coast.”
The changes to the Columbia River subarea allocations and incidentally landed species allowances are expected to increase recreational opportunities by shifting underutilized fishery allocation from the late to the early part of the season when effort is higher and by turning previously discarded incidental flatfish catch into landed catch. Changes to the Oregon Central Coast subarea allocation and incidentally landed species are expected to prolong seasons and increase the total number of fishing days and are expected to increase recreational opportunities by turning previously discarded incidental catch into landed catch. None of these changes are controversial and none are expected to result in substantial environmental or economic impacts. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, to provide angler opportunity where available, and to protect overfished groundfish species from incidental catch in the halibut fisheries. Because the goal of the action is to maximize angler participation and thus to maximize the economic benefits of the fishery, NMFS did not analyze alternatives to the above changes to the Plan other than the proposed changes and the status quo for purposes of the FRFA. Status quo would be the 2014 Plan applied to the 2015 TAC. Effects of the status quo and the final changes are similar because the changes to the Plan for 2015 are not substantially different from the 2014 Plan. The changes to the Plan are not expected to have a significant economic impact.
In response to the growing California sport fishery, for 2014, a specific recreational subquota was created—1% of the non-tribal quota or 6,240 lbs. In prior years, the California fishery was a portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern California subquota. Preliminary catch data for 2015 show that the California fishery has taken 31,226 lbs, five times the California subquota. Because the 2014 subquota was insuffiencent to meet the growth in the California fishery, the Council reviewed six alternatives that allocate halibut to the various sectors differently between the sectors depending on the size of the TAC. Status Quo: The non-treaty allocation is apportioned according to the 2014 CSP: Washington sport (36.60%), Oregon sport (30.70%), California sport (1.00%), and commercial (31.70%). Alternative 1: Maintain allocations as described in the CSP (Status Quo), except increase the California sport allocation by two percent, for a total California sport allocation of three percent, by reducing the non-treaty commercial fishery share. Alternative 2, Option A: Same allocations as described in Alternative 1 when the 2A TAC is one million pounds or less. When the 2A TAC is above one million pounds, the California sport allocation would increase by an additional one percent, for a total California sport allocation of four percent, by reducing the non-treaty commercial fishery share. Alternative 2, Option B: Same allocations as described in Alternative 1 when the 2A TAC is one million pounds or less. When the 2A TAC is greater than one million pounds, the first one million pounds of the 2A TAC shall be distributed according to the Alternative 1 allocations. For the portion of the 2A TAC that exceeds one million pounds, the California sport allocation would increase to 30-50 percent of the non-treaty share, and allocation percentages for the non-treaty commercial and recreational (Washington and Oregon) would be reduced to remain proportional to the status quo non-treaty shares. Alternative 3: Increase the California sport allocation by two percent, for a total California sport allocation of three percent, when the 2A TAC is less than one million pounds by reducing the three major non-treaty group allocations (
For 2015, the Council has recommended and this final rule implements Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative). For 2015, the Council recommended to increase the California recreational fishery allocation to 4% of the non-tribal allocation by reducing the Washington and Oregon sport and commercial allocations each by 1 percent. This modification is intended to provide an allocation to California that better matches recent effort. The CDFW has also committed to increased inseason monitoring in collaboration with NMFS. Pacific halibut sport fisheries in California have exceeded the allocation in recent years and therefore the goal of increased inseason monitoring and action, as necessary, is to keep the subarea within its allocation. Further, instead of a fixed season, CDFW will recommend to NMFS, similar to subareas in Washington and Oregon, a season length based on expected catch to attain the subarea quota. The status quo allocation was rejected because if maintained, the California fishery is likely to continue to exceed its quota and suffer an early shutdown. Under the status quo alternative, the overall halibut TAC will run the risk of being exceeded, and therefore it was not selected. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 provide increases to the recreational fishery based on decreasing the commercial quota by 2 percent. Alternative 5 increases the California subquota by 4 percent by reducing the Oregon and Washington subquota and the non-tribal commercial quota. While this favors the California fishery, it is at the expense of too large of a reduction in the other fisheries, and therefore it was not selected.
Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, the increase of 3% to the California subquota comes from reducing the WA sport quota by 1%, the Oregon sport quota by 1%, and the non-tribal commercial quota by 1%. The overall effect is a shift of 1% reduction of the non-tribal commercial directed quota to the total sport quota allocation. From an economic perspective, it is unclear whether this shift is negative or positive given available analyses. However the overall economic effects of this shift is small as the potential loss of about $300,000 in ex-vessel revenues must be weighed by the gain of increased charterboat recreational activities.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. Section 302(b)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes a seat on the Council for a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho. The U.S. Government formally recognizes that 13 Washington tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. The Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC to U.S. treaty Indian tribes in the State of Washington. Each of the treaty tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, tribal allocations and regulations, including the changes to the Plan, have been developed in with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.
In 2014, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the continuing implementation of the Catch Sharing Plan for 2014-2016. The Plan changes for 2015 are not expected to have any effects on the environment beyond those discussed in the EA and in the finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
NMFS conducted a formal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act for the Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan for 2014-2016 addressing the effects of implementing the Plan on ESA-listed yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio in Puget Sound, the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon, salmon, marine mammals, and sea turtles. In the biological opinion the Regional Administrator determined that the implementation of the Catch Sharing Plan for 2014-2016 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish, Puget Sound canary rockfish, Puget Sound bocaccio, Puget Sound Chinook, Lower Columbia River Chinook, and green sturgeon. It is not expected to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for green sturgeon or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, bocaccio. In addition, the opinion concluded that the implementation of the Plan is not likely to adversely affect marine mammals, the remaining listed salmon species and sea turtles, and is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for Southern resident killer whales, stellar sea lions, leatherback sea turtles, any listed salmonids, and humpback whales. Further, the Regional Administrator determined that implementation of the Catch Sharing Plan will have no effect on southern eulachon, this determination was made in a letter dated March 12, 2014. The 2015 Plan and regulations do not change the conclusions from the biological opinion.
NMFS has initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the halibut fishery on seabirds, bull trout, and sea otters. This consultation is not completed at this time. NMFS has prepared a 7(a)(2)/7(d) determination memo under the ESA concluding that any effects of the 2015 fishery on listed seabirds are expected to be quite low, and are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. Further, in no way will the 2015 fishery make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources by the agency.
NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness and make this rule effective upon publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
(a) A catch sharing plan (CSP) may be developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by NMFS for portions of the fishery. Any approved CSP may be obtained from the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS.
(c) * * *
(1) The Regional Administrator, NMFS West Coast Region, after consultation with the Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Commission Executive Director, and the Fisheries Director(s) of the affected state(s), or their designees, is authorized to modify regulations during the season after making the following determinations:
(3) * * *
(ii) Actual notice of inseason management actions will be provided by a telephone hotline administered by the West Coast Region, NMFS, at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825 (May through October) and by U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts. These broadcasts are announced on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz at frequent intervals. The announcements designate the channel or frequency over which the notice to mariners will be immediately broadcast. Since provisions of these regulations may be altered by inseason actions, sport fishers should monitor either the telephone hotline or U.S. Coast Guard broadcasts for current information for the area in which they are fishing.
(5)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of agency decision.
NMFS announces the approval of Amendment 14 to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The purpose of Amendment 14 is to specify an estimate of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy in the CPS FMP. This action promotes the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.
The amendment was approved on March 23, 2015.
Electronic copies of the CPS FMP as amended through Amendment 14 are available from the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Web site at:
Joshua B. Lindsay, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4034 or Kerry Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-820-2280.
The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit proposed amendments to a fishery management plan to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, NMFS immediately publish in the
At the November 2013 Council meeting the Council adopted an F
The Notice of Availability for Amendment 14 was published in the
As it relates to the specific information used to make the determination that an F
Although general biological information on the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy exists, specific productivity information is limited; therefore the SSC looked at information available for the other CPS stocks to help determine an appropriate rate. For instance, the default exploitation rate for Pacific mackerel, a stock for which more information is known regarding stock variability and productivity (stock assessments for
The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of intent; announcement of public meetings.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is giving notice that it intends to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed Federal standards for the energy efficiency requirements of miscellaneous refrigeration standards. The purpose of the working group will be to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for the scope and definitions, certain aspects of the test procedure, and energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products, as authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended. The working group will consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues. The working group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate a final term sheet within four (4) months of its first meeting. At a minimum, within four months (4) of its first meeting, the working group is required to provide a status update to ASRAC. An extension of no more than two (2) months may be provided given formal feedback and recommendation from ASRAC members after deliberation and discussion surrounding the working group's status update. Lastly, DOE is announcing the first Working Group session, which is open to the public, on Monday, May 4, and Tuesday, May 5.
DOE will hold the first meeting for the Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group on Monday, May 4, and Tuesday, May 5, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC. Written comments and request to be appointed as members of the working group are welcome and should be submitted by April 15, 2015.
The first Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group meeting, which is also open to the public, will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies (EE-2J), 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: 202-586-4549. Email:
This notice of intent, announcing DOE's intent to negotiate a proposed rule for the enforcement of regional energy conservation standards, was developed under the authority of sections 563 and 564 of the NRA (5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320). The regulation of miscellaneous refrigeration products for energy conservation standards that DOE is proposing to develop under a negotiated rulemaking will be developed under the authority of EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6291
As required by the NRA, DOE is giving notice that it is establishing a working group under ASRAC to discuss scope and definitions of and potentially develop proposed energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. Miscellaneous refrigeration equipment is not current a covered product under EPCA and there currently are no energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products.
DOE has decided to use the negotiated rulemaking process to discuss the scope and definitions of and develop proposed energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. The primary reason for using the negotiated rulemaking process for this product is that stakeholders strongly support a consensual rulemaking effort. DOE believes such a regulatory
A regulatory negotiation will enable DOE to engage in direct and sustained dialog with informed, interested, and affected parties when drafting the regulation, rather than obtaining input during a public comment period after developing and publishing a proposed rule. Gaining this early understanding of all parties' perspectives allows DOE to address key issues at an earlier stage of the process, thereby allowing more time for an iterative process to resolve issues. A rule drafted by negotiation with informed and affected parties is expected to be potentially more pragmatic and more easily implemented than a rule arising from the traditional process. Such rulemaking improvement is likely to provide the public with the full benefits of the rule while minimizing the potential negative impact of a proposed regulation conceived or drafted without the full prior input of outside knowledgeable parties. Because a negotiating working group includes representatives from the major stakeholder groups affected by or interested in the rule, the number of public comments on the proposed rule may be decreased. DOE anticipates that there will be a need for fewer substantive changes to a proposed rule developed under a regulatory negotiation process prior to the publication of a final rule.
Usually, DOE develops a proposed rulemaking using Department staff and consultant resources. Congress noted in the NRA, however, that regulatory development may “discourage the affected parties from meeting and communicating with each other, and may cause parties with different interests to assume conflicting and antagonistic positions * * *.” 5 U.S.C. 561(2)(2). Congress also stated that “adversarial rulemaking deprives the affected parties and the public of the benefits of face-to-face negotiations and cooperation in developing and reaching agreement on a rule. It also deprives them of the benefits of shared information, knowledge, expertise, and technical abilities possessed by the affected parties.” 5 U.S.C. 561(2)(3).
Using negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule differs fundamentally from the Department centered process. In negotiated rulemaking, a proposed rule is developed by an advisory committee or working group, chartered under FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, composed of members chosen to represent the various interests that will be significantly affected by the rule. The goal of the advisory committee or working group is to reach consensus on the treatment of the major issues involved with the rule. The process starts with the Department's careful identification of all interests potentially affected by the rulemaking under consideration. To help with this identification, the Department publishes a notice of intent such as this one in the
After an advisory committee or working group reaches consensus on the provisions of a proposed rule, the Department, consistent with its legal obligations, uses such consensus as the basis of its proposed rule, which then is published in the
The NRA enables DOE to establish an advisory committee or working group if it is determined that the use of the negotiated rulemaking process is in the public interest. DOE intends to develop Federal regulations that build on the depth of experience accrued in both the public and private sectors in implementing standards and programs.
DOE has determined that the regulatory negotiation process will provide for obtaining a diverse array of in-depth input, as well as an opportunity for increased collaborative discussion from both private-sector stakeholders and government officials who are familiar with energy efficiency of miscellaneous refrigeration products.
In initiating this regulatory negotiation process to develop energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products, DOE is making a commitment to provide adequate resources to facilitate timely and successful completion of the process. This commitment includes making the process a priority activity for all representatives, components, officials, and personnel of the Department who need to be involved in the rulemaking, from the time of initiation until such time as a final rule is issued or the process is expressly terminated. DOE will provide administrative support for the process and will take steps to ensure that the advisory committee or working group has the dedicated resources it requires to complete its work in a timely fashion. Specifically, DOE will make available the following support services: Properly equipped space adequate for public meetings and caucuses; logistical support; word processing and distribution of background information; the service of a facilitator; and such additional research and other technical assistance as may be necessary.
To the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of the Department, DOE will use the consensus of the advisory committee or working group as the basis for the rule the Department proposes for public notice and comment.
As discussed above, the negotiated rulemaking process differs fundamentally from the usual process for developing a proposed rule. Negotiation enables interested and affected parties to discuss various
A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is by consensus of all the interests. Thus, no one interest or group of interests is able to control the process. The NRA defines consensus as the unanimous concurrence among interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee or working group, unless the committee or working group itself unanimously agrees to use a different definition. 5 U.S.C. 562. In addition, experience has demonstrated that using a trained mediator to facilitate this process will assist all parties, including DOE, in identifying their real interests in the rule, and thus will enable parties to focus on and resolve the important issues.
The following issues and concerns will underlie the work of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products:
• Definitions, including scope of coverage;
• Certain aspect of the test procedure, including key test procedure conditions, as applicable; and
• Proposed energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products.
To examine the underlying issues outlined above, and others not yet articulated, all parties in the negotiation will need DOE to provide data and an analytic framework complete and accurate enough to support their deliberations. DOE's analyses must be adequate to inform a prospective negotiation—for example, a preliminary Technical Support Document or equivalent must be available and timely.
A working group will be formed and operated in full compliance with the requirements of FACA and in a manner consistent with the requirements of the NRA. DOE has determined that the working group not exceed 25 members. The Department believes that more than 25 members would make it difficult to conduct effective negotiations. DOE is aware that there are many more potential participants than there are membership slots on the working group. The Department does not believe, nor does the NRA contemplate, that each potentially affected group must participate directly in the negotiations; nevertheless, each affected interest can be adequately represented. To have a successful negotiation, it is important for interested parties to identify and form coalitions that adequately represent significantly affected interests. To provide adequate representation, those coalitions must agree to support, both financially and technically, a member of the working group whom they choose to represent their interests.
DOE recognizes that when it considers adding covered products and establishing energy efficiency standards for residential products and commercial equipment, various segments of society may be affected in different ways, in some cases producing unique “interests” in a proposed rule based on income, gender, or other factors. The Department will pay attention to providing that any unique interests that have been identified, and that may be significantly affected by the proposed rule, are represented.
FACA also requires that members of the public have the opportunity to attend meetings of the full committee and speak or otherwise address the committee during the public comment period. In addition, any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the advisory committee. DOE plans to follow these same procedures in conducting meetings of the working group.
DOE anticipates that the working group will comprise no more than 25 members who represent affected and interested stakeholder groups, at least one of whom must be a member of the ASRAC. As required by FACA, the Department will conduct the negotiated rulemaking with particular attention to ensuring full and balanced representation of those interests that may be significantly affected by the proposed rule governing rules of miscellaneous refrigeration energy conservation standards. Section 562 of the NRA defines the term interest as “with respect to an issue or matter, multiple parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be affected in a similar manner.” Listed below are parties the Department to date has identified as being “significantly affected” by a proposed rule regarding the energy efficiency of miscellaneous refrigeration.
• The Department of Energy
• Trade Associations representing manufacturers of miscellaneous refrigeration products
• Manufacturers of miscellaneous refrigeration products and component manufacturers and related suppliers
• Utilities
• Energy efficiency/environmental advocacy groups
• Consumers
One purpose of this notice of intent is to determine whether Federal regulations regarding miscellaneous refrigeration products will significantly affect interests that are not listed above. DOE invites comment and suggestions on its initial list of significantly affected interests.
Members may be individuals or organizations. If the effort is to be fruitful, participants on the working group should be able to fully and adequately represent the viewpoints of their respective interests. This document gives notice of DOE's process to other potential participants and affords them the opportunity to request representation in the negotiations. Those who wish to be appointed as members of the working group, should submit a request to DOE, in accordance with the public participation procedures outlined in the
• Attendance at approximately four (4), one (1) to two (2) day meetings (with the potentially for two (2) additional one (1) or two (2) day meetings);
• Travel costs to those meetings; and
• Preparation time for those meetings.
Members serving on the working group will not receive compensation for their services. Interested parties who are not selected for membership on the working group may make valuable contributions to this negotiated rulemaking effort in any of the following ways:
• The person may request to be placed on the working group mailing list and submit written comments as appropriate.
• The person may attend working group meetings, which are open to the public; caucus with his or her interest's member on the working group; or even address the working group during the public comment portion of the working group meeting.
• The person could assist the efforts of a workgroup that the working group might establish.
A working group may establish informal workgroups, which usually are
Every working group member must be willing to negotiate in good faith and have the authority, granted by his or her constituency, to do so. The first step is to ensure that each member has good communications with his or her constituencies. An intra-interest network of communication should be established to bring information from the support organization to the member at the table, and to take information from the table back to the support organization. Second, each organization or coalition therefore should designate as its representative a person having the credibility and authority to ensure that needed information is provided and decisions are made in a timely fashion. Negotiated rulemaking can require the appointed members to give a significant sustained for as long as the duration of the negotiated rulemaking. Other qualities of members that can be helpful are negotiating experience and skills, and sufficient technical knowledge to participate in substantive negotiations.
Certain concepts are central to negotiating in good faith. One is the willingness to bring all issues to the bargaining table in an attempt to reach a consensus, as opposed to keeping key issues in reserve. The second is a willingness to keep the issues at the table and not take them to other forums. Finally, good faith includes a willingness to move away from some of the positions often taken in a more traditional rulemaking process, and instead explore openly with other parties all ideas that may emerge from the working group's discussions.
The facilitator will act as a neutral in the substantive development of the proposed standard. Rather, the facilitator's role generally includes:
• Impartially assisting the members of the working group in conducting discussions and negotiations; and
• Impartially assisting in performing the duties of the Designated Federal Official under FACA.
The DOE representative will be a full and active participant in the consensus building negotiations. The Department's representative will meet regularly with senior Department officials, briefing them on the negotiations and receiving their suggestions and advice so that he or she can effectively represent the Department's views regarding the issues before the working group. DOE's representative also will ensure that the entire spectrum of governmental interests affected by the standards rulemaking, including the Office of Management and Budget, the Attorney General, and other Departmental offices, are kept informed of the negotiations and encouraged to make their concerns known in a timely fashion.
After evaluating the comments submitted in response to this notice of intent and the requests for nominations, DOE will either inform the members of the working group that they have been selected or determine that conducting a negotiated rulemaking is inappropriate.
The working group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate a final term sheet within four (4) months of its first meeting. At a minimum, within four months (4) of its first meeting, the working group is required to provide a status update to ASRAC. An extension of no more than two (2) months may be provided given formal feedback and recommendation from ASRAC members after deliberation and discussion surrounding the working group's status update.
DOE will advise working group members of administrative matters related to the functions of the working group before beginning. DOE will establish a meeting schedule based on the settlement agreement and produce the necessary documents so as to adhere to that schedule. While the negotiated rulemaking process is underway, DOE is committed to performing much of the same analysis as it would during a normal standards rulemaking process and to providing information and technical support to the working group.
DOE requests comments on which parties should be included in a negotiated rulemaking to develop draft language pertaining to the energy efficiency of miscellaneous refrigeration and suggestions of additional interests and/or stakeholders that should be represented on the working group. All who wish to participate as members of the working group should submit a request for nomination to DOE.
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site at:
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's notice of intent.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of intent and announcement of public meetings.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is giving notice that it intends to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed definitions, certain aspects of a proposed test procedure (if applicable), and proposed energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. The purpose of the working group will be to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on the scope of the rulemaking, certain key aspects of a proposed test procedure, and proposed energy conservation standard for fans and blowers, as authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended. As part of its negotiations, the working group will consider scope of coverage and system interaction impacts of potential standards for fans and blowers. The working group will consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the regulations, including the proposed standards, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues. The working group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate a final term sheet within three (3) months of its first meeting. At the completion of negotiation, the term sheet will be presented to ASRAC at an open meeting for their deliberation and decision on whether or not to pass it on as a formal recommendation to DOE. Lastly, DOE is announcing the first Working Group session, which is open to the public, on Wednesday, May 6, and Thursday, May 7, 2015.
DOE will hold the first meeting for the Fans and Blowers Working Group on Wednesday, May 6, and Thursday, May 7, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC. Written comments and request to be appointed as members of the working group are welcome and should be submitted by April 15, 2015.
The first Fans and Blowers Working Group meeting, which is also open to the public, will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify
Interested person may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies (EE-5B), 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: 202-586-6590. Email:
This notice of intent, announcing DOE's intent to negotiate a proposed rule for fans and blowers energy conservation standards, was developed under the authority of sections 563 and 564 of the NRA (5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320). The regulation of fans and blowers for energy conservation standards that DOE is proposing to develop under a negotiated rulemaking will be developed under the authority of EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6291
As required by the NRA, DOE is giving notice that it is establishing a working group under ASRAC to develop proposed energy conservation standards, including the applicability of those standards for various categories of fans and blower currently found on the market. EPCA, as amended, directs DOE to adopt energy conservation standards for fans and blowers for which standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. There currently are no Federal energy conservation standards for fans and blowers.
DOE has decided to use the negotiated rulemaking process to develop proposed energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. Under EPCA, Congress mandated that DOE develop regulations
A regulatory negotiation will enable DOE to engage in direct and sustained dialog with informed, interested, and affected parties when drafting the regulation, rather than obtaining input during a public comment period after developing and publishing a proposed rule. Gaining this early understanding of all parties' perspectives allows DOE to address key issues at an earlier stage of the process, thereby allowing more time for an iterative process to resolve issues. A rule drafted by negotiation with informed and affected parties is expected to be potentially more pragmatic and more easily implemented than a rule arising from the traditional process. Such rulemaking improvement is likely to provide the public with the full benefits of the rule while minimizing the potential negative impact of a proposed regulation conceived or drafted without the full prior input of outside knowledgeable parties. Because a negotiating working group includes representatives from the major stakeholder groups affected by or interested in the rule, the number of public comments on the proposed rule may be decreased. DOE anticipates that there will be a need for fewer substantive changes to a proposed rule developed under a regulatory negotiation process prior to the publication of a final rule.
Usually, DOE develops a proposed rulemaking using Department staff and consultant resources. Typically, a preliminary analysis is vetted for stakeholder comments after a Framework Document is published and comments taken thereon. After the notice of proposed rulemaking is published for comment, affected parties may submit arguments and data defining and supporting their positions with regard to the issues raised in the proposed rule. Congress noted in the NRA, however, that regulatory development may “discourage the affected parties from meeting and communicating with each other, and may cause parties with different interests to assume conflicting and antagonistic positions * * *.” 5 U.S.C. 561(2)(2). Congress also stated that “adversarial rulemaking deprives the affected parties and the public of the benefits of face-to-face negotiations and cooperation in developing and reaching agreement on a rule. It also deprives them of the benefits of shared information, knowledge, expertise, and technical abilities possessed by the affected parties.” 5 U.S.C. 561(2)(3).
Using negotiated rulemaking to develop a proposed rule differs fundamentally from the Department centered process. In negotiated rulemaking, a proposed rule is developed by an advisory committee or working group, chartered under FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, composed of members chosen to represent the various interests that will be significantly affected by the rule. The goal of the advisory committee or working group is to reach consensus on the treatment of the major issues involved with the rule. The process starts with the Department's careful identification of all interests potentially affected by the rulemaking under consideration. To help with this identification, the Department publishes a notice of intent such as this one in the
After an advisory committee or working group reaches consensus on the provisions of a proposed rule, the Department, consistent with its legal obligations, uses such consensus as the basis of its proposed rule, which then is published in the
The NRA enables DOE to establish an advisory committee or working group if it is determined that the use of the negotiated rulemaking process is in the public interest. DOE intends to develop Federal regulations that build on the depth of experience accrued in both the public and private sectors in implementing standards and programs.
DOE has determined that the regulatory negotiation process will provide for obtaining a diverse array of in-depth input, as well as an opportunity for increased collaborative discussion from both private-sector stakeholders and government officials who are familiar with energy efficiency of fans and blowers.
In initiating this regulatory negotiation process to develop energy conservation standards for fans and blowers, DOE is making a commitment to provide adequate resources to facilitate timely and successful completion of the process. This commitment includes making the process a priority activity for all representatives, components, officials, and personnel of the Department who need to be involved in the rulemaking, from the time of initiation until such time as a final rule is issued or the process is expressly terminated. DOE will provide administrative support for the process and will take steps to ensure that the advisory committee or working group has the dedicated resources it requires to complete its work in a timely fashion. Specifically, DOE will make available the following support services: Properly equipped space adequate for public meetings and caucuses; logistical support; word processing and
To the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of the Department, DOE will use the consensus of the advisory committee or working group as the basis for the rule the Department proposes for public notice and comment.
As discussed above, the negotiated rulemaking process differs fundamentally from the usual process for developing a proposed rule. Negotiation enables interested and affected parties to discuss various approaches to issues rather than asking them only to respond to a proposal developed by the Department. The negotiation process involves a mutual education of the various parties on the practical concerns about the impact of standards. Each advisory committee or working group member participates in resolving the interests and concerns of other members, rather than leaving it up to DOE to evaluate and incorporate different points of view.
A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is by consensus of all the interests. Thus, no one interest or group of interests is able to control the process. The NRA defines consensus as the unanimous concurrence among interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee or working group, unless the committee or working group itself unanimously agrees to use a different definition. 5 U.S.C. 562. In addition, experience has demonstrated that using a trained mediator to facilitate this process will assist all parties, including DOE, in identifying their real interests in the rule, and thus will enable parties to focus on and resolve the important issues.
The following issues and concerns will underlie the work of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Fans and Blowers Equipment Energy Conservation Standards for fans and blowers:
• Scope of coverage (including any system interaction effects);
• Key test procedure conditions, as applicable; and
• Proposed energy conservation standard.
To examine the underlying issues outlined above, and others not yet articulated, all parties in the negotiation will need DOE to provide data and an analytic framework complete and accurate enough to support their deliberations. DOE's analyses must be adequate to inform a prospective negotiation—for example, a notice of data availability or equivalent must be available and timely.
A working group will be formed and operated in full compliance with the requirements of FACA and in a manner consistent with the requirements of the NRA. DOE has determined that the working group not exceed 25 members. The Department believes that more than 25 members would make it difficult to conduct effective negotiations. DOE is aware that there are many more potential participants than there are membership slots on the working group. The Department does not believe, nor does the NRA contemplate, that each potentially affected group must participate directly in the negotiations; nevertheless, each affected interest can be adequately represented. To have a successful negotiation, it is important for interested parties to identify and form coalitions that adequately represent significantly affected interests. To provide adequate representation, those coalitions must agree to support, both financially and technically, a member of the working group whom they choose to represent their interests.
DOE recognizes that when it establishes energy conservation standards for residential products and commercial equipment, various segments of society may be affected in different ways, in some cases producing unique “interests” in a proposed rule based on income, gender, or other factors. The Department will pay attention to providing that any unique interests that have been identified, and that may be significantly affected by the proposed rule, are represented.
FACA also requires that members of the public have the opportunity to attend meetings of the full committee and speak or otherwise address the committee during the public comment period. In addition, any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the advisory committee. DOE plans to follow these same procedures in conducting meetings of the working group.
DOE anticipates that the working group will comprise no more than 25 members who represent affected and interested stakeholder groups, at least one of whom must be a member of the ASRAC. As required by FACA, the Department will conduct the negotiated rulemaking with particular attention to ensuring full and balanced representation of those interests that may be significantly affected by the proposed rule governing rules of fans and blowers energy conservation standards. Section 562 of the NRA defines the term interest as “with respect to an issue or matter, multiple parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be affected in a similar manner.” Listed below are parties the Department to date has identified as being “significantly affected” by a proposed rule regarding the energy conservation standards of fans and blowers.
• The Department of Energy
• Manufacturers of Fans and Blowers
• Manufacturers of Equipment that Purchase Fans and Blowers
• Trade Associations Representing Manufacturers of Fans and Blowers or Equipment that Purchase Fans and Blowers
• Utilities
• Energy Efficiency/Environmental Advocacy Groups
• Consumers
One purpose of this notice of intent is to determine whether Federal regulations regarding fans and blowers energy conservation standards will significantly affect interests that are not listed above. DOE invites comment and suggestions on its initial list of significantly affected interests.
Members may be individuals or organizations. If the effort is to be fruitful, participants on the working group should be able to fully and adequately represent the viewpoints of their respective interests. This document gives notice of DOE's process to other potential participants and affords them the opportunity to request representation in the negotiations. Those who wish to be appointed as members of the working group, should submit a request to DOE, in accordance with the public participation procedures outlined in the
• Attendance at approximately ten (10); one (1) to two (2) day meetings;
• Travel costs to those meetings; and
• Preparation time for those meetings.
Members serving on the working group will not receive compensation for their services. Interested parties who are not selected for membership on the working group may make valuable contributions to this negotiated rulemaking effort in any of the following ways:
• The person may request to be placed on the working group mailing list and submit written comments as appropriate.
• The person may attend working group meetings, which are open to the public; caucus with his or her interest's member on the working group; or even address the working group during the public comment portion of the working group meeting.
• The person could assist the efforts of a workgroup that the working group might establish.
A working group may establish informal workgroups, which usually are asked to facilitate committee deliberations by assisting with various technical matters (
Every working group member must be willing to negotiate in good faith and have the authority, granted by his or her constituency, to do so. The first step is to ensure that each member has good communications with his or her constituencies. An intra-interest network of communication should be established to bring information from the support organization to the member at the table, and to take information from the table back to the support organization. Second, each organization or coalition therefore should designate as its representative a person having the credibility and authority to ensure that needed information is provided and decisions are made in a timely fashion. Negotiated rulemaking can require the appointed members to give a significant sustained for as long as the duration of the negotiated rulemaking. Other qualities of members that can be helpful are negotiating experience and skills, and sufficient technical knowledge to participate in substantive negotiations.
Certain concepts are central to negotiating in good faith. One is the willingness to bring all issues to the bargaining table in an attempt to reach a consensus, as opposed to keeping key issues in reserve. The second is a willingness to keep the issues at the table and not take them to other forums. Finally, good faith includes a willingness to move away from some of the positions often taken in a more traditional rulemaking process, and instead explore openly with other parties all ideas that may emerge from the working group's discussions.
The facilitator will act as a neutral in the substantive development of the proposed standard. Rather, the facilitator's role generally includes:
• Impartially assisting the members of the working group in conducting discussions and negotiations; and
• Impartially assisting in performing the duties of the Designated Federal Official under FACA.
The DOE representative will be a full and active participant in the consensus building negotiations. The Department's representative will meet regularly with senior Department officials, briefing them on the negotiations and receiving their suggestions and advice so that he or she can effectively represent the Department's views regarding the issues before the working group. DOE's representative also will ensure that the entire spectrum of governmental interests affected by the standards rulemaking, including the Office of Management and Budget, the Attorney General, and other Departmental offices, are kept informed of the negotiations and encouraged to make their concerns known in a timely fashion.
After evaluating the comments submitted in response to this notice of intent and the requests for nominations, DOE will either inform the members of the working group that they have been selected or determine that conducting a negotiated rulemaking is inappropriate.
The working group is expected to make a concerted effort to negotiate a final term sheet within three (3) months of its first meeting. At the completion of negotiation, the term sheet will be presented to ASRAC at an open meeting for their deliberation and decision on whether or not to pass it on as a formal recommendation to DOE. As part of its negotiations, the working group should consider scope of coverage and system interaction impacts of potential standards.
DOE will advise working group members of administrative matters related to the functions of the working group before beginning. DOE will establish a meeting schedule based on the settlement agreement and produce the necessary documents so as to adhere to that schedule. While the negotiated rulemaking process is underway, DOE is committed to performing much of the same analysis as it would during a normal standards rulemaking process and to providing information and technical support to the working group.
DOE requests comments on which parties should be included in a negotiated rulemaking to develop draft language pertaining to the energy conservation standards of fans and blowers and suggestions of additional interests and/or stakeholders that should be represented on the working group. All who wish to participate as members of the working group should submit a request for nomination to DOE.
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site at:
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's notice of proposed rulemaking.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of intent and announcement of a public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is giving notice that it intends to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate regarding energy conservation standards for small, large, and very large, air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps as well as commercial warm air furnaces. The purpose of the working group will be to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus regarding the development of energy conservation standards for small, large, and very large, air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps as well as commercial warm air furnaces, as authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended. The working group will consist of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the energy conservation standards, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues.
The working group is expected to negotiate a final term sheet regarding energy conservation standards for the aforementioned equipment by Monday, June 15, 2015. The final term sheet will be presented to ASRAC at an open meeting for their deliberation and decision on whether to pass it on as a formal recommendation to DOE.
Written comments and request to be appointed as members of the CUAC and CWAF Working Group, including an application package, are welcome and should be submitted by April 15, 2015.
DOE will hold the first meeting for the CUAC and CWAF Working Group on Tuesday, April, 28, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section V Public Participation for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
The first CUAC and CWAF Working Group meeting, which is also open to the public, will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify
Interested person may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007; EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies (EE-2J), 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: 202-287-1692. Email:
This notice of intent, announcing DOE's intent to negotiate regarding energy conservation standards for small (greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and under 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity), large, (greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and under 240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) and very large (greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and under 760,000 Btu/h cooling capacity), air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps (CUACs) as well as commercial warm air furnaces (CWAFs), was developed under the authority of sections 563 and 564 of the NRA (5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320). The establishment of energy conservation standards for CUACs and CWAFs by DOE is pursuant to authority in EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6291,
As required by the NRA, DOE is giving notice that it is establishing a working group under ASRAC to negotiate regarding energy conservation standards CUACs and CWAFs. EPCA, as amended, directs DOE to adopt energy conservation standards for CUACs and CWAFs for which standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. The current Federal for CUACs are found in 10 CFR part 431.97(b).
DOE has decided to use the negotiated rulemaking process to discuss the development of energy conservation standards for CUACs and CWAFs. Under EPCA, Congress mandated that DOE develop regulations establishing energy conservation standards for covered consumer and commercial products that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). The primary reason for using the negotiated rulemaking process for considering amended energy conservation standards is that stakeholders strongly support a consensual rulemaking effort. DOE believes such a regulatory negotiation process will be less adversarial and better suited to resolving complex technical issues. An important virtue of negotiated rulemaking is that it allows expert dialog that is much better than traditional techniques at getting the facts and issues right and will result in a rulemaking that will effectively reflect Congressional intent.
A regulatory negotiation will enable DOE to engage in direct and sustained dialog with informed, interested, and affected parties when considering potential revisions to the publically available analysis. Because a negotiating working group includes representatives from the major stakeholder groups affected by or interested in the rule, the number of changes in the analysis resulting from responses to public comments on the proposed rule may be decreased as DOE and the major stakeholder groups affected by the rule have the opportunity to have a discussions about the data, methodology, and analyses.
The NRA enables DOE to establish an advisory committee or working group if it is determined that the use of the negotiated rulemaking process is in the public interest. DOE intends to develop Federal regulations that build on the depth of experience accrued in both the public and private sectors in implementing standards and programs.
DOE has determined that the regulatory negotiation process will provide for obtaining a diverse array of in-depth input, as well as an opportunity for increased collaborative discussion from both private-sector stakeholders and government officials who are familiar with energy use and efficiency of CUACs and CWAFs.
In initiating this regulatory negotiation process regarding energy conservation standards for CUACs and CWAFs, DOE is making a commitment to provide adequate resources to facilitate timely and successful completion of the process. This commitment includes making the process a priority activity for all representatives, components, officials, and personnel of the Department who need to be involved in the rulemaking, from the time of initiation until such time as a final rule is issued or the process is expressly terminated. DOE will provide administrative support for the process and will take steps to ensure that the advisory committee or working group has the dedicated resources it requires to complete its work in a timely fashion. Specifically, DOE will make available the following support services: properly equipped space adequate for public meetings and caucuses; logistical support; word processing and distribution of background information; the service of a facilitator; and such additional research and other technical assistance as may be necessary.
To the maximum extent possible consistent with the legal obligations of the Department, DOE will consider the consensus of the advisory committee or working group as the basis for the rulemaking moving forward.
As discussed above, the negotiated rulemaking process differs fundamentally from the usual process for developing and revising a typical rulemaking. Negotiation enables interested and affected parties to discuss various approaches to issues rather than asking them only to respond to a proposal developed by the Department. The negotiation process involves a mutual education of the various parties on the practical concerns about the impact of standards. Each advisory committee or working group member participates in resolving the interests and concerns of other members, rather than leaving it up to DOE to evaluate and incorporate different points of view.
A key principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is by consensus of all the interests. Thus, no one interest or group of interests is able to control the process. The NRA defines consensus as the unanimous concurrence among interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee or working group, unless the committee or working group itself unanimously agrees to use a different definition. 5 U.S.C. 562. In addition, experience has demonstrated that using a trained mediator to facilitate this process will assist all parties, including DOE, in identifying their real interests in the rule, and thus will enable parties to focus on and resolve the important issues.
The following issues and concerns will underlie the work of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on CUAC and CWAF Energy Conservation Standards:
• Additional data that could be considered by the Working Group in potentially revising the analytical tools that DOE used for the proposed rules;
• Additional methodology assumptions that could be considered by the Working Group in potentially revising the analytical tools that DOE used for the proposed rules;
• Synergies gained by combining the rulemaking and potential compliance dates for two covered products; and
• Consideration of energy conservation standards.
To examine the underlying issues outlined above, and others not yet
A working group will be formed and operated in full compliance with the requirements of FACA and in a manner consistent with the requirements of the NRA. DOE has determined that the working group shall not exceed 25 members. The Department believes that more than 25 members would make it difficult to conduct effective negotiations. DOE is aware that there are many more potential participants than there are membership slots on the working group. The Department does not believe, nor does the NRA contemplate, that each potentially affected group must participate directly in the negotiations; nevertheless, each affected interest can be adequately represented. To have a successful negotiation, it is important for interested parties to identify and form coalitions that adequately represent significantly affected interests. To provide adequate representation, those coalitions must agree to support, both financially and technically, a member of the working group whom they choose to represent their interests.
DOE recognizes that when it establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products and commercial equipment, various segments of society may be affected in different ways, in some cases producing unique “interests” in a rulemaking based on income, gender, or other factors. The Department will pay attention to providing that any unique interests that have been identified, and that may be significantly affected by the rulemaking, are represented.
FACA also requires that members of the public have the opportunity to attend meetings of the full committee and speak or otherwise address the committee during the public comment period. In addition, any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the advisory committee. DOE plans to follow these same procedures in conducting meetings of the working group.
DOE anticipates that the working group will comprise no more than 25 members who represent affected and interested stakeholder groups, at least one of whom must be a member of the ASRAC. As required by FACA, the Department will conduct the negotiated rulemaking with particular attention to ensuring full and balanced representation of those interests that may be significantly affected by the rulemaking for energy conservation standards regarding CUACs and CWAFs. Section 562 of the NRA defines the term interest as “with respect to an issue or matter, multiple parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be affected in a similar manner.” Listed below are parties the Department to date has identified as being “significantly affected” by a rulemaking regarding the energy conservation standards regarding CUACs and CWAFs.
One purpose of this notice of intent is to determine whether Federal regulations regarding CUACs and CWAFs energy conservation standards will significantly affect interests that are not listed above. DOE invites comment and suggestions on its initial list of significantly affected interests.
Members may be individuals or organizations. If the effort is to be fruitful, participants on the working group should be able to fully and adequately represent the viewpoints of their respective interests. This document gives notice of DOE's process to other potential participants and affords them the opportunity to request representation in the negotiations. Those who wish to be appointed as members of the CUACs and CWAFs Working Group, should submit a request to DOE, in accordance with the public participation procedures outlined in the
• Attendance at approximately six, one (1) to two (2) day meetings;
• Travel costs to those meetings; and
• Preparation time for those meetings.
Members serving on the working group will not receive compensation for their services. Interested parties who are not selected for membership on the working group may make valuable contributions to this negotiated rulemaking effort in any of the following ways:
• The person may request to be placed on the working group mailing list and submit written comments as appropriate.
• The person may attend working group meetings, which are open to the public; caucus with his or her interest's member on the working group; or even address the working group during the public comment portion of the working group meeting.
• The person could assist the efforts of a workgroup that the working group might establish.
A working group may establish informal workgroups, which usually are asked to facilitate committee deliberations by assisting with various technical matters (
Every working group member must be willing to negotiate in good faith and have the authority, granted by his or her constituency, to do so. The first step is to ensure that each member has good communications with his or her constituencies. An intra-interest network of communication should be established to bring information from the support organization to the member at the table, and to take information from the table back to the support organization. Second, each organization or coalition should designate as its representative a person having the credibility and authority to ensure that needed information is provided and decisions are made in a timely fashion. Negotiated rulemaking can require the appointed members to give a significant sustained time commitment for as long as the duration of the negotiated rulemaking. Other qualities of members that can be helpful are negotiating experience and skills, and sufficient technical knowledge to participate in substantive negotiations.
Certain concepts are central to negotiating in good faith. One is the willingness to bring all issues to the bargaining table in an attempt to reach
The facilitator will act as a neutral in the substantive development of the proposed standard. Rather, the facilitator's role generally includes:
• Impartially assisting the members of the working group in conducting discussions and negotiations; and
• Impartially assisting in performing the duties of the Designated Federal Official under FACA.
The DOE representative will be a full and active participant in the consensus building negotiations. The Department's representative will meet regularly with senior Department officials, briefing them on the negotiations and receiving their suggestions and advice so that he or she can effectively represent the Department's views regarding the issues before the working group. DOE's representative also will ensure that the entire spectrum of governmental interests affected by the standards rulemaking, including the Office of Management and Budget, the Attorney General, and other Departmental offices, are kept informed of the negotiations and encouraged to make their concerns known in a timely fashion.
After evaluating the comments submitted in response to this notice of intent and the requests for nominations, DOE will either inform the members of the working group that they have been selected or determine that conducting a negotiated rulemaking is inappropriate.
The working group is expected to negotiate a final term sheet by Monday, June 15, 2015. The final term sheet will be presented to ASRAC at an open meeting for their deliberation and decision on whether or not to pass it on as a formal recommendation to DOE.
DOE will advise working group members of administrative matters related to the functions of the working group before beginning. DOE will establish a meeting schedule based on the settlement agreement and produce the necessary documents so as to adhere to that schedule. While the negotiated rulemaking process is underway, DOE is committed to performing much of the same analysis as it would during a normal standards rulemaking process and to providing information and technical support to the working group.
DOE requests comments on which parties should be included in a negotiated rulemaking to consider energy conservation standards for CUACs and CWAFs and suggestions of additional interests and/or stakeholders that should be represented on the working group. All who wish to participate as members of the working group should submit a request for nomination to DOE.
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site at:
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of intent.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a main landing gear (MLG) parking brake becoming dislodged from its mounting bracket due to an improperly installed quick release pin of the hand pump lever. This proposed AD would require removing the hand pump lever of the parking brake from the right-hand side nacelle. We are proposing this AD to prevent an unsecured lever from migrating from its stowed position, fouling against the MLG, and subsequently puncturing the nacelle structure, which could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 18, 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-
• 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 proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-18, dated June 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:
There has been one (1) reported in-service incident where the main landing gear (MLG) parking brake hand pump lever was not properly secured in the right-hand (RH) side nacelle and became dislodged from its mounting bracket. During extension of the MLG, the unsecured lever shifted causing a fouling condition with the nacelle and subsequently puncturing the nacelle structure.
An investigation revealed that the safety restraint pin used to securely stow the lever is susceptible to mishandling. An unsecured parking brake hand pump lever could migrate from its stowed position and foul against the MLG, adversely affecting the safe landing of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the removal of the MLG parking brake hand pump lever from the RH side nacelle.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier has issued the following service bulletins. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
• Service Bulletin 84-32-99, Revision A, dated October 2, 2012. This service information describes incorporating ModSum 4-113723 by re-locating the hand pump lever of the parking brake from the right-hand side nacelle to the right-hand side equipment bay.
• Service Bulletin 84-32-118, dated April 8, 2014. This service information describes incorporating Bombardier ModSum 4-113803 by removing the hand pump lever of the parking brake from the right-hand side nacelle.
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 the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 3 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 $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $20,910, or $255 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 18, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/N) 4001 through 4419 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of a main landing gear (MLG) parking brake becoming dislodged from its mounting bracket due to an improperly installed quick release pin of the hand pump lever. We are issuing this AD to prevent an unsecured lever from migrating from its stowed position, fouling against the MLG, and subsequently puncturing the nacelle structure, which could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 3,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Incorporate Bombardier ModSum 4-113803 by removing the hand pump lever of the parking brake from the right-hand side nacelle, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-118, dated April 8, 2014.
The hand pump lever of the parking brake may be re-installed at the operator's discretion to the right-hand side equipment bay, by incorporating ModSum 4-113804 as specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-119, dated June 14, 2013.
Incorporation of ModSum 4-113723 by re-locating the hand pump lever of the parking brake from the right-hand side nacelle to the right-hand side equipment bay, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-99, Revision A, dated October 2, 2012, is acceptable for compliance with the modification specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, provided the incorporation of ModSum 4-113723 is done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-99, dated January 26, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-18, dated June 19, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that a repetitive test is needed to inspect the components on airplanes equipped with a certain air distribution system configuration. This proposed AD would require doing repetitive testing for correct operation of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, which could result in smoke in the flight deck and possible loss of aircraft control.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 18, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6585; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
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 indicating that a repetitive test is needed for inspection of the components on airplanes equipped with an air distribution system that was reconfigured using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, provided procedures for installing relays and diodes to the J24 junction box assembly and making wiring changes to the environmental control system. Without the repetitive test, failures of components could possibly be latent for extended periods. A cargo fire event, in conjunction with a latent failure of the air distribution system, can possibly result in smoke penetration into occupied areas. This condition, if not corrected, could result in smoke in the flight deck and possible loss of aircraft control.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive testing for correct operation of the reconfigured equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, specifies, for certain airplanes, prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Special Attention 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009. Boeing Special Attention 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009, describes procedures for installing relays and diodes to the J24 junction box assembly and making wiring changes to the environmental control system.
This service information is reasonably available; see
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.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for compliance) in any service information identified previously have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
Steps that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,372 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary isolation and replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
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 18, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2120, Air Distribution System.
This AD was prompted by a determination that a maintenance procedure is needed to inspect the components on airplanes equipped with a certain air distribution system. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct latent failures of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, which could result in smoke in the flight deck and possible loss of aircraft control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable times identified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Do a test for correct operation of the smoke clearance mode of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the test for correct operation of the smoke clearance mode of the equipment cooling system and low pressure environmental control system thereafter at intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles.
For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014: Before or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, install new relays and do wiring changes to the environmental control system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-26-1122, Revision 1, dated August 13, 2009.
Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-26A1137, dated May 22, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) If any service information contains steps that are identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6585; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The FHWA is extending the comment period for a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and request for comments, which was published on February 20, 2015, at 80 FR 9231. The original comment period is set to close on April 21, 2015. The extension is based on concern expressed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) that the April 21 closing date does not provide sufficient time to review and provide comprehensive comments. The FHWA recognizes that others interested in commenting may have similar concerns and agrees that the comment period should be extended. Therefore, the closing date for comments is changed to May 29, 2015, which will provide AASHTO and others interested in commenting additional time to discuss, evaluate, and submit responses to the docket.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on February 20, 2015, at 80 FR 9231, is extended. Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2015.
Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at
Ms. Nastaran Saadatmand, Office of Asset Management, 202-366-1336,
You may submit or access all comments received by DOT online through:
Section 119 of title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to establish a process that States DOTs would use to develop a State asset management plan. On February 20, 2015, FHWA published in the
The original comment period for the NPRM closes on April 21, 2015. The AASHTO has expressed concern that this closing date does not provide sufficient time to review and provide comprehensive comments on the proposal. The FHWA recognizes that others interested in commenting may have similar concerns and agrees that the comment period should be extended. To allow time for this organization and others to submit comprehensive comments, the closing date is changed from April 21, 2015, to May 29, 2015.
23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 119.
In proposed rule document 2015-06544 beginning on page 16520 in the issue of Friday, March 27, 2015, make the following corrections:
1. On page 16529, in the second column, in the thirty-seventh line, through the third column, in the first line, remove the sentence, “As discussed, the current threshold is based on the receipt of covered funds, not its expenditure.”
2. On the same page, in the third column, in the thirty-eighth line, at the end of the final line of the paragraph, add, “Further, HUD seeks comment on whether alternative thresholds (
3. On the same page, in the first table, in the first column, in rows 1, 3 and 5, the word “agencies” should read “recipients.”
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
The Coast Guard is reopening the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Consolidated Cruise Ship Security Regulations,” published on December 10, 2014, for 60 days. We are reopening the comment period because we omitted from the docket the accompanying Regulatory Analysis, which informs the proposal.
The comment period for the NPRM published on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73255) is reopened. Comments and related material must be submitted to the docket by June 1, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Kevin McDonald, Inspections and Compliance Directorate, Office of Port and Facility Compliance, Cargo and Facilities Division (CG-FAC-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1168, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
The Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled “Consolidated Cruise Ship Regulations” on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73255) proposing to amend its regulations on cruise ship terminal security. All comments on this NPRM were due by March 10, 2015.
In the course of reviewing comments submitted to the docket on this rulemaking, we found that the Regulatory Analysis was in fact not available in the docket as stated in the NPRM, and promptly made it available and ensured it was properly posted to the docket. In order to ensure full public participation in this rulemaking, we are reopening the comment period for a period of 60 days to allow commenters to read and comment on the detailed Regulatory Analysis if desired.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and extension of the comment period.
On January 30, 2015, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
This document extends the comment period for the proposed rule for 14 days. You do not need to resubmit your comment if you have already commented on the proposed rule. Should you choose to do so, you can submit additional or supplemental comments. OFCCP will consider all comments received from the date of publication of the proposed rule through the close of the extended comment period.
The comment period for the NPRM published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5246), and scheduled to close on March 31, 2015, is extended. Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1250-AA05, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Fax: (202) 693-1304 (for comments of six pages or fewer).
• Mail: Debra A. Carr, Director, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Room C-3325, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Debra A. Carr, Director, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Room C-3325, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-0104.
On January 30, 2015, OFCCP published a proposed rule entitled “Discrimination on the Basis of Sex” (80 FR 5246). OFCCP was to receive comments on this NPRM on or before March 31, 2015.
OFCCP, after considering a request to extend the comment period until after the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the then pending case of
On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in
OFCCP determined that the public could benefit from additional time to review the Court's decision in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We propose permit regulations to govern the use of captive-bred, trained raptors to control or take birds or other wildlife to mitigate damage or other problems, including risks to human health and safety. This action would allow us to respond to increasing public interest in the use of trained raptors to haze (scare) depredating and other problem birds from airports and agricultural crops while maintaining our statutory responsibility to protect migratory birds.
There are two dates for submissions relevant to this proposed rule. Electronic comments on this proposed rule via
We are soliciting comments on two separate actions with different addresses: (1) A proposed rule, and (2) information collection. You may submit comments for the proposed regulation by either one of the following two methods:
•
•
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on
Submit comments on the information collection requirements to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at Office of Management and Budget (OMB-OIRA) at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
George Allen at 703-358-1825.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) is the Federal agency delegated the primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. This delegation is authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703
In response to public interest in the use of trained raptors to haze depredating and other problem birds from airports and agricultural crops, we drafted a policy in 2007 to establish a migratory bird abatement permit. On January 12 of that year, we published a
The 2007 policy Memorandum and conditions have governed administration of Federal Migratory Bird Special Purpose Abatement (SPA) permits (Federal abatement permits) through the present time. The provisions for abatement in the Memorandum have worked well, but we have seen increased use of the Special Purpose permits, and the States have inquired about abatement activities that are not addressed in the Memorandum. Therefore, on July 6, 2011, we announced through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that published in the
Most of the comments we received on the ANPR supported development of regulations for abatement. This proposed rule largely incorporates the conditions and procedures that governed abatement permits under the 2007 Memorandum and language developed in response to the public comments. The permit that would be established under the proposed regulations would provide the public with a nonlethal management tool to mitigate problems caused by birds and other wildlife.
An abatement permit would authorize the use of trained, captive-bred raptors protected under the MBTA to abate problems caused by migratory birds or other wildlife. A permittee would have to be a Master falconer in good standing under the Federal falconry regulations (50 CFR 21.29). A Master falconer or a General falconer with 3 or more years of experience at the General falconer level would be allowed to conduct abatement activities as a subpermittee. We would issue abatement permits only to U.S. resident Master falconers.
We would not limit the number of raptors an abatement permit holder may possess under a Federal abatement permit if the raptors are used in abatement and are maintained under humane and healthful conditions as required in 50 CFR 13.41, and if the permittee's facilities and equipment meet the standards in 50 CFR 21.29. We would require each captive-bred MBTA raptor held or used under an abatement permit to be banded with a seamless metal band issued by the Service, unless exempted because of problems caused by the band. State wildlife agencies may have additional requirements for maintaining raptors.
The abatement permit holder would not be authorized to use birds he or she possesses under other types of permits for abatement activities, except that falconry birds could be used for abatement if no compensation is received for the service. The proposed regulations also would not allow a raptor held under a Federal abatement permit to be used for falconry.
A Federal abatement permit, by itself, would not authorize the killing, injuring, or other take of migratory birds or other wildlife. Any take of protected migratory birds by an abatement permit holder must be authorized by hunting regulations, a Federal depredation
Raptors that could be used for abatement under these proposed regulations include all native raptor species listed in 50 CFR 10.13 except bald eagles and golden eagles. Included are falconiformes (forest-falcons, caracaras, and falcons); accipitriformes (vultures, osprey, kites, hawks, and eagles [except bald eagles and golden eagles]); and strigiformes (owls).
Possession and use for abatement of exotic raptor species that are not on the list of MBTA-protected species at 50 CFR 10.13 is not regulated under the MBTA and is outside the scope of the proposed regulations. However, hybrid raptors of MBTA-protected species are subject to this proposed regulation.
An applicant for a Federal abatement permit would have to complete and submit Service application form 3-200-79 (
We propose to charge a fee sufficient to offset the estimated costs associated with processing the application and annual reports and our periodic review of these permits. Revised Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular A-25 directs Executive Branch agencies to recover costs, stating that, “When a service (or privilege) provides special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public, a charge will be imposed (to recover the full cost to the Federal Government for providing the special benefit, or the market price).” Further, Circular A-25 directs that, “Except as provided in Section 6c, user charges will be sufficient to recover the full cost to the Federal Government (as defined in Section 6d) of providing the service, resource, or good when the Government is acting in its capacity as sovereign.” Thus, the directive to the Service is to recover the costs for working with applicants to issue permits and to summarize reporting. We estimate that processing an abatement permit application will take up to 2 hours of a permit examiner's time (or about $101, on average) and
We considered the comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and have drafted proposed regulations accordingly.
Only captive-bred raptors would be allowed in abatement, and each would have to be banded with a seamless FWS band. We do not believe that additional banding is needed. The raptors could be purchased from, or sold or transferred to, authorized permittees.
You may submit your comments and supporting materials by one of the methods listed in
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have examined this proposed rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because there are fewer than 100 abatement permittees in the United States. Consequently, we certify that because this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This proposed rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It would not have a significant impact on any small entities.
a. This proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. This proposed rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. This proposed rule would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
a. This proposed rule would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not required. The proposed regulations changes would not affect small government activities in any significant way.
b. This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. It is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the rule would not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule contains no provision that could constitute taking of private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
This proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere with the States' abilities to manage themselves or their funds. No significant economic impacts are expected to result from the regulations change.
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
This proposed rule contains a new information collection for which Office of Management and Budget approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
We are asking OMB to approve the following new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule:
• Each Abatement permittee must provide each of his or her subpermittees with a legible copy of his or her abatement permit and an original signed and dated letter designating the person as a subpermittee for part or all of the authorized activities (§ 21.32(e)(2)(ii)).
• Each subpermittee must report take under a depredation order to the permit holder (§ 21.32(e)(2)(iii)(A)).
• Each permittees must maintain complete and accurate records of the activities conducted under the abatement permit, including, but not limited to: (1) The name and address of the property owner; (2) the location, date(s), and crop or property protected for each abatement job that permit holders and each of their subpermittees conduct; (3) the date, species, and location of any unintentional take that occurs; (4) the name, address, and falconry permit number of each subpermittee, and any subpermittee designation letters; (5) the raptors used for each job; (6) FWS form 3-186A for each acquisition and disposal of birds; and (7) documentation for acquisition and disposal of feathers. You must retain these records for 5 years following the end of the last calendar year covered by the records (§ 21.32(e)(8)(ii) and (iii) and § 21.32(e)(11)).
• Each permittee must submit an annual report to his or her migratory bird permit issuing office. The report must include the information required in Service form 3-202-22-2133 (§ 21.32(e)(11) and (12)).
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting burden, including:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or O
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 432-437(f). Using captive-bred raptors in abatement would mean harassing wildlife to solve depredation or other wildlife problems. Because no raptors could be taken from the wild for this activity and take of migratory birds would not be authorized, this proposed regulation would have negligible environmental effects.
Categorical exclusion Part 516 8.5(C)(1) in the Department of the Interior Manual is the following.
The issuance, denial, suspension, and revocation of permits for activities involving fish, wildlife, or plants regulated under 50 CFR Chapter 1, Subsection B, when such permits cause no or negligible environmental disturbance. These permits involve endangered and threatened species, species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), marine mammals, exotic birds, migratory birds, eagles, and injurious wildlife.
Further, none of the extraordinary circumstances in 43 CFR 46.215 apply to the proposed regulation. Therefore, the proposed regulation is categorically excluded from further NEPA evaluation.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes. We have determined that this proposed rule would not interfere with tribes' abilities to manage themselves, their funds, or tribal lands.
E.O. 13211 addresses regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must: (1) Be logically organized; (2) use the active voice to address readers directly; (3) use clear language rather than jargon; (4) be divided into short sections and sentences; and (5) use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Birds, Exports, Imports, Migratory Birds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons described in the preamble, we propose to amend subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j-l, 1374(g), 1382, 1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(d) * * *
(4)
16 U.S.C. 703-712.
(f) * * *
(11) * * *
(ii) You may receive payment for providing abatement services if you have an abatement permit (see § 21.32 of this subpart).
(iii) You may conduct abatement without an abatement permit if you are not compensated for doing so.
(a)
(2) An abatement permit does not authorize the take (such as capturing, killing, injuring, or collecting) of wildlife. Any take of federally protected wildlife must be authorized by a separate permit or regulation.
(3) An abatement permit authorizes the purchase, sale, or barter of captive-bred raptors with seamless bands for abatement purposes.
(4) An abatement permittee may charge for his or her services.
(5) A permitted falconer may conduct abatement without an abatement permit if he or she is not compensated for doing so.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) An abatement permit is valid only if your Master falconer permit is valid.
(2)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2)(v) of this section, only a Master falconer or a General falconer with 3 or more years of experience at the General falconer level may be a subpermittee under your abatement permit and conduct abatement activities on your behalf. You are responsible for all activities conducted under your abatement permit.
(ii) You must provide each subpermittee with a legible copy of your permit and an original signed and dated letter designating the person as a subpermittee for part or all of the authorized activities.
(iii) Each subpermittee must carry and display a copy of your abatement permit, the designation letter, and a copy of their valid falconry permit when conducting abatement activities under your permit.
(iv) You are responsible for maintaining current records of who you have designated as a subpermittee, including copies of the designation letters you have provided.
(v) If your State allows it, you may designate an individual who is not a falconer to provide care for raptors held under your abatement permit.
(3)
(i) Hunting regulations in effect at the time that the take occurs;
(ii) A Federal depredation order; or
(iii) A Federal depredation permit or other Federal permit that identifies you as a subpermittee.
(A) You must report take under a depredation order as required by the order. You must report all take as a subpermittee on a depredation permit to the permit holder.
(B) You may not flush, haze, harm, harass, disturb, kill or injure endangered or threatened species, bald eagles
(C) You must immediately report any unauthorized take of federally protected wildlife, disturbance of bald eagles or golden eagles, or harassment of endangered species to the appropriate Service Regional Law Enforcement office. You can find the addresses for the offices at
(4)
(ii) You and your subpermittees may use only raptors that you possess under your abatement permit in abatement.
(iii) We do not limit the number of captive-bred raptors that you may hold under your abatement permit, but each bird must be used for abatement.
(iv)You may possess and use any captive-bred falconiform, accipitriform, or strigiform species listed in § 10.13 of this chapter (including a hybrid) in abatement, except that you may not possess or use a bald eagle or golden eagle for abatement.
(v) A subpermittee may use only species that he or she is authorized to possess under his or her falconry permit.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(ii)
(iii)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(f)
(g)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) prepared by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) (2015 Gulf red snapper framework action). If implemented, this proposed rule would increase the commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years Quotas for subsequent fishing years would remain at 2017 levels unless changed by future rulemaking. This proposed rule is intended to help achieve optimum yield (OY) for the Gulf red snapper resource without increasing the risk of red snapper experiencing overfishing.
Written comments must be received on or before April 16, 2015.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0036” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Cynthia Meyer, telephone 727-824-5305; email:
NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
All weights given in this rule are in round weight. The total quota for Gulf red snapper (combined commercial and recreational quotas) has increased annually from 5 million lb (2.268 million kg), in 2009, to 11 million lb (4.990 million kg), and since 2013, has been fixed at 11 million lb (4.990 million kg). In order to reduce the likelihood that the recreational sector will exceed its quota, the Council and NMFS implemented an annual catch target (ACT) set at 20 percent below the recreational quota through the 2014 framework amendment (80 FR 14328, March 19, 2015), which is used to set the recreational season length. The commercial sector is managed by an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program that was implemented in 2007, and effectively constrains commercial landings to the commercial quota.
The Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) benchmark assessment for Gulf red snapper, conducted in 2013 and 2014 (SEDAR 31), determined that the red snapper stock is still overfished, but is not undergoing overfishing, and that the acceptable biological catch (ABC) may be increased. The stock is still under a rebuilding plan through 2032.
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met in February 2015, to review the assessment results with updated provisional 2014 landings data and recommended a new ABC for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. The SSC recommended an ABC of 14.30 million lb (6.49 million kg) for 2015, 13.96 million lb (6.33 million kg) for 2016, and 13.74 million lb (6.23 million kg) for 2017. The Council met in March 2015, and voted to adjust the commercial and recreational quotas to reflect these new ABCs through the 2015 Gulf red snapper framework action.
This rule would set the commercial and recreational quotas and the recreational ACTs for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years for red snapper based on the ABCs recommended by the SSC and on the current commercial and recreational allocations (51-percent commercial and 49-percent recreational). Quotas for subsequent fishing years would remain at 2017 levels unless changed by future rulemaking. For 2015, the commercial quota would be set at 7.293 million lb (3.308 million kg) and the recreational quota would be set at 7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg); for 2016, the commercial quota would be set at 7.120 million lb (3.230 million kg) and the recreational quota would be set at 6.840 million lb (3.103 million kg); and for 2017 and subsequent fishing years, the commercial quota would be set at 7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg) and the recreational quota would be set at 6.733 million lb (3.054 million kg.
Through the 2014 framework amendment, the Council and NMFS implemented a recreational ACT set at 20 percent below the recreational quota. Based on the revised recreational quotas contained in this rule, the revised recreational ACTs for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 would be as follows: For 2015, the recreational ACT would be 5.606 million lb (2.543 million kg); for 2016, the recreational ACT would be 5.472 million lb (2.482 million kg); and for 2017, the recreational ACT would be 5.384 million lb (2.442 million kg). Recreational ACTs for subsequent fishing years would remain at 2017 levels unless changed by future rulemaking.
The Gulf Headboat Collaborative Fishing Permit (Collaborative) program, implemented through an exempted fishing permit, will continue through 2015 (as a continuation of the 2-year program begun in 2014). The Collaborative program allocates harvest rights to a specified portion of the red snapper recreational sector (2.4396 percent of the recreational quota), and this quantity is subsequently allocated to individual vessels. This program allows anglers to harvest red snapper when fishing on Collaborative vessels throughout the fishing year (until that portion of the quota is met). The proposed increase in the red snapper recreational quota in 2015 would increase the amount of quota allocated to the 19 vessels in this program.
The red snapper management measures contained in this proposed rule would achieve the goal set by National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY for the fishery.
Under 50 CFR 622.34(b), the red snapper recreational fishing season opens each year on June 1. Prior to June 1 each year, NMFS projects the closing date based on the previous year's data, and notifies the public of the closing date for the upcoming season. The red snapper recreational season closure date will be based on when the recreational ACT is projected to be met (as required by the 2014 Gulf red snapper framework amendment). After the final 2014 recreational landings data are available and before the season opens on June 1, 2015, NMFS will announce the 2015 season closure date, which may be in the final rule associated with this action.
The Council developed Amendment 40 to the FMP and NMFS published a notice of availability (NOA) on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2379) and a proposed rule on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3541). The public comment period on the proposed rule ended on March 9, 2015, and the NOA comment period ended on March 17, 2015. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 40 and the implementing rule would establish a Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component and a private angling component within the recreational sector, allocate the red snapper recreational quota and annual catch target (ACT) between the components, and establish separate seasonal closures for the two components. Additionally, Amendment 40 and the rule would establish commercial and recreational ACLs for red snapper, which would be equal to the commercial and recreational quotas. Previously, rather than establishing ACLs for red snapper management, the
This proposed rule would make two administrative changes to the Gulf IFQ program regulations. In §§ 622.21 and 622.22, the Web site for the Gulf IFQ program would change from “
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
The purpose of this proposed rule is to set quotas for the commercial and recreational harvest of red snapper in the Gulf that are consistent with the red snapper rebuilding plan in order to achieve OY, and to make two administrative changes to the IFQ programs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
This rule, if implemented, would set the red snapper quotas for the commercial and recreational sectors for the 2015 fishing year, 2016 fishing year, and 2017 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. As a result, this rule would be expected to directly affect commercial vessels that harvest red snapper. Over the period 2009-2013, an average of 353 vessels per year recorded commercial red snapper harvests, based on mandatory logbook data. The maximum number of vessels with recorded commercial red snapper harvests during this period was 375 in 2010. However, in 2010, 384 vessels were identified in the red snapper IFQ on-line account program, which tracks red snapper activity. This system, however, is not the official record for trip harvests, nor does it capture all landings, or associated revenues, from all species harvested on all trips by vessels that harvest red snapper. Therefore, data from both sources are used for this assessment to estimate the number of potentially affected entities. As a result, this rule would be expected to apply to 353-384 commercial fishing vessels. The average annual gross revenue from all species harvested on all trips by the vessels identified with recorded red snapper harvests in logbook data over the period 2009-2013 (353 vessels) was approximately $110,000 (2013 dollars).
With respect to the proposed changes in the red snapper recreational quotas, only recreational anglers are allowed to recreationally harvest red snapper in Federal waters in the Gulf and would be directly affected in changes in the allowable harvest. However, recreational anglers are not small entities under the RFA. Although for-hire businesses (charter vessels and headboats) operate in the recreational sector, these businesses only sell fishing services to recreational anglers and do not, with the exception discussed in the next paragraph, have harvest rights to the red snapper recreational quota. For-hire vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species, though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision by anglers to purchase these services. Changing the red snapper recreational quota only defines how much red snapper can be harvested and the quota is a factor in the determination of the length of the red snapper recreational fishing season. Changing the quota does not explicitly prevent the continued offer or sale of for-hire fishing services. In the event of a closed season (zero bag limit), precipitated by a quota reduction, catch and release fishing for a target species can continue, as can fishing for other species. In the event of a quota increase and associated increase in the open season, the basic service offered remains the same, though the list of species that may be retained is expanded. Because the proposed change in the red snapper quota would not directly alter the basic service sold by for-hire vessels, in general, this proposed rule would not directly apply to or regulate their operations. Any change in vessel business would be a result of changes in angler demand for these fishing services that occurs as a result of the behavioral decision by anglers,
The exception to this determination is, however, for the 19 headboats participating in the Collaborative program in 2015 (as a continuation of the 2-year program begun in 2014). The Collaborative program allocates harvest rights to a specified portion (2.4396 percent) of the red snapper recreational allowable catch to the Collaborative, and this quantity is subsequently allocated to individual vessels. This program allows anglers to harvest red snapper when fishing on Collaborative vessels outside the season available to non-participating vessels if the total allowable harvest for the recreational sector has not been taken. Although these fish can still only be harvested by recreational anglers, and not vessel captains or crew, the allocation of harvest rights to these vessels and the increased flexibility on when red snapper may be retained enables the vessels in this program to offer an enhanced product relative to other for-
NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule.
The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The revenue threshold for a business involved in the for-hire fishing industry is $7.5 million (NAICS code 487210, fishing boat charter operation). All commercial and headboat fishing vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are determined to be small business entities.
This proposed rule would increase the red snapper commercial quota in 2015, 2016, and 2017 and subsequent fishing years, by 1.683 million lb (0.763 million kg) gutted weight, 1.510 million lb (0.685 million kg), and 1.397 million lb (0.634 million kg), respectively, relative to the status quo. These increases would be expected to result in an increase in total gross revenue (ex-vessel revenue minus the 3-percent cost recovery fee, all vessels) for commercial vessels that harvest red snapper of approximately $6.974 million (2013 dollars), $6.268 million, and $5.811 million, each year, respectively. Across all 3 years, the resultant total increase in gross revenue would be approximately $19.053 million (2013 dollars). The average increase per vessel (353-384 vessels) per year would range (low to high average) from approximately $15,133-$16,462 per vessel ($5.81 million/384 vessels = $15,133 per vessel; $5.81/353 vessels = $16,462 per vessel) in 2017 to approximately $18,161-$19,756 per vessel ($6.97 million/384 vessels = $18,161 per vessel; $6.97/353 vessels = $19,756 per vessel) in 2015. As a result, the expected economic effect of the proposed rule would be increased revenue to the affected small business entities.
This proposed rule would increase the red snapper recreational quota in 2015, 2016, and 2017 and subsequent fishing years by 1.617 million lb (0.733 million kg), 1.450 million lb (0.658 million kg), and 1.343 million lb (0.609 million kg), respectively, relative to the status quo. As discussed above, the proposed quota increase in 2015 would be expected to directly affect 19 headboats that participate in the Collaborative program. These vessels would not be expected to be directly affected by the proposed quota increases in 2016 and 2017 and subsequent fishing years because the program will only continue through 2015. Quantitative estimates of the expected economic effects of the proposed quota increase in 2015 on these 19 entities are not available. Although the amount of increased quota that would be allocated to this program can be calculated, how this increase would be distributed amongst the vessels in the program cannot be determined because the distribution is subject to decision within the program and not dependent on historical activity or distribution of allowable harvest to date in 2015. Additionally, it is not possible with available data to produce a meaningful estimate of the portion of the increased quota that would be harvested by anglers on new trips (resulting in an increase in the revenue to respective vessels) or would be harvested on trips that would occur in the absence of a change in available harvest (resulting in no change in revenue), or to determine whether the change in available harvest would affect the price per trip that would be charged. Nevertheless, the effects of the increase in quota on these vessels would be expected to be either neutral at worst (
The proposed changes to the IFQ programs, discussed in the preamble of this proposed rule, are administrative changes and would not be expected to have any direct adverse economic effect on any small entities.
Based on the discussion above, NMFS determines that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, Quotas, Recreational, Red Snapper.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(1) * * * An owner of a vessel with a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, who has established an IFQ account for Gulf red snapper as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, online via the NMFS IFQ Web site
(2) * * * A dealer with a Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit can download a Gulf IFQ dealer endorsement from the NMFS IFQ Web site. * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * * All IFQ landings and their actual ex-vessel prices must be reported via the IFQ Web site.
(iii) The dealer must complete a landing transaction report for each landing of Gulf red snapper via the IFQ Web site on the day of offload, except if the fish are being trailered for transport to a dealer as specified in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section (in which case the landing transaction report may be completed prior to the day of offload), and within 96 hours from the time of landing reported on the most recent landing notification, in accordance with the reporting form(s)
(iv) * * * This form is available via the IFQ Web site. * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * * Authorized methods for contacting NMFS and submitting the report include calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, completing and submitting to NMFS a landing notification provided through the VMS unit, or providing the required information to NMFS through the web-based form available on the IFQ Web site.
(v) * * * Proposed landing locations may be submitted online via the IFQ Web site, or by calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, at any time; however, new landing locations will be approved only at the end of each calendar-year quarter. * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * * An IFQ shareholder must initiate a share transfer request by logging onto the IFQ Web site. Following the instructions provided on the IFQ Web site, the shareholder must enter pertinent information regarding the transfer request including, but not limited to, amount of shares to be transferred, which must be a minimum of 0.000001 percent; name of the eligible transferee; and the value of the transferred shares. * * *
(iv) * * * An IFQ account holder must initiate an allocation transfer by logging onto the IFQ Web site, entering the required information, including but not limited to, name of an eligible transferee and amount of IFQ allocation to be transferred and price, and submitting the transfer electronically. * * *
(10) * * * On or about January 1 each year, IFQ shareholders will be notified, via the IFQ Web site, of their IFQ share and allocation for the upcoming fishing year. * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * An owner of a vessel with a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, who has established an IFQ account for the applicable species, as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, online via the NMFS IFQ Web site
(2) * * * A dealer with a Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit can download a Gulf IFQ dealer endorsement from the NMFS IFQ Web site. * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * * All IFQ landings and their actual ex-vessel prices must be reported via the IFQ Web site.
(iii) The dealer must complete a landing transaction report for each landing of Gulf groupers or tilefishes via the IFQ Web site on the day of offload, except if the fish are being trailered for transport to a dealer as specified in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section (in which case the landing transaction report may be completed prior to the day of offload), and within 96 hours from the time of landing reported on the most recent landing notification, in accordance with the reporting form(s) and instructions provided on the Web site. * * *
(iv) * * * This form is available via the IFQ Web site. * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * * Authorized methods for contacting NMFS and submitting the report include calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, completing and submitting to NMFS a landing notification provided through the VMS unit, or providing the required information to NMFS through the web-based form available on the IFQ Web site.
(v) * * * Proposed landing locations may be submitted online via the IFQ Web site, or by calling IFQ Customer Service at 1-866-425-7627, at any time; however, new landing locations will be approved only at the end of each calendar-year quarter. * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * * An IFQ shareholder must initiate a share transfer request by logging onto the IFQ Web site. * * *
(iv) * * * An IFQ account holder must initiate an allocation transfer by logging onto the IFQ Web site, entering the required information, including but not limited to, the name of an eligible transferee and amount of IFQ allocation to be transferred and price, and submitting the transfer electronically. * * *
(10) * * * On or about January 1 each year, IFQ shareholders will be notified, via the IFQ Web site, of their IFQ shares and allocations, for each of the five share categories, for the upcoming fishing year. * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(A) For fishing year 2015—7.293 million lb (3.308 million kg), round weight.
(B) For fishing year 2016—7.120 million lb (3.230 million kg), round weight.
(C) For fishing year 2017 and subsequent fishing years—7.007 million lb (3.178 million kg), round weight.
(2) * * *
(i)
(A)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
(q)
(2)
(ii) In addition to the measures specified in paragraph (q)(2)(i) of this section, if red snapper recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the applicable recreational ACL (quota) specified in § 622.39(a)(2)(i), and red snapper are overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the recreational ACL (quota) by the amount of the quota overage in the prior fishing year, and reduce the applicable recreational ACT specified in paragraph (q)(2)(iii) of this section (based on the buffer between the ACT and the quota specified in the FMP), unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.
(iii)
(A)
(
(
(
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule Committee (Committee) will meet in Washington, DC. Attendees may also participate via webinar and conference call. The Committee operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Additional information relating to the Committee, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meetings will be held in-person and via webinar/conference call on the following dates and times:
• Tuesday, April 28, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
• Wednesday, April 29, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST
• Thursday, April 30, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the USDA Forest Service, Office of International Programs, 1 Thomas Circle, Suite 400, Washington DC 20005. For anyone who would like to attend via webinar and/or conference call, please visit the Web site listed above or contact the person listed in the section titled
Chalonda Jasper, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 202-260-9400, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to provide:
1. Continued deliberations on formulating advice for the Secretary,
2. Discussion of Committee work group findings,
3. Dialogue with subject matter experts in the Washington Office around the topics of climate change, adaptive management, restoration, and outreach,
4. Hearing public comments, and
5. Administrative tasks.
This meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral comments of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral comment should submit a request in writing by April 17, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Chalonda Jasper, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street SW., Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250-1104, or by email at
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Anne Russell, U.S. Census Bureau, 8K155, Washington, DC 20233-6500, (301) 763-5173 or via the Internet at
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Service Annual Survey (SAS), produces annual nationwide estimates of revenue and expenses for service
For selected industries in Utilities; Transportation; Finance; Information; Professional, Scientific and Technical Services; Administrative Support and Waste Management and Remedation Services; and Educational Services, SAS produces estimates of revenue by detailed North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) products. Inventory estimates for selected industries in the Transportation and Information sectors are produced, as well as estimates of expanded revenues for selected industries across multiple sectors. For industries with a significant non-profit component, separate estimates are developed for taxable firms and organizations exempt from federal income tax.
These data are used to satisfy a variety of public and business needs such as economic market analysis, company performance, and forecasting future demands. Results will be available, at the United States summary level, for selected service industries approximately 11 months after the end of the reference year. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the primary Federal user of these annual program statistics, uses the information in developing the national income and product accounts, compiling benchmark and annual input-output tables, and computing Gross Domestic Product by industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data as inputs to its Producer Price Indexes and in developing productivity measurements. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services use the data in the development of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) uses the data as a means for assessing FCC policy. The Coalition of Service Industries uses the data for general research and planning. Trade and professional organizations use the data to analyze industry trends and benchmark their own statistical programs, develop forecasts, and evaluate regulatory requirements. The media uses the data for news reports and background information. Private businesses use the data to measure market share; analyze business potential; and plan investment decisions. The Census Bureau uses the data to provide new insight into changing structural and cost conditions that will impact the planning and design of future economic census questionnaires. Private industry also uses the data as a tool for marketing analysis.
Data are collected from all of the largest firms and from a sample of small- and medium-sized businesses selected using a stratified sampling procedure. The samples are reselected periodically, generally at 5-year intervals. The largest firms continue to be canvassed when the sample is re-drawn, while nearly all of the small- and medium-sized firms from the prior sample are replaced. The sample is updated quarterly to reflect employer business “births” and “deaths”; adding new employer businesses identified in the Business and Professional Classification Survey (OMB number 0607-0189) and deleting firms and Employer Identification Numbers when it is determined they are no longer active.
A new sample will be introduced with the 2016 SAS. In order to link estimates from the new and prior samples, we will be asking companies to provide data for 2016 and 2015. The 2017 SAS and subsequent years will request one year of data until a new sample is once again introduced.
We collect this information online.
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.
Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in May 2015 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Review (“Sunset Review”). With respect to the countervailing duty order on Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from China, we have advanced the initiation date of this Sunset Review upon determining that initiation of the Sunset Reviews for all of the Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand orders on the same date would promote administrative efficiency.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating the five-year review (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
The Department official identified in the
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders:
With respect to the orders on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from China, Malaysia and Thailand, we have advanced the initiation date of these Sunset Reviews upon determining that initiation of the Sunset Reviews for all of the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags orders on the same date would promote administrative efficiency.
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address: “
This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation at 19 CFR 351.302(c) concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective April 1, 2015.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a timely request for a new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on certain frozen fish fillets (“fish fillets”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). The Department determines that the request meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) for this NSR is August 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.
Alexander Montoro, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0238.
The AD order on fish fillets from Vietnam was published in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), HHFISH certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”).
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), HHFISH submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
Finally, the Department conducted a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database query and confirmed
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on the evidence provided by HHFISH, we find that the request submitted by HHFISH meets the requirements for initiation of the NSR for shipments of fish fillets from Vietnam produced and exported by HHFISH.
In cases involving non-market economy countries, the Department requires a company seeking to establish eligibility for an AD rate separate from the country-wide rate to provide evidence of
We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the requesting company in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because HHFISH certified that it both produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for the NSR request, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for subject merchandise which HHFISH both produced and exported.
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.
This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
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.
Under the Code of Federal Regulations in Title 50, Part 665, all vessel owners who fish for deepwater shrimp (
The information collected is used to identify participants in the fishery, document fishing activities and landings, determine the conditions of the stocks, assess the effectiveness of management measures, evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and monitor and respond to accidental takes of protected species, including seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals.
Vessel owners must identify their vessels to assist in aerial and at-sea enforcement of fishing regulations.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms 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
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective April 1, 2015.
Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-6430.
On October 31, 2014, the Department received a timely request from Sekisui Specialty Chemical America, LLC (“Sekisui”) and Kuraray America Inc. (“Kuraray”) (collectively, “Petitioners”), to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyvinyl alcohol (“PVA”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) with regard to Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works (“SVW”). Based upon this request, on November 28, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PVA from the PRC with respect to SVW and covering the period of October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Petitioners withdrew their request for review before the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PVA from the PRC for the period of review. Therefore, in response to Petitioners' withdrawal of their request for review and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after April 2015, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act
Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
Further, as explained in
Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.
All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at
The Department will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations, NMFS hereby gives notice that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) to the U.S. Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB), to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program (Maritime WSEP) within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico from February 5 through April 1, 2015. Eglin AFB's activities are military readiness activities per the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004.
Effective February 5, 2015, through April 1, 2015.
An electronic copy of the final Authorization, Eglin AFB's
Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Through the authority delegated by the Secretary, NMFS shall grant an Authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant).
The Authorization must also prescribe, where applicable, the permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to the activity; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses (where applicable); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA; Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].
NMFS received an application on August 5, 2014, from Eglin AFB for the taking, by harassment, of marine mammals, incidental to Maritime WESP operational testing in the spring of 2015 within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR). Eglin AFB submitted a revised application to NMFS on October 20, 2014, which provided updated take estimates for marine mammals based on updated acoustic thresholds for explosive sources. Eglin AFB submitted a second revised application to NMFS on December 1, 2014, which provided updated mitigation zones. NMFS determined the application adequate and complete on December 2, 2014 and published a notice of proposed Authorization on December 8, 2014 (79 FR 72631). The notice afforded the public a 30-day comment period on the proposed MMPA Authorization.
Eglin AFB proposes to conduct Maritime WESP missions within the EGTTR airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, specifically within Warning Area 151 (W-151), which is located approximately 17 miles offshore from Santa Rosa Island, specifically sub-area W-151A. The proposed testing activities would occur during the daytime over a three-week period between February and April, 2015. Eglin AFB proposes to use multiple types of live munitions (
Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP operations may potentially impact marine mammals at or near the water surface. Thus, the following specific aspect of the proposed WSEP activities have the potential to take marine mammals: Increased underwater sound and pressure generated during the WSEP testing missions. Marine mammals could potentially be harassed, injured, or killed by exploding and non-exploding projectiles, and falling debris. However, based on analyses provided in Eglin AFB's final; Environmental Assessment (EA); their Authorization application, including proposed mitigation and monitoring measures; and for reasons discussed later in this document, NMFS does not anticipate that Eglin's WSEP activities will result in any serious injury or mortality to marine mammals.
Eglin AFB has requested authorization to take two cetacean species by Level A and Level B harassment. The requested species include: Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (
Eglin AFB proposes to conduct live ordnance testing and training in the Gulf of Mexico as part of the Maritime WSEP operational testing. The Maritime WSEP test objectives are to evaluate maritime deployment data, evaluate tactics, techniques and procedures, and to determine the impact of techniques and procedures on combat Air Force training. The need to conduct this type of testing has arisen in response to increasing threats at sea posed by operations conducted from small boats which can carry a variety of weapons; can form in large or small numbers; and may be difficult to locate, track, and engage in the marine environment. Because of limited Air Force aircraft and munitions testing on engaging and defeating small boat threats, the Air Force proposes to employ live munitions against boat targets in the EGTTR in order to continue development of techniques and procedures to train Air Force strike aircraft to counter small maneuvering surface vessels. Thus, the Department of Defense considers the Maritime WSEP activities as high priority for national security.
The proposed Maritime WSEP missions are similar to Eglin AFB's Maritime Strike Operations where NMFS issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB related to training exercises around small boat threats (78 FR 52135, August 22, 2013).
Eglin AFB proposes to schedule the Maritime WSEP missions over an approximate two- to three-week period that would begin February 6, 2015, and end by April 1, 2015. The proposed missions would occur on weekdays, during daytime hours only, with one or two missions occurring per day. Some
The specific planned mission location is approximately 17 miles (mi) (27.3 kilometers [km]) offshore from Santa Rosa Island, Florida, in nearshore waters of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. All activities would take place within the EGTTR, defined as the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three nautical miles (nmi) (3.5 miles [mi]; 5.5 kilometers [km]) from shore. The EGTTR consists of subdivided blocks including Warning Area 151 (W-151) where the proposed activities would occur, specifically in sub-area W-151A.
NMFS provided detailed descriptions of the activity area in a previous notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information has not changed between the proposed Authorization notice and this final notice announcing the issuance of the Authorization.
The Maritime WSEP operational testing missions, classified as military readiness activities, include the release of multiple types of inert and live munitions from fighter and bomber aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and gunships against small, static, towed, and remotely-controlled boat targets. Munition types include bombs, missiles, rockets, and gunnery rounds (Table 1).
The proposed activities involve detonations above the water, near the water surface, and under water within the EGTTR. However, because the tests will focus on weapon/target interaction, Eglin AFB will not specify a particular aircraft for a given test as long as it meets the delivery parameters.
Eglin AFB would deploy the munitions against static, towed, and remotely-controlled boat targets within W-151A. Eglin AFB would operate the remote-controlled boats from an instrumentation barge (Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel; GRATV) anchored on site within the test area. The GRATV would provide a platform for cameras and weapons-tracking equipment and Eglin AFB would position the target boats approximately 182.8 m (600 ft) from the GRATV, depending on the munition type.
Table 2 provides the number, height, or depth of detonation, explosive material, and net explosive weight (NEW) in pounds (lbs) of each munition proposed for use during the Maritime WSEP activities.
To ensure safety, prior to conducting WSEP activities, Eglin AFB would conduct a pre-test target area clearance procedure for people and protected species. Eglin AFB would deploy support vessels around a defined safety zone to ensure that commercial and recreational boats do not accidentally enter the area. Before delivering the
Based on the results from an acoustic impacts analysis for live ordnance detonations, Eglin AFB would establish a separate disturbance zone around the target for the protection of marine species. Eglin AFB will base the size of the zone on the distance to which energy- and pressure-related impacts will extend for the various type of ordnance listed in Table 2. Based on the acoustic modeling result, the largest possible distance from the target would be approximately 5 km (3.1 miles) from the target area, which corresponds to the Level A harassment threshold range. Support vessels would monitor for marine mammals around the target area. WSEP activities will not proceed until Eglin AFB personnel determine that the target area is clear of unauthorized personnel and protected species.
In addition to vessel-based monitoring, Eglin AFB will position three video cameras on an instrumentation barge anchored on-site. The cameras, typically used for situational awareness of the target area and surrounding area, would contribute to monitoring the test site for the presence of marine species. A marine species observer would be present in the Eglin control tower, along with mission personnel, to monitor the video feed before and during test activities.
After each test, Eglin AFB would inspect floating targets to identify and render safe any unexploded ordnance (UXO), including fuzes or intact munitions. The Eglin AFB Explosive Disposal Team will be on hand for each test. If Eglin AFB personnel cannot remove the UXO, personnel will detonate the UXO in place, which could result in the sinking of the target vessel. Once Eglin AFB deems the area clear for re-entry, test personnel will retrieve target debris. Marine species observers would survey the area for any evidence of adverse impacts to protected species.
A notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application and NMFS' proposal to issue an Authorization to the USAF, Eglin AFB, published in the
However, the Commission states that Eglin AFB overestimated marine mammal take because they based estimates on the former method (
With respect to the second point, Eglin AFB's modeling approach for take estimates treated each munition detonation as a separate event impacting a new set of animals which results in a worst case scenario of potential take and is a precautionary overestimate of potential harassment. Briefly, Eglin AFB's model treats each ordnance detonation as a single event and sums the estimated potential impacts from each detonation event to provide a total estimate of take for the entire WSEP testing activities event conducted over a period of 3 weeks. This approach assumes for a continuous population refresh of animals (
NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendations and has recalculated the takes by eliminating the double counting of the estimated take for each species and appropriately rounding take estimates before summing the total take. Table 8 in this notice provides the revised number of marine mammals, by species, that Eglin AFB could potentially take incidental to the conduct of Maritime WSEP operations. The re-calculation results in zero take by mortality, zero take by slight lung injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal tract injury. Compared to the take levels that NMFS previously proposed (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014), the re-estimation has reduced take estimates for Level A harassment (PTS) by approximately five percent to a total of 38 marine mammals; reduced the take estimates for Level B harassment (TTS) by approximately eight percent to a total of 445 marine mammals; and reduced take estimates for Level B harassment (behavioral) by approximately 51 percent to a total of 497 marine mammals. Based on the remodeling of the number of marine mammals potentially affected by maritime strike missions, NMFS would authorize take for Level A and Level B harassment presented in Table 8 of this notice.
Monitoring also includes vessel-based observers for marine species up to 30 minutes prior to deploying live munitions in the area. Eglin AFB has submitted annual reports to NMFS every year that describes all activities that occur in the EGTTR. In addition, Eglin AFB submitted annual reports to NMFS at the conclusion of the Maritime Strike Operations testing activities conducted in 2013 and 2014. These missions are similar in nature to the proposed maritime WSEP operations and the Eglin AFB provided information on sighting information and results from post-mission survey observations. Based on those results, NMFS determined that the mitigation measures ensured the least practicable adverse impact to marine mammals. There were no observations of injured marine mammals and no reports of marine mammal mortality during the Maritime Strike Operation activities. The measures proposed for Maritime WSEP are similar, except they will include larger survey areas based on updated acoustic analysis and previous discussions with the Commission and NMFS.
Eglin AFB will continue to research the feasibility of supplementing existing monitoring efforts with passive acoustic monitoring devices for future missions. Eglin AFB would be willing to discuss alternatives with the Commission and NMFS during the development of the upcoming environmental planning efforts discussed earlier in Comment 1.
NMFS based PTS thresholds on the onset of PTS, meaning an exposure that causes a 40 dB threshold shift (Ward
NMFS has recalculated the takes proposed in the notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014) and the results of the recalculation show zero takes for mortality, zero takes by slight lung injury, and zero takes by gastrointestinal tract injury. Further, the re-estimation has reduced the number of take by Level A harassment (from PTS) and by Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral). Based on this re-estimation, NMFS does not believe that serious injury will result from this activity and that therefore it is not necessary to issue regulations through section 101(a)(5)(A), rather, an Incidental Harassment Authorization may be issued.
Table 3 provides the following: marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed activity area (Garrison
An additional 19 cetacean species have confirmed occurrence within the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, mainly occurring at or beyond the shelf break (
Of these species, only the sperm whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and as depleted throughout its range under the MMPA. Sperm whale occurrence within W-151A is unlikely because almost all reported sightings have occurred in water depths greater than 200 m (656.2 ft).
Because these species are unlikely to occur within the W-151A area, Eglin AFB has not requested and NMFS has not proposed the issuance of take authorizations for them. Thus, NMFS does not consider these species further in this notice.
NMFS has reviewed Eglin AFB's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. NMFS refers the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the Authorization application and to Chapter 3 in Eglin AFB's EA rather than reprinting the information here.
The endangered West Indian manatee (
This section of the notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014) included a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (
In summary, the Maritime WSEP training exercises proposed for taking of marine mammals under an Authorization have the potential to take marine mammals by exposing them to impulsive noise and pressure waves generated by live ordnance detonation at or near the surface of the water. Exposure to energy or pressure resulting from these detonations could result in Level A harassment (PTS) and by Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral). In addition, NMFS also considered the potential for harassment from vessel operations.
The potential effects of impulsive sound sources (underwater detonations) from the proposed training activities may include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking, disturbance, hearing threshold shift, stress response, and mortality. NMFS provided detailed information on these potential effects in the notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information presented in that notice has not changed.
Detonations of live ordnance would result in temporary changes to the water environment. Munitions could hit the targets and not explode in the water. However, because the targets are located over the water, in water explosions could occur. An underwater explosion from these weapons could send a shock wave and blast noise through the water, release gaseous by-products, create an oscillating bubble, and cause a plume of water to shoot up from the water surface. However, these effects would be temporary and not expected to last more than a few seconds.
Similarly, Eglin AFB does not expect any long-term impacts with regard to hazardous constituents to occur. Eglin AFB considered the introduction of fuel, debris, ordnance, and chemical materials into the water column within its EA. Eglin AFB analyzed the potential effects of each in their EA and determined them to be insignificant. NMFS provided a summary of the analyses in the notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information presented in that notice has not changed.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
NMFS and Eglin AFB have worked to identify practicable and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the “military-readiness activity.” NMFS refers the reader to Section 11 of Eglin AFB's application for more detailed information on the mitigation measures which include the following:
Trained marine species observers would be aboard five of these boats and will conduct protected species surveys before and after each test. The protected species survey vessels will be dedicated solely to observing for marine species during the pre-mission surveys while the remaining safety boats clear the area of non-authorized vessels. The protected species survey vessels will begin surveying the area at sunrise. The area to be surveyed will encompass the largest applicable zone of influence (ZOI), which is the Level A harassment range. Animals that may enter the area after the pre-mission surveys have been completed and prior to detonation would not reach the predicted smaller slight lung injury, gastrointestinal tract, and/or mortality zones
Because of human safety issues, observers will be required to leave the test area at least 30 minutes in advance of live weapon deployment and move to a position on the safety zone periphery, approximately 9.5 miles from the detonation point. Observers will continue to scan for marine mammals from the periphery.
The GRATV will be located about 183 m (600 ft) from the target. The larger mortality threshold ranges correspond to the modified Goertner model adjusted for the weight of an Atlantic spotted dolphin calf, and extend from 0 to 237 m (0 to 778 ft) from the target, depending on the ordnance, and the Level A ranges for both common bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins extend from 7 to 965 m (23 to 3,166 ft) from the target, depending on the ordnance and harassment criterion.
If the high-definition video cameras are not operational for any reason, Eglin AFB will not conduct Maritime WSEP missions.
In addition to the two types of visual monitoring discussed earlier in this section, Eglin AFB personnel are present within the mission area (on boats and the GRATV) on each day of testing well in advance of weapon deployment, typically near sunrise. They will perform a variety of tasks including target preparation, equipment checks, etc., and will opportunistically observe for marine mammals and indicators as feasible throughout test preparation. However, such observations are considered incidental and would only occur as time and schedule permits. Any sightings would be relayed to the Lead Biologist, as described in the following mitigation sections.
• Any of the high-definition video cameras are not operational for any reason.
• Any marine mammal is visually detected within the ZOI. Postponement would continue until the animal(s) that caused the postponement is: (1) Confirmed to be outside of the ZOI on a heading away from the targets; or (2) not seen again for 30 minutes and presumed to be outside the ZOI due to the animal swimming out of the range.
• Large schools of fish or large flocks of birds feeding at the surface are observed within the ZOI. Postponement would continue until these potential indicators are confirmed to be outside the ZOI.
• Any technical or mechanical issues related to the aircraft or target boats.
• Non-participating vessels enter the human safety zone prior to weapon release.
In the event of a postponement, protected species monitoring would continue from the Central Control Facility through the live video feed.
Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as personnel declare the mission area safe. Vessels will move into the survey area from outside the safety zone and monitor for at least 30 minutes, concentrating on the area down-current of the test site. This area is easily identifiable because of the floating debris in the water from impacted targets. Up to 10 Eglin AFB support vessels will be cleaning debris and collecting damaged targets from this area thus spending many hours in the area once the mission is completed. All vessels will be instructed to report any dead or injured marine mammals to the Lead Biologist. The protected species survey vessels will document any marine mammals that were killed or injured as a result of the mission and, if practicable, recover and examine any dead animals. The species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed will be documented and reported to Eglin Natural Resources.
Eglin AFB would delay or reschedule Maritime WSEP missions if the Beaufort sea state is greater than number 4 at the time of the test. The Lead Biologist aboard one of the survey vessels will make the final determination of whether conditions are conducive for sighting protected species or not.
NMFS has carefully evaluated Eglin AFB's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. NMFS' evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to training exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to training exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to training exercises that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on the evaluation of Eglin AFB's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered, NMFS has determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In order to issue an Authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that we must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for an authorization must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the action area.
Monitoring measures prescribed by us should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and during other times and locations, in order to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned later;
2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals would be affected by seismic airguns and other active acoustic sources and the likelihood of associating those exposures with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, temporary or permanent threshold shift;
3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli that we expect to result in take and how those anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (
b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (
c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
The Authorization will require the following measures in the Maritime WSEP Authorization. They are:
(1) Eglin will track their use of the EGTTR for test firing missions and protected species observations, through the use of mission reporting forms.
(2) A summary annual report of marine mammal observations and Maritime WSEP activities will be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) and the Office of Protected Resources either at the time of a request for renewal of an Authorization or 90 days after expiration of the current Authorization if a new Authorization is not requested. This annual report must include the following information: (i) Date and time of each Maritime WSEP exercise; (ii) a complete description of the pre-exercise and post-exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of Maritime WSEP exercises on marine mammal populations; and (iii) results of the Maritime WSEP exercise monitoring, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the missions and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.
(3) If any dead or injured marine mammals are observed or detected prior to testing, or injured or killed during live fire, a report must be made to NMFS by the following business day.
(4) Any unauthorized takes of marine mammals (
NMFS' analysis identified the physiological responses, and behavioral responses that could potentially result from exposure to underwater explosive detonations. In this section, we will relate the potential effects to marine mammals from underwater detonation of explosives to the MMPA regulatory definitions of Level A and Level B harassment. This section will also quantify the effects that might occur from the proposed military readiness activities in W-151.
The NDAA amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine
At NMFS' recommendation, Eglin AFB updated the thresholds used for onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS; Level B Harassment) and onset of permanent threshold shift (PTS; Level A Harassment) to be consistent with the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report titled, “Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis Technical Report,” which the Navy coordinated with NMFS. NMFS believes that the thresholds outlined in the Navy's report represent the best available science. The report is available on the internet at:
Table 4 in this document outlines the revised acoustic thresholds used by NMFS for this Authorization when addressing noise impacts from explosives.
Eglin AFB conservatively modeled that all explosives would detonate at a 1.2 m (3.9 ft) water depth despite the training goal of hitting the target, resulting in an above water or on land explosion. For sources detonated at shallow depths, it is frequently the case that the explosion may breech the surface with some of the acoustic energy escaping the water column. Table 5 provides the estimated maximum range or radius, from the detonation point to the various thresholds described in Table 4. Eglin AFB uses the range information shown in Table 5 (Table 6.3 in Eglin's application) to calculate the total area of the ZOI and combine the calculated ZOIs with density estimates (adjusted for depth distribution) and the number of live munitions to provide an estimate of the number of marine mammals potentially exposed to the various impact thresholds.
The ranges presented in Table 5 represent a radius of impact for a given threshold from a single detonation of each munition/detonation scenario. They do not consider accumulated energies from multiple detonation occurring within the same 24-hour time period. For calculating take estimates, the single detonation approach is more conservative because it multiplies the exposures from a single detonation by the number of munitions and assumes a fresh population of marine mammals is being impacted each time. Eglin AFB used this approach because of the uncertainty surrounding which munitions they would release on a given day. Multiple variables, such as weather, aircraft mechanical issues, munition malfunctions, and target availability may prevent planned munitions releases. By treating each detonation as a separate event and summing those impacts accordingly, Eglin AFB would have maximum operational flexibility to conduct the missions without limitations on either the total number of munitions allowed to be dropped in a day, or on the specific combinations of munitions that could be released.
While this methodology overestimates the overall potential takes presented in the next section, the ranges do not accurately represent the actual area acoustically impacted for a given threshold from multiple detonations in a given mission day. The total acoustic impact area for two identical bombs detonating within a given timeframe is less than twice the impact area of a single bomb's detonation. This has to do with the accumulated energy from multiple detonations occurring sequentially. When one weapon is detonated, a certain level of transmission loss is required to be calculated to achieve each threshold level which can then be equated to a range. By releasing a second munition in the same event (same place and close in time), even though the total energy is increased, the incremental impact area from the second detonation is slightly less than that of the first; however the impact range for the two munitions is larger than the impact range for one. Since each additional detonation adds energy to the sound exposure level (SEL) metric, all the energy from all munitions released in a day is accumulated. By factoring in the transmission loss of the first detonation added with the incremental increases from the second, third, fourth, etc., the range of the cumulative energy that is below each threshold level can be determined. Unlike the energy component, peak pressure is not an additive factor, therefore Eglin AFB did not consider thresholds expressed as either acoustic impulse or peak SPL metrics (
Eglin AFB has created a sample day reflecting the maximum number of munitions that could be released and resulting in the greatest impact in a single mission day. However, this scenario is only a representation and may not accurately reflect how Eglin AFB may conduct actual operations. However, NMFS and Eglin AFB are considering this conservative assumption to calculate the impact range for mitigation monitoring measures. Thus, Eglin AFB has modeled, combined, and compared the sum of all energies from these detonations against thresholds with energy metric criteria to generate the accumulated energy ranges for this scenario. Table 6 displays these ranges which form the basis of the mitigation monitoring thresholds.
Based on the ranges presented in Table 6 and factoring operational limitations associated with survey-based vessel support for the missions, Eglin AFB estimates that during pre-mission surveys, the proposed monitoring area would be approximately 5 km (3.1 miles) from the target area, which corresponds to the Level A harassment threshold range. Eglin AFB proposes to survey the same-sized area for each mission day, regardless of the planned munition expenditures. By clearing the Level A harassment threshold range of protected species, animals that may enter the area after the completed pre-mission surveys but prior to detonation would not reach the smaller slight lung injury or mortality zones (presented in Table 5). Because of human safety issues, Eglin AFB would require observers to leave the test area at least 30 minutes in advance of live weapon deployment and move to a position on the safety zone periphery, approximately 9.5 miles (15 km) from the detonation point. Observers would continue to scan for marine mammals from the periphery, but effectiveness would be limited as the boat would remain at a designated station.
Density estimates for bottlenose dolphin and spotted dolphin were derived from two sources (Table 7). NMFS provided detailed information on Eglin AFB's derivation of density estimates for the bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins in the notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014). The information presented in that notice has not changed and NMFS refers the reader to Section 3 of Eglin AFB's application for detailed information on all equations used to calculate densities presented in Table 7.
NMFS recalculated the takes proposed in previous notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014) by eliminating the double counting of the estimated take for each species and appropriately rounding take estimates before summing the total take.
Table 8 indicates the modeled potential for lethality, injury, and non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. Table 8 includes the revised number of marine mammals, by species, that Eglin AFB could potentially take incidental to the conduct of Maritime WSEP operations. The re-calculation results in zero take by mortality, zero take by slight lung injury, and zero take by gastrointestinal tract injury. Compared to the take levels that NMFS previously proposed (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014), the re-estimation has reduced take estimates for Level A harassment (PTS) by approximately five percent to a total of 38 marine mammals; reduced the take estimates for Level B harassment (TTS) by approximately eight percent to a total of 445 marine mammals; and reduced take estimates for Level B harassment (behavioral) by approximately 51 percent to a total of 497 marine mammals. Based on the remodeling of the number of marine mammals potentially affected by maritime strike missions, NMFS would authorize take for Level A and Level B harassment presented in Table 8 of this notice.
Eglin AFB and NMFS estimate that approximately 38 marine mammals could be exposed to injurious Level A harassment noise levels (187 dB SEL) and approximately 942 animals could be exposed to Level B harassment (TTS and behavioral) noise levels.
Based on the mortality exposure estimates calculated by the acoustic model, zero marine mammals are expected to be affected by pressure levels associated with mortality or serious injury. Zero marine mammals are expected to be exposed to pressure levels associated with slight lung injury or gastrointestinal tract injury.
NMFS generally considers PTS to fall under the injury category (Level A Harassment). An animal would need to stay very close to the sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious degree of PTS, which could increase the probability of mortality. In this case, it would be highly unlikely for this scenario to unfold given the nature of any anticipated acoustic exposures that could potentially result from a mobile marine mammal that NMFS generally expects to exhibit avoidance behavior to loud sounds within the EGTTR.
NMFS has relied on the best available scientific information to support the issuance of Eglin AFB's authorization. In the case of authorizing Level A harassment, NMFS has estimated that no more than 33 bottlenose dolphins and 5 Atlantic spotted dolphins could, although unlikely, experience minor permanent threshold shifts of hearing sensitivity (PTS). The available data and analyses, as described more fully in notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 72631, December 8, 2014) include extrapolation results of many studies on marine mammal noise-induced temporary threshold shifts of hearing sensitivities. An extensive review of TTS studies and experiments prompted NMFS to conclude that possibility of minor PTS in the form of slight upward shift of hearing threshold at certain frequency bands by a few individuals of marine mammals is extremely low, but not unlikely.
As explained previously, the term “negligible impact” is defined as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:
• The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
• The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment; and
• The context in which the takes occur (
• The status of stock or species of marine mammals (
• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
• The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, Eglin AFB's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death.
The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. The takes from Level A harassment will be due to potential PTS. Activities would only occur over a timeframe of two to three weeks in beginning in February, 2015, with one, four-hour mission occurring each day. It is possible that some individuals may be taken more than once if those individuals are located in the exercise area on two different days when exercises are occurring. However, multiple exposures are not anticipated to have effects beyond Level A and Level B harassment.
Noise-induced threshold shifts (TS, which includes PTS) are defined as increases in the threshold of audibility (
In addition, there are different degrees of PTS: Ranging from slight/mild to moderate and from severe to profound (Clark 1981). Profound PTS or the complete loss of the ability to hear in one or both ears is commonly referred to as deafness (CDC 2004; WHO 2006). High-frequency PTS, presumably as a normal process of aging that occurs in humans and other terrestrial mammals, has also been demonstrated in captive cetaceans (Ridgway and Carder 1997; Yuen
In terms of what is analyzed for the potential PTS (Level A harassment) in marine mammals as a result of Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP operations, if it occurs, NMFS has determined that the levels would be slight/mild because research shows that most cetaceans show relatively high levels of avoidance. Further, it is uncommon to sight marine mammals within the target area, especially for prolonged durations.
While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the activity, because of the short duration of the actual individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) combined with the short duration of the Maritime WSEP operations, NMFS has determined that there will not be a substantial impact on marine mammals or on the normal functioning of the nearshore or offshore Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. The proposed activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals since neither mortality (which would remove individuals from the population) nor serious injury are anticipated to occur. In addition, the proposed activity would not occur in areas (and/or times) of significance for the marine mammal populations potentially affected by the exercises (
Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring measures required by the Authorization (described earlier in this document) are expected to further minimize the potential for harassment. The protected species surveys would require Eglin AFB to search the area for marine mammals, and if any are found in the live fire area, then the exercise would be suspended until the animal(s) has left the area or relocated. Moreover, marine species observers located in the Eglin control tower would monitor the high-definition video feed from cameras located on the instrument barge anchored on-site for the presence of protected species. Furthermore, Maritime WSEP missions would be delayed or rescheduled if the sea state is greater than a 4 on the Beaufort Scale at the time of the test. In addition, Maritime WSEP missions would occur no earlier than two hours after sunrise and no later than two hours prior to sunset to ensure adequate daylight for pre- and post-mission monitoring.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that Eglin AFB's Maritime WSEP operations will result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment only, and that the taking from the Maritime WSEP exercises will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Eglin AFB initiated consultation with the Southeast Region, NMFS, under section 7 of the ESA regarding the effects of this action on ESA-listed species and critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS. The consultation will be completed and a biological opinion issued prior to any final determinations on the Authorization. Due to the location of the activity, no ESA-listed marine mammal species are likely to be affected; therefore, NMFS has determined that this Authorization would have no effect on ESA-listed marine mammal species. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
Eglin AFB provided NMFS with an Environmental Assessment titled, Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program (WSEP) Operational Testing In The Eglin Gulf Testing And Training Range (EGTTR), Florida. The EA analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the specified activities on marine mammals. NMFS, after review and evaluation of the Eglin AFB EA for consistency with the regulations published by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, adopted the EA. After considering the EA, the information in the IHA application, and the
NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB for conducting Maritime WSEP operations in the EGGTR, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (Council). The meeting is open to the public, and participants may provide comments at the appropriate time during the meeting.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 22, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, April 23, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT. An opportunity for public comment will be provided on April 23, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. EDT. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change.
The meeting will be held in the Hubbard Hall Board Room of the National Geographic Society, 1146 16th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Gonzalo Cid, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-713-7278, Fax: 301-713-0404; email:
ONMS serves as the trustee for 14 marine protected areas encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters from the Hawaiian Islands to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. National marine sanctuaries protect our Nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies. One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. The Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (Council) has been formed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director regarding the relationship of the ONMS with the business community. Additional information on the Council can be found at
16 U.S.C. Sections 1431,
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Joy P. Pierson by email at
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Title 13, Section 161 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a Census of Governments every five years, in years ending in “2” and “7”. Section 193 provides for the collection of preliminary and supplementary statistics as related to the main topic of the census. The Census of Governments publishes unit counts and legal descriptions as well as employment and finance data for all county, municipal, township, school district, and special district governments in the United States. Prior to conducting the Census of Governments it is necessary to ensure that the universe of all governments is as accurate and up to date as possible. The Government Units Survey (GUS) is conducted the year prior to the Census of Governments, and is used to evaluate and update the universe of all local and special district governments. The 2016 Government Units Survey (GUS) is the instrument for collecting current information to update the universe of all county, municipal, township, and special district governments for the 2017 Census of Governments. The 2016 GUS provides critical information needed to maintain the frame from which all public sector surveys are drawn. The GUS is particularly beneficial for identifying smaller units that have not been included in surveys in between census years and identifying changes to the universe of special district governments that experience substantial change in a five-year period. The GUS contributes to the quality and timely releases of the other components of the Census of Governments.
The 2016 GUS will differ slightly from the former version of the Government Units Survey. The 2016 GUS is significantly shorter than the past version of the GUS. The 2016 GUS estimated time to respond is 15 minutes, compared to the 2011 GUS which had an estimated time to respond of 45 minutes. The 2016 GUS is designed to diminish unnecessary burden to respondents, and to collect information essential to maintaining the government universe.
The 2016 GUS will collect basic background information on all local, general purpose, and special district governments. The most basic information collected will include whether a government is still in existence. As previously noted, there are a number of governments, particularly special district governments, which have not been part of any survey or collection since the 2012 Census of Governments. It is necessary to determine if such governments are still in existence. The 2016 GUS asks a follow-up question for those governments no longer in existence to provide, if applicable, contact information for a newly created or existing entity that may be providing the services or functions of the former government. It is necessary to verify and update all this information in the universe prior to the 2017 Census of Governments.
The 2016 GUS asks all existing governments for contact information, including a mailing address and, if applicable, Web site address. This information is used to verify what currently exists in the universe and update any discrepancies. The contact information will be used when mailing the 2017 Census of Governments as well as for any public sector surveys conducted over the next five years.
The 2016 GUS also asks questions on employment and defined-contribution plans, defined-benefit, and post-
The 2016 Government Units Survey is a census of all counties, municipalities, townships, and special districts. Respondents have the option of responding by paper, via the Internet, by telephone, or by facsimile. An advance notification informing respondents of the impending arrival of the Government Units Survey will be mailed two weeks prior to mailing the questionnaire. The Government Units Survey questionnaire will be mailed to respondents in February 2016 followed by a reminder letter a month later, and a follow-up mailing in April 2016. The 2016 Government Units Survey questionnaire will provide a Web site for respondents who choose to respond electronically. The Web site is secure and respondents will receive a unique user identification and password, which will be included in a letter accompanying the questionnaire. A toll free number will also be provided to respondents on the questionnaire which respondents may use to ask questions or to provide responses. A telephone number and instructions to respond to the 2016 GUS by facsimile will be provided upon request to respondents.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. The final determination will be issued 75 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Kabir Archuletta or Josh Startup, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593 or (202) 482-5260, respectively.
The scope of this investigation covers boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, with or without decks (“boltless steel shelving”). The term “prepackaged for sale” means that, at a minimum, the steel vertical supports (
The scope includes all boltless steel shelving meeting the description above, regardless of (1) vertical support or post type (including but not limited to open post, closed post and tubing); (2)
Specifically excluded from the scope are:
• Wall-mounted shelving, defined as shelving that is hung on the wall and does not stand on, or transfer load to, the floor;
• Wire shelving units, which consist of shelves made from wire that incorporates both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create the finished shelving unit;
• Bulk-packed parts or components of boltless steel shelving units; and
• Made-to-order shelving systems.
Subject boltless steel shelving enters the United States through Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical subheadings 9403.20.0018 and 9403.20.0020, but may also enter through HTSUS 9403.10.0040. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. We calculated export prices and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value (“NV”) was calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In the
The preliminary weighted-average antidumping duty (“AD”) margin percentages are as follows:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically at Enforcement and Compliance's electronic records system, ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within
Pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act, we will make our final determination no later than 75 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
Furthermore, consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy. In this LTFV investigation, export subsidies constitute 3.03 percent
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 45 days of our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Brandi Maxson, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-6K083, Washington, DC 20233, Telephone (301) 763-6600 (or via the Internet at
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Census Bureau is planning to resubmit to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, the Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) Program information collection forms. The QFR forms to be submitted for approval are: The QFR 200 (MT) long form; QFR 201 (MG) short form; and the QFR 300 (S) long form.
The QFR program collects and publishes up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations. The QFR target population consists of all corporations engaged primarily in manufacturing with total assets of $250,000 and over, and all corporations engaged primarily in mining; wholesale trade; retail trade; information; or professional and technical services (except legal services) industries with total assets of $50 million and over.
QFR's last submission for forms approval included an announcement of an expansion of its coverage to include four new service sectors. The new sectors included subsectors in Sector 53 (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing), excluding subsector 533 (Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets); Sector 56 (Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services); Sector 62 (Health Care and Social Assistance); and Sector 72 (Accommodation and Food Services) based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). However, on June 9, 2014, the QFR ceased collection of these additional sectors due to sample restrictions and budget constraints. Notification of this change was announced on the QFR Business Help Site (BHS) Web site and the QFR Publication.
The QFR Program has published up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations since 1947. The QFR is a principal economic indicator that also provides financial data essential to the estimation of key Government measures of national economic performance. The importance of this data collection is reflected by the granting of specific authority to conduct the program in Title 13 of the United States Code, Section 91, which requires that financial statistics of business operations be collected and published quarterly. Public Law 109-79 extended the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct the QFR Program under Section 91 through September 30, 2015. Currently, QFR is in the process of reauthorizing this public law.
The main purpose of the QFR is to provide timely, accurate data on business financial conditions for use by Government and private-sector organizations and individuals. The primary public users are U.S. Governmental organizations with economic measurement and policymaking responsibilities such as Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistic and Federal Reserve Board. In turn, these organizations play a major role in providing guidance, advice, and support to the QFR Program. The primary private-sector data users are a diverse group including universities, financial analysts, unions, trade associations, public libraries, banking institutions, and U.S. and foreign corporations.
The Census Bureau uses two forms of data collection: Mail out/mail back paper survey forms, and a secure encrypted Internet data collection system called Centurion. Centurion provides improved quality with automatic data checks and is context-sensitive to assist the data provider in identifying potential reporting problems before submission, thus reducing the need for follow-up. Centurion is completed via the Internet eliminating the need for downloading software and increasing the integrity and confidentiality of the data.
Companies are asked to respond to the survey within 25 days of the end of the quarter for which the data are being requested. Letters and/or telephone calls encouraging participation are directed to companies in the survey sample that have not responded by the designated time.
Form QFR 200 (MT)—Average hours: 3.0
Form QFR 201 (MG)—Average hours: 1.2
Form QFR 300 (S)—Average hours: 3.0
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.
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 16 April 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.
Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:
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 May 1, 2015.
Comments may be submitted directly to OMB within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at
Comments may also be submitted, regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, identified by “Swap Data Repositories; Registration and Reporting Requirements (OMB Control No. 3038-0086)”, by any of the following methods:
• Agency Web site, via its Comments Online process:
• Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
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
Benjamin DeMaria, Division of Market Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5988; email:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) announces the availability of an updated consumer publication, the home buying information booklet, also known as the special information booklet or the settlement cost booklet (Booklet), required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Regulation X, and Regulation Z. This version of the Booklet incorporates statutory amendments and the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure from the Bureau's final rule, Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (Integrated Disclosures Final Rule). The title of this publication is “
The updated consumer publication is available for download on the Bureau's Web site at
Julie Vore, Originations Analyst, Office of Mortgage Markets; David Friend, Counsel, Office of Regulations,
The Bureau is hereby publishing this notice of availability to inform the public of the existence of an updated version of the Home Buying Information Booklet.
In its enactment in 1974, section 5 of RESPA required the provision of “special information booklets” to help persons borrowing money to finance the purchase of residential real estate to understand better the nature and costs of real estate settlement services. Public Law 93-553. Since 1976, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) implemented the requirement through publication of the Booklet titled “
Section 1450 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Public Law 111-203, amended section 5 of RESPA by, among other things, transferring responsibility for the Booklet from HUD to the Bureau. 12 U.S.C. 2604, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, requires the Director of the Bureau to prepare, at least once every five years, “a booklet to help consumers applying for federally related mortgage loans to understand the nature and costs of real estate settlement services.” 12 U.S.C. 2604(a). Section 1450 of the Dodd-Frank Act also amended 12 U.S.C. 2604 by adding new content requirements, including information on homeownership counseling services, an explanation of a consumer's responsibilities, liabilities and obligations in a mortgage transaction, and a list of questions a consumer obtaining a federally related mortgage loan should ask regarding the loan, including whether the consumer will have the ability to repay the loan, whether the consumer sufficiently shopped for the loan, whether the loan terms include prepayment penalties or balloon payments, and whether the loan will benefit the borrower. Other statutes, discussed below, have also amended 12 U.S.C. 2604 to include additional information on flood insurance.
In November 2013, the Bureau issued a final rule that amended section 1024.5 to provide creditors with an exemption from certain RESPA requirements, including the requirements of section 1024.6, for loans subject to the TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure requirements. The rule also added section 1026.19(g), which is substantially similar to the requirements of 1024.6, but modified to conform to the usage associated with TILA.
To reflect the transfer of the Booklet to the Bureau and ensure consistency with the Bureau's rulemakings regulating practices in mortgage origination and servicing that took effect in January 2014, the CFPB made technical and conforming changes to the Booklet and made the revised Booklet available in January 2014. 79 FR 1836 (Jan. 10, 2014).
The Bureau is updating the Booklet to incorporate: (1) statutory amendments made to 12 U.S.C. 2604 by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Moving Ahead for Progress in 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141, and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, Public Law 113-89; (2) the Bureau's Integrated Disclosures final rule effective on August 1, 2015; and (3) additional Bureau contact information, online tools, and information on how to submit complaints. Every effort was made to incorporate all statutory amendments; however, a Dodd-Frank Act amendment to 12 U.S.C. 2604 to provide notice of a loan fraud brochure and the web address and telephone number for obtaining the brochure could not be incorporated, as the brochure is no longer supported by the issuing agency. Instead, the Bureau has provided a link in the Booklet to a HUD Web page on loan fraud.
The Bureau views this publication as part of the Bureau's broader mission to educate consumers about consumer financial products. The Booklet has also been revised to, among other things, improve the readability and usability of the booklet and link to the Bureau's Web site, regarding tools and resources that consumers can use to make better-
Under 12 U.S.C. 2604(a), lenders are required to provide the Booklet to each person from whom it receives an application for a mortgage loan and must deliver the Booklet or place it in the mail not later than 3 business days after the lender receives an application. As the Booklet has been redesigned to help consumers more effectively shop for a mortgage, all market participants are also encouraged to provide the Booklet to consumers at any other time, preferably as early in the home or mortgage shopping process as possible.
Those who provide the Booklet should be aware that this update includes information on the new Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure required to be provided to consumers for applications for federally related mortgage loans that are received on or after August 1, 2015. Because previous versions of the Booklet do not reference or explain the new integrated disclosures, the Bureau believes that providing consumers with the updated Booklet in conjunction with the integrated disclosures is important to facilitating consumers' understanding of the transaction.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
The competitive preference priority is:
Applicants must indicate in the one-page abstract and on the MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form in the application package whether they intend to address the competitive preference priority.
Through the competitive preference priority, the Department encourages applicants to implement strategies to improve student outcomes, such as increasing the number of students, including High-need Students (as defined in this notice), who persist and graduate in a STEM field. For example, an institution could implement pedagogies of engagement, such as problem-based learning, or provide Authentic STEM experiences (as defined in this notice), for students in science and engineering programs. Applicants addressing this priority should demonstrate how their proposal will improve STEM education and student outcomes.
The invitational priority is:
(a) Obtaining institutional support and support from accrediting agencies for changes in curricular, pedagogical, and graduation requirements that are necessary to improve the first two years of STEM coursework.
(b) Developing early intervention tutorial programs to help students academically deficient in STEM reach college level proficiency.
Through the invitational priority, the Department encourages applicants to address systemic barriers that result in high failure and dropout rates during the introductory years of science and engineering programs. Applicants addressing this priority should demonstrate how their proposal will improve STEM education in the first two years of college.
For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA): (1) A student's score on such assessments; and, as appropriate (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in the subsequent paragraph, provided that they are rigorous and comparable across schools within a local educational agency (LEA).
For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA: (1) Alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; (2) student learning objectives; (3) student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and (4) other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
Institutional project, special project, cooperative project, and design project.
Institutional project grants are grants that support the implementation of a comprehensive science improvement plan, which may include any combination of activities for improving the preparation of minority students for careers in science.
There are two types of special project grants. First, there are special project grants for which only minority institutions are eligible. These special project grants support activities that: (1) Improve quality training in science and engineering at minority institutions; or (2) enhance the minority institutions' general scientific research capabilities. There also are special project grants for which all applicants are eligible. These special project grants support activities that: (1) Provide a needed service to a group of eligible minority institutions; or (2) provide in-service training for project directors, scientists, and engineers from eligible minority institutions.
Cooperative project grants assist groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities to work together to conduct a science improvement program.
Design project grants assist minority institutions that do not have their own appropriate resources or personnel to plan and develop long-range science improvement programs. We will not award design project grants in the FY 2015 competition.
(a) For institutional project grants, eligible applicants are limited to:
(1) Public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education that (i) Award baccalaureate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions;
(2) Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that (i) award associate degrees; and (ii) are minority institutions that (A) have a curriculum that includes science or engineering subjects; and (B) enter into a partnership with public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees in science and engineering.
(b) For special project grants for which only minority institutions are eligible, eligible applicants are described in paragraph (a).
(c) For special project grants for which all applicants are eligible, eligible applicants include those described in paragraph (a), and
(1) Nonprofit science-oriented organizations, professional scientific societies, and institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees that: (i) Provide a needed service to a group of minority institutions; or (ii) provide in-service training to project directors, scientists, and engineers from minority institutions; or
(2) A consortium of organizations that provide needed services to one or more minority institutions, the membership of which may include (i) institutions of higher education which have a curriculum in science or engineering; (ii) institutions of higher education that have a graduate or professional program in science or engineering; (iii) research laboratories of, or under contract with, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense or the National Institutes of Health; (iv) relevant offices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology;
(d) For cooperative project grants, eligible applicants are groups of nonprofit accredited colleges and universities whose primary fiscal agent is an eligible minority institution as defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b).
As defined in 34 CFR 637.4(b), “minority institution” means an accredited college or university whose enrollment of a single minority group or a combination of minority groups exceeds 50 percent of the total enrollment.
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established a mandatory page limit for the application narrative of each type of MSEIP grant project application as follows:
You must limit the application narrative (Part III) to these established page limits, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and a document identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, and all text in charts, tables, and graphs. These items may be single spaced; however, they will count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
If you use some but not all of the allowable space on a page, it will be counted as a full page in determining compliance with the page limit.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the budget justification; Part III, the one-page abstract, the table of contents, the MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form, required letter(s) of commitment, evidence of partnerships; and Part IV, the assurances and certifications. If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the program narrative (Part III) for purposes of the page limit requirement. You must include your complete responses to the selection criteria in the program narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit, or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. We will also reject your application if you fail to provide the MSEIP Eligibility Certification Form.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov, and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the MSEIP, CFDA Number 84.120A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the MSEIP at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Dr. Stacey Slijepcevic, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6014, Washington, DC 20006-8517. Fax: (202) 502-7861 or Dr. Bernadette Hence, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6152. Fax: (202) 502-7861.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.120A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.120A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a) Identification of need for the project (Total 5 points).
(b) Plan of operation (Total 20 points).
(c) Quality of key personnel (Total 5 points).
(d) Budget and cost effectiveness (Total 10 points).
(e) Evaluation plan (Total 15 points).
(f) Adequacy of resources (Total 5 points).
(g) Potential institutional impact of the project (Total 15 points).
(h) Institutional commitment to the project (Total 5 points).
(i) Expected outcomes (Total 10 points).
(j) Scientific and educational value of the proposed project (Total 10 points).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Tiebreaker for Institutional, Special Project, and Cooperative Grants. If there are insufficient funds for all applications with the same total scores, applications will receive preference in the following manner. The Secretary gives priority to applicants which have not previously received funding from the program and to previous grantees with a proven record of success, as well as to applications that contribute to achieving balance among funded projects with respect to: (1) Geographic region; (2) Academic discipline; and (3) Project type.
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
5.
Dr. Stacey Slijepcevic, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6014, Washington, DC 20006-8517. Telephone: (202) 219-7124, or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
The absolute priority is:
A project must provide fellowships in one or more of the following areas of national need: Area, Ethnic, and Cultural Studies; Biological Sciences/Life Sciences; Chemistry; Computer and Information Sciences; Engineering; Foreign Languages; Mathematics; Nursing; Physics; Psychology; and Educational Evaluation, Research, and Statistics.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply only to IHEs.
Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards for FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(a) Any academic department of an IHE that provides a course of study that—
(i) Leads to a graduate degree in an area of national need; and
(ii) Has been in existence for at least four years at the time of an application for a grant under this competition.
(b) An academic department of an IHE that—
(i) Satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and
(ii) Submits a joint application with one or more eligible non-degree-granting institutions that have formal arrangements for the support of doctoral dissertation research with one or more degree-granting institutions.
Students are not eligible to apply for grants under this program.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A project narrative in a single discipline must be limited to no more than 40 pages.
• An inter-disciplinary project narrative must be limited to no more than 40 pages. An inter-disciplinary application must request funding for a single proposed program of study that involves two or more academic disciplines.
• A multi-disciplinary project narrative must be limited to no more than 40 pages for each academic department included in the proposal. A multi-disciplinary application must request funding for two or more academic departments in areas of national need designated as priorities by the Secretary that are independent and unrelated to one another.
• A “page″ is 8.5″ x 11″ , on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application project narrative, including
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
• Appendices are limited to the following: Curriculum Vitae (no more than two pages per faculty member); a course listing; letters of commitment; a bibliography; and one additional optional appendix relevant to the support of the proposals, not to exceed five pages.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for the SF 424 Form; the one-page Abstract; the GAANN Statutory Assurances Form; the GAANN Budget Spreadsheet(s) Form; the Appendices; or Part III, the Assurances and Certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a two-page Table of Contents, if you include one. However the page limit does apply to all of the project narrative section in Part II.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under the GAANN Program, CFDA number 84.200A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the GAANN Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, the GAANN Budget Spreadsheet(s) Form, and the GAANN Statutory Assurances, and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days; or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Rebecca Ell, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7105, K-OPE-7-7063, Washington, DC 20006. FAX: (202)502-7857.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.200A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.200A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Additional factors we consider in selecting an application for an award are in 34 CFR 648.32.
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118 and 34 CFR 648.66. If you wish to view the performance report currently required, visit the GAANN Program Web site at:
(c) Grantees will be required to submit a supplement to the Final Performance Report two years after the expiration of their GAANN grant. The purpose of this supplement is to identify and report the educational outcome of each GAANN fellow.
4.
(1) The percentage of GAANN fellows completing the terminal degree in the designated areas of national need.
(2) The percentage of GAANN fellows from traditionally underrepresented groups.
(3) The median time to completion of Master's and Doctorate degrees for GAANN students.
If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590) on those measures and steps taken toward improving performance on
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report documenting their success in addressing these performance measures.
5.
Rebecca Ell, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 7105, K-OPE-7-7063, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502-7779 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conferences issued on December 9, 2014
If you have not already done so, those who plan to attend the technical conference are strongly encouraged to complete the registration form located at:
The Commission will post information on the technical conference on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site,
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the technical conferences, please contact:
On February 24, 2015, the Commission issued a “
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Jacksonville Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Eagle LNG Partners Jacksonville LLC (Eagle LNG) in Duval County, Florida. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
The Commission and its cooperating agencies continue to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. This process is referred to as scoping. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. The initial NOI identified March 26, 2015 as the close of the scoping period. Please note that the scoping period is now extended and will close on April 24, 2015.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Eagle LNG proposes to construct, own and operate the Jacksonville LNG facility located within the City of Jacksonville, Florida, on industrially zoned land adjacent to the St. Johns River.
The facility would receive domestically produced natural gas, transported through existing and expanded local utility pipelines, and utilize super-cooling to create liquefied natural gas (LNG) for temporary onsite storage. The Project would include three liquefaction trains, one (possibly two) LNG storage tanks, and a marine load-out facility and dock on the St. Johns River that could accommodate small to mid-size LNG vessels and bunkering barges. LNG would be periodically loaded for transport onto trucks, containers, or ocean-going vessels, and marketed for use in U.S. vehicular and high-horsepower engines, domestic ship fueling (marine bunkering), and international export.
As currently planned, the Jacksonville Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Three liquefaction trains, each with a capacity of 0.18 million tons per annum;
• inlet natural gas boost compression;
• interconnect piping (including potential non-jurisdictional expansion of existing public utility lines);
• one 30,283 cubic meter single containment LNG storage tank;
• an LNG vessel docking and loading terminal;
• an LNG truck loading area;
• flare stack; and
• power, water, and communications facilities (including off-site non-jurisdictional facilities leading to the Project site).
The general location of the Project site is shown in Appendix 1.
The planned Jacksonville Project would encompass a 193 acre site along the St. Johns River that is currently zoned for industrial development by the City of Jacksonville, and located in an area that hosts other bulk fuel terminals. The Project site includes a submerged land lease covering lands extending approximately 600 feet from the shoreline into the St. Johns River. Based on the Project's initial design, the facility construction footprint would occupy approximately 40 of the 193 acres; laydown area requirements during construction are included within the 40 acres. Eagle LNG is still in the planning phase for the Jacksonville Project and the required property title assignments have not been finalized.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the authorization of LNG facilities under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us
In the EIS, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation, fisheries, and wildlife;
• socioeconomics;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• public safety and reliability; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS. In addition, representatives from the FERC participated in the public open house sponsored by Eagle LNG in Jacksonville, Florida in January 2015 to explain the environmental review process and answer questions to interested stakeholders.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 5 of this notice.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Florida State Division of Historical Resources (State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)), and to solicit its views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Eagle LNG. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our continued analysis. Issued identified include:
• Potential impacts on recreational fishing and aquatic resources in the vicinity of Bartram Island and along the St Johns River Shipping Channel;
• potential water quality impact from dredging and disposal;
• visual effects on surrounding areas;
• public safety and hazards associated with the transport of natural gas and LNG; and
• potential impacts and potential benefits of construction workforce on local housing, infrastructure, public services, and economy.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April 24, 2015. This is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Environmental Review Process flowchart in Appendix 2.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number (PF15-7-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment (
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address:
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).
Once Eagle LNG files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has granted an experimental use permit (EUP) to the following pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the limitations in the permit.
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0066 is available at
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of adequacy.
In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we have found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
This finding is effective April 16, 2015.
Michael Leslie, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6680,
Throughout this document, whenever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. On March 13, 2015, EPA sent a letter to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources stating that the 2015 MVEBs contained in the Early Progress Plans for Kenosha and Sheboygan Counties in Wisconsin are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. Receipt of these MVEBs was announced on EPA's transportation conformity Web site, and no comments were submitted. The finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site:
The 2015 MVEBs, in tons per day (tpd), for VOCs and NO
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG), Joint EQI and POM Committee will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on April 13, 2015 and ending April 14, 2015. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 13, 2015 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Tuesday April 14, 2015.
To request accommodation of a disability you should please contact the person listed in this notice under
The meeting will be held at EPA, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.) 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington VA. 1st Floor South Conference Room.
Ron Kendall, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5561; fax number: (703) 305-5884; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to, persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any non-government organization. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity please consult the person in this notice listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0086, is available at
This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces upcoming public meetings of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The EPA established the CAAAC on November 19, 1990, to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy issues.
For more information about the CAAAC, please contact Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Interim Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by email at
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Lorraine Reddick at (202) 564-1293 or
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 16, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
In addition, Jerel Shapiro and Judith Shapiro individually, and as trustees, of several Tychman/Sanders Group Trusts, to retain 25 percent or more of the shares of The Tysan Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Daniel Dwyer, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2957, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 26, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 27, 2015. Write “National Payment Network, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 132 3285” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “National Payment Network, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 132 3285” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from National Payment Network, Inc., also known as NPN, Inc. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the FTC will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The respondent is a company that offers an auto payment program to consumers financing a motor vehicle. The matter involves its advertising of the auto payment program to consumers. According to the FTC complaint, respondent has represented that consumers who enroll in its biweekly payment program in order to pay off their auto-financing contract will save money, often including a specific amount of savings in interest. Respondent failed to disclose, however, that it charged fees that in many cases offset any savings under the program, and also failed to disclose the total amount of these fees. These facts would be material to consumers in their decision to enroll in respondent's biweekly payment program. The complaint alleges therefore that respondent's failure to disclose the
The proposed order is designed to prevent respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Section I prohibits respondent from representing that a payment program or add-on product or service will save consumers money, including interest, unless the amount of savings is greater than the total amount of fees associated with the product or service or any qualifying information is clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Section I also prohibits respondent from representing that a payment program or add-on product or service will save any consumer a specific amount of money, including interest, unless the specified amount is the amount of savings after deducting any fees or any qualifying information relating to savings is clearly and conspicuously disclosed.
Section II of the proposed order prohibits respondent from making misrepresentations related to any payment programs, including regarding the existence, amount, timing, or manner of any fees, the program's benefits, performance, or efficacy, or the ability of any payment program to affect consumer credit.
Section III of the proposed order prohibits respondent from making misrepresentations related to any add-on products or services, including regarding the total costs of the add-on and the benefits, performance, or efficacy of the add-on, any restrictions or conditions associated with the add-on, the nature or terms of any refund, cancellation, or exchange of an add-on and that any add-on product can improve, repair or otherwise affect a consumer's credit.
Section IV requires respondent to substantiate any representations about the benefits, performance or efficacy of any add-on product or service or any payment program.
Section V prohibits respondent from collecting cancellation fees from consumers who have finished paying off their financing contract through NPN's Plan.
Section VI of the proposed order requires respondent to pay consumers two million four hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($2,475,000.00) in monetary relief. The proposed order permits respondent to pay the monetary relief amount by: (1) Refunding customers a total of $1,526,000.00 within thirty days of service of the order; (2) waiving an additional $949,000.00 in fees for current customers. If respondent is unable to provide refunds or fee waivers in the stated amount, it must remit the balance to the Commission.
Section VII of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Section VIII requires that respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Section IX requires notification of the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Section X requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, section XI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Daniel Dwyer, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2957, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 26, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 27, 2015. Write “Matt Blatt Inc. and Glassboro Imports, LLC Consent Agreement; File No. 1323285” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Matt Blatt Inc. and Glassboro Imports, LLC Consent Agreement; File No. 1323285” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Matt Blatt Inc., also known as Matt Blatt KIA and as Matt Blatt Egg Harbor Township (“Matt Blatt Inc.”), and from Glassboro Imports, LLC, also known as Matt Blatt Glassboro Suzuki, as Matt Blatt Glassboro, and as Matt Blatt Auto Sales (“Glassboro Imports”). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the FTC will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The respondents are dealerships that offer an auto payment program to consumers financing a motor vehicle. The matter involves the dealerships' sale of the auto payment program to consumers. According to the FTC complaint, respondents have represented that consumers who enroll in its biweekly payment program in order to pay off their auto-financing contract will save money or achieve other benefits through the program. However, respondents failed to disclose that consumers who enroll in the program are charged fees that in many cases offset any savings under the program, and also failed to disclose the total amount of these fees. These facts would be material to consumers in their decision to enroll in the biweekly payment program sold by respondents. The complaint alleges therefore that respondents' failure to disclose the above-mentioned facts is a deceptive practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The proposed order is designed to prevent respondents from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Section I prohibits respondents from representing that a payment program or add-on product or service will save consumers money, including interest, unless the amount of savings is greater than the total amount of fees associated with the product or service or any qualifying information is clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Section I also prohibits respondents from representing that a payment program or add-on product or service will save any consumer a specific amount of money, including interest, unless the specified amount is the amount of savings after deducting any fees or any qualifying information relating to savings is clearly and conspicuously disclosed.
Section II of the proposed order prohibits respondents from making misrepresentations related to any payment programs, including regarding the existence, amount, timing, or manner of any fees, the program's benefits, performance, or efficacy.
Section III of the proposed order prohibits respondents from making misrepresentations related to any add-on products or services, including regarding the total costs of the add-on and the benefits, performance, or efficacy of the add-on, any restrictions or conditions associated with the add-on, the nature or terms of any refund, cancellation, or exchange of an add-on, and that any add-on product can improve, repair or otherwise affect a consumer's credit.
Section IV requires respondents to substantiate any representations about the benefits, performance or efficacy of any add-on product or service or any payment program.
Section V of the proposed order requires respondents to pay to the Commission One Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty dollars ($184,280.00) in monetary relief.
Section VI of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Section VII requires that respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Section VIII requires notification of the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Section IX requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Section X is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Sana Chriss, Southeast Regional Office, (404) 656-1364, 225 Peachtree Street NE., Suite 1500, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 26, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 27, 2015. Write “Jim Burke Automotive, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 1523036” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Jim Burke Automotive, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 1523036” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Jim Burke Automotive, Inc., also doing business as Jim Burke Nissan. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record.
The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. This matter involves the respondent's advertising of the purchase and financing of its motor vehicles. According to the FTC's complaint, the respondent has advertised that vehicles are available for purchase at the prices prominently advertised when in fact, the complaint alleges, consumers must pay an additional $3,000 to purchase the advertised vehicles. The complaint alleges therefore that the representations are false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The complaint further alleges that the respondent has advertised that specific discounts, rebates, bonuses, or incentives are generally available to consumers, when in fact, according to the complaint, they are not generally available to consumers. The complaint alleges therefore that the representations are false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
In addition, the complaint alleges that the respondent violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z by failing to disclose or disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising credit.
The proposed order is designed to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Part I.A of the proposed order prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting the cost of: (1) Purchasing a vehicle with financing, including but not necessarily limited to the amount or percentage of the down payment, the number of payments or period of repayment, the amount of any payment, and the repayment obligation over the full term of the loan, including any balloon payment; or (2) leasing a vehicle, including but not limited to the total amount due at lease inception, the down payment, amount down, acquisition fee, capitalized cost reduction, any other amount required to be paid at lease inception, and the amounts of all monthly or other periodic payments. Part I.B prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of any vehicle.
Part II.A of the proposed order prohibits respondent from representing that a discount, rebate, bonus, incentive or price is available to consumers unless, it is available to all consumers and for all vehicles advertised; or the representation clearly and conspicuously discloses all material qualifications or restrictions, if any, including but not limited to qualifications or restrictions on: (a) A consumer's ability to obtain the discount, rebate, bonus, incentive or price and (b) the vehicles available at the discount, rebate, bonus, incentive or price. Part II.B prohibits respondent from misrepresenting: (1) The existence or amount of any discount, rebate, bonus, incentive or price; (2) the existence, price, value, coverage, or features of any product or service associated with the motor vehicle purchase; (3) the number of vehicles available at particular prices; or 4) any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of motor vehicles.
Part III of the proposed order addresses the TILA allegation. Part III.A requires the respondent to make all of the disclosures required by TILA and Regulation Z when any of its advertisements state relevant triggering terms. It also requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate be stated as an “annual percentage rate” using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” In addition, Part III.C prohibits the respondent from failing to comply in any respect with TILA and Regulation Z.
Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part V requires that respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part VI requires notification to the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part VII requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
John Jacobs, Western Region—Los Angeles, (310) 824-4360, 10877 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, California 90024.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 26, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 27, 2015. Write “City Nissan Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 1323114” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “City Nissan Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 1323114” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from City Nissan, Inc., also doing business as Ross Nissan. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the FTC will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. According to the FTC complaint, the respondent has advertised promotions for the leasing and financing of automobiles. In advertising lease offers, the complaint alleges, the respondent has misrepresented that consumers can pay $0 at lease inception to lease the vehicles shown in the advertisements for the advertised monthly payment amount. The complaint alleges that, in fact, consumers must pay substantially more to drive off with these vehicles. The complaint alleges therefore that the representations are false and misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The complaint further alleges that the respondent has advertised an annual percentage rate of 0% to finance the vehicles shown in the advertisements for the advertised monthly payment. The complaint alleges that in fact, the annual percentage rate is substantially greater than 0%. The complaint alleges therefore that the representations are false and misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Additionally, the complaint alleges violations of the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”) and Regulation M for failing to disclose or to disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising credit. Finally, the complaint alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z for failing to disclose or to disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising credit.
The proposed order is designed to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Part I.A of the proposed order prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting the cost of: (1) Leasing a vehicle, including but not limited to the total amount due at lease inception, the down payment, amount down, acquisition fee, capitalized cost reduction, any other amount required to be paid at lease inception, and the amounts of all monthly or other periodic payments; or (2) purchasing a vehicle with financing, including but not necessarily limited to the amount or percentage of the down payment, the number of payments or period of repayment, the amount of any payment, the annual percentage rate or any other finance rate, and the repayment obligation over the full term of the loan, including any balloon payment. Part I.B prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of any vehicle.
Part II of the proposed order addresses the CLA allegations. Part II.A prohibits the respondent from stating the amount of any payment or that any or no initial payment is required at lease inception without disclosing clearly and conspicuously: (1) That the transaction advertised is a lease; (2) the total amount due at lease signing or delivery; (3) whether or not a security deposit is required; (4) the number, amounts, and timing of scheduled payments; and (5) that an extra charge may be imposed at the end of the lease term in a lease in
Part III of the proposed order addresses the TILA allegation. Part III.A requires the respondent to make all of the disclosures required by TILA and Regulation Z when any of its advertisements state relevant triggering terms. It also requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate be stated as an “annual percentage rate” using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” In addition, Part III.C prohibits the respondent from failing to comply in any respect with TILA and Regulation Z.
Part IV of the proposed order requires the respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part V requires the respondent to provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part VI requires notification to the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part VII requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2015.
Interested parties may file a comment at
Sana Chriss, Southeast Regional Office, (404) 656-1364, 225 Peachtree Street NE., Suite 1500, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 26, 2015), on the World Wide Web at:
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 27, 2015. Write “TT of Longwood, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 1523047” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “TT of Longwood, Inc.—Consent Agreement; File No. 1523047” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from TT of Longwood, Inc., also doing business as Cory Fairbanks Mazda. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the FTC will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. According to the FTC's complaint, the respondent has misrepresented: (1) Vehicle purchase prices; (2) that advertised prices, discounts, rebates, bonuses, and incentives are available to all consumers; (3) the prices for added features such as spoilers and sunroofs; (4) that vehicles are available for sale or lease for zero down, zero payments, or zero interest; (5) that vehicles are available for $99; and (6) that consumers can pay $0 at the inception of a lease to lease the advertised vehicle for the advertised monthly payment amount. The complaint alleges therefore that the representations are false and misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
In addition, the complaint alleges the respondent violated the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”) and Regulation M for failing to disclose or to disclose clearly and conspicuously certain costs and terms when advertising vehicles for lease.
The proposed order is designed to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Part I.A of the proposed order prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting the cost of: (1) Purchasing a vehicle with financing, including but not necessarily limited to the amount or percentage of the down payment, the number of payments or period of repayment, the amount of any payment, and the repayment obligation over the full term of the loan, including any balloon payment; or (2) leasing a vehicle, including but not limited to the total amount due at lease inception, the down payment, amount down, acquisition fee, capitalized cost reduction, any other amount required to be paid at lease inception, and the amounts of all monthly or other periodic payments. Part I.B prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of any vehicle.
Part II.A of the proposed order prohibits respondent from representing that a discount, rebate, bonus, incentive or price is available unless: (1) It is available to all consumers, and for all vehicles advertised; or (2) the representation clearly and conspicuously discloses all qualifications or restrictions on: (a) A consumer's ability to obtain the discount, rebate, bonus, incentive, or price and (b) the vehicles available at the discount, rebate, bonus incentive, or price. Part II.B prohibits respondent from misrepresenting any of the following: (1) The existence or amount of any discount, rebate, bonus, incentive, or price; (2) the existence, price, value, coverage, or features of any product or service associated with the motor vehicle purchase; (3) the number of vehicles available at particular prices; or (4) any other material fact about the price, sale, financing, or leasing of motor vehicles.
Part III of the proposed order addresses the CLA allegations. Part III.A prohibits the respondent from stating the amount of any payment or that any or no initial payment is required at lease inception without disclosing clearly and conspicuously: (1) That the transaction advertised is a lease; (2) the total amount due at lease signing or delivery; (3) whether or not a security deposit is required; (4) the number, amounts, and timing of scheduled payments; and (5) that an extra charge may be imposed at the end of the lease term. Part III.B prohibits the respondent from violating any provision of the CLA or Regulation M.
Part IV of the proposed order requires the respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part V requires the respondent to provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part VI requires notification to the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part VII requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, Department of Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration (GSA) are conducting a national dialogue to discuss ideas on how to reduce the costs (compliance and other) associated with reporting compliance under Federal awards (contracts, subcontracts, grants, subgrants, and cooperative agreements). This dialogue is part of an effort to improve the economy and efficiency of the federal award system by identifying impactful steps that can be taken to streamline, reporting, reduce burden, and reduce costs.
Interested parties may participate in the national dialogue through an online platform by reviewing the information and participation dates posted at
Interested parties may participate in the dialogue through the online platform by reviewing the information and participation dates posted at
Christopher Zeleznik at
This notice announces a dialogue to explore opportunities to streamline processes and reduce or eliminate burden in federal procurement and grants processes. This dialogue furthers the goals of the President's Management Agenda, which lays the foundation for creating a 21st century government that delivers better results to the American people, and addresses requirements in the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-101) to gain a better understanding of the costs of compliance with Federal contracting and grants awards as well as recommendations to standardize data, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and reduce compliance costs.
During last year's Open Dialogue on Federal Procurement, published in the
Management of federal contract and grant business arrangements requires multiple layers of reporting across multiple agencies. In some cases, lack of standardization results in slight (or significant) variations in reports that create additional administrative and burdensome requirements for awardees that could be readily rectified. This dialogue is intended to continue the conversation begun last year in the context of federal procurement and expand it to cover federal grants by identifying opportunities for reducing burden, discussing ideas for standardizing processes and forms, and identifying recommended actions to reduce costs and eliminate duplication for awardees. The open dialogue focuses on three topics (campaigns). Each campaign focuses on a unique aspect of the Federal contracting and grants process for which we welcome your insight, ideas, and feedback.
• Campaign 1—Reporting compliance requirements shared by prime and sub-awardees of Federal procurements and grants.
• Campaign 2—Procurement practices, processes, and reporting.
• Campaign 3—Grants practices and processes.
To facilitate a national dialogue, an online platform will be launched in May 2015 so that interested parties may submit ideas, comment on others, respond to questions posed by moderators, and vote to indicate which ideas they think are most promising and impactful. Information on the platform, and the dates for participating in the dialogue, will be posted at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Procedures for Meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.” The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is issuing this guidance to provide additional information regarding the processes for meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee panels other than the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). This guidance describes the general circumstances in which CDRH consults with a panel, the process for exchange of information between CDRH, the members of the panel, industry, and the public, and the conduct of panel meetings. This guidance supplements existing FDA Agency-wide guidance on the conduct of Advisory Committee meetings. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
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 of 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.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
James Swink, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1609, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6313.
CDRH is issuing this draft guidance to provide additional information regarding the processes for meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee panels other than the DRP. The term “panel,” as used in this guidance, refers to the panels established under the Medical Devices Advisory Committee charter excluding the DRP. This guidance describes the
This draft guidance is intended to provide more comprehensive information for industry and for CDRH staff on the processes associated with a panel meeting held for any of the reasons identified in the guidance. Once final, this guidance will replace the “Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory Panel Meetings” (Ref. 2) and the guidance document entitled “Panel Review of Premarket Approval Applications #P91-2 blue book memo” (Ref. 3). This guidance supplements existing FDA Agency-wide guidance on the conduct of Advisory Committee meetings.
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 Agency's current thinking on the panel meeting process for medical devices. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This 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 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 860 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0138; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. CDRH's Medical Devices Advisory Committee, available at
2. “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory Panel Meetings,” July 2000, available at
3. “Panel Review of Premarket Approval Applications #P91-2 (blue book memo),” May 1991, available at
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services (Advisory Council). The Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services provides advice on how to prevent or reduce the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on people with the disease and their caregivers. During the April meeting, the Advisory Council will build on the goals of White House Conference on Aging (WHCOA) through a half-day session with dementia-focused panels on each WHCOA topic area: Healthy aging, long-term services and supports, retirement security, and elder justice. Following this session, the Advisory Council will also hold a brief discussion on the 2015 Update to the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's, as well as a discussion of international events on dementia.
The meeting will be held on April 28th, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held in Room 800 in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
Comments: Time is allocated in the afternoon on the agenda to hear public comments. The time for oral comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per individual. In lieu of oral comments, formal written comments may be submitted for the record to Rohini Khillan, OASPE, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 424E, Washington, DC 20201. Comments may also be sent to
Rohini Khillan (202) 690-5932,
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). Topics of the Meeting: The Advisory Council will hear presentations on the basics of long-term care, including presentations on programs, settings, and payers. The Council will use a portion of the meeting to review the work it has accomplished thus far towards the 2025 goals, and then discuss the process for developing recommendations for the 2015 update to the National Plan. The Council will also hear presentations from the three subcommittees (Research, Clinical Care, Long-Term Services and Supports, and Ethics).
42 U.S.C. 11225; Section 2(e)(3) of the National Alzheimer's Project Act. The panel is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in collaboration with the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS), announce that as part of the Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP), they are recruiting laboratories to participate in a study of the commutability of pooled serum samples used in assays to measure total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D].
The expected start date for the study is June 2015.
For more information about the study and to let us know if you are interested in participating, please contact us at:
Drs. Johanna Camara, NIST, and Christopher Sempos, ODS, Director and Co-Director, respectively, for the VDSP Commutability Study 2. Email:
The objective of the study is to promote the standardized measurement of total 25(OH)D by evaluating the commutability of NIST Standard Reference Materials® (SRM) used as “trueness” controls and the materials used in the major Performance Testing/External Quality (PT/EQA) programs administered by CAP and DEQAS.
For details about the study design and time lines, see the recently published paper in the February 2015 edition of Clinical Laboratory News, (
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIA.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the Internet at
Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, Room 7-1051, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice), 240-276-2610 (fax).
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Pub. L. 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-
* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for comments on the proposed substances to be evaluated for Set 29 toxicological profiles.
ATSDR is initiating the development of its 29th set of toxicological profiles (CERCLA Set 29). This notice announces the list of proposed substances that will be evaluated for CERCLA Set 29 toxicological profile development. ATSDR's Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences is soliciting public nominations from the list of proposed substances to be evaluated for toxicological profile development. ATSDR also will consider the nomination of any additional, non-CERCLA substances that may have public health implications, on the basis of ATSDR's authority to prepare toxicological profiles for substances not found at sites on the National Priorities List. The agency will do so in order to “. . . establish and maintain inventory of literature, research, and studies on the health effects of toxic substances” under CERCLA Section 104(i)(1)(B), to respond to requests for consultation under section 104(i)(4), and to support the site-specific response actions conducted by ATSDR, as otherwise necessary.
Nominations from the Substance Priority List and/or additional substances must be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
You may submit nominations, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2015-0001, by any of the following methods:
*
*
For further information, please contact Commander Jessilynn B. Taylor, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS F-57, Atlanta, Ga., 30333, Email:
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9601
Each year, ATSDR develops a list of substances to be considered for toxicological profile development. The Set 29 nomination process includes consideration of all substances on ATSDR's Priority List of Hazardous Substances, also known as the Substance Priority List (SPL), as well as other substances nominated by the public. The 275 substances on the SPL will be considered for Set 29 Toxicological Profile development. This list may be found at the following Web site:
Today's notice invites voluntary public nominations for substances included on the SPL and for substances not listed on the SPL. All nominations should include the full name of the nominator, affiliation, and email address. When nominating a non-SPL substance, please include the rationale for the nomination. Please note that email addresses will not be posted on regulations.gov.
ATSDR will evaluate all data and information associated with nominated substances and will determine the final list of substances to be chosen for toxicological profile development. Substances will be chosen according to ATSDR's specific guidelines for selection. These guidelines can be found in the
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified nomination period. Nominations received after the closing date will be marked as late and may be considered only if time and resources permit.
This request is for approval of a plan for conducting more than one information collection that is very similar, voluntary, low-burden and uncontroversial. Information collections under this generic clearance will be in compliance with U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services' Grants Policy Directive 2.04 “Awarding Grants”, and the Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual, Chapter 2.04C “Objective Review of Grant Applications. These forms will be used to select reviewers who will participate in the grant review process for the purpose of selecting successful applications.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 750 Hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 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, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection is associated with requirements under § 501.22(k) (21 CFR 501.22(k)) in which animal food manufacturers must declare the presence of certified and noncertified color additives in their animal food products on the product label. The Agency issued this regulation in response to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 to make animal food regulations consistent with the regulations regarding the declaration of color additives on human food labels and to provide animal owners with information on the colors used in animal food.
Respondents to this collection are manufacturers of pet food that contain color additives. Manufacturers of certain food or food ingredients do not have products that contain color additives requiring certification (
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:
Because § 501.22(k) became effective November 18, 2013, the Agency estimates that the burden associated with the labeling requirements under § 501.22(k) applies only to new product labels. Because the vast majority of animal food products that contain certified color additives are pet foods, we limit our burden estimate to reviewing labels for the use of certified color additives to pet food manufacturers subject to this regulation.
Based on A.C. Nielsen Data, FDA estimates that the number of animal food product units subject to § 501.22(k) for which sales of the products are greater than zero is 25,874. Assuming that the flow of new products is 10 percent per year, then 2,587 new animal food products subject to § 501.22(k) will come on the market each year. FDA also estimates that there are about 3,120 manufacturers of pet food subject to either § 501.22(k)(1) or (k)(2). Assuming the approximately 2,587 new products are split equally among the firms, then each firm would prepare labels for approximately 0.83 new products per year (2,587 new products/3,120 firms is approximately 0.83 labels per firm).
The Agency expects that firms prepare the required labeling for their products in a manner that takes into account at one time all information required to be disclosed on their product labels. Based on our experience with reviewing pet food labeling, FDA estimates that firms would require less than 0.25 hour (15 minutes) per product to comply with the requirement to include the color additive information under § 501.22(k). The total burden of this activity is 647 hours (2,587 labels x 0.25 hour/label is approximately 647 hours).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice to establish a new system of records and delete an existing system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), HHS is establishing a new department-wide system of records, “Records about Restricted Dataset Requesters,” System Number 09-90-1401, to cover records about individuals within and outside HHS who request restricted datasets and software products from HHS (
The public should address written comments to: Beth Kramer, HHS Privacy Act Officer, Mary E. Switzer Building—Room 2210, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201,
Beth Kramer, HHS Privacy Act Officer, Mary E. Switzer Building—Room 2210, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201,
The new system of records will cover records about individuals within and outside HHS who request restricted datasets and software products from HHS, when HHS maintains the requester records in a system from which they are retrieved directly by an individual requester's name or other personal identifier. “Restricted” datasets and software products are those that HHS makes affirmatively available to qualified members of the public but provides subject to restrictions, because they contain identifiable data and/or anonymized data that has the potential, when combined with other data, to identify the particular individuals, such as patients or providers, whose information is represented in the data. The datasets and products are made available through an on-line or paper-based ordering and delivery system that provides them to qualified requesters electronically or by mail.
The restrictions are necessary to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is represented in the datasets or software products. The restrictions typically limit the data requester to using the data for research, analysis, study, and aggregate statistical reporting; prohibit any attempt to identify any individual or establishment represented in the data; and require specific security measures to safeguard the data from unauthorized access. HHS is required by law to impose, monitor, and enforce the restrictions (see, for example, provisions in the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 at note). To impose and enforce the restrictions, it is necessary to collect information about the data requesters.
Currently, this system of records covers data requester records in ordering and delivery systems administered by three HHS Operating Divisions, but only to the extent that the records pertain to requesters seeking
•
•
•
Note that this system of records does
•
•
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the means by which the U.S. Government collects, maintains, and uses information about individuals in a system of records. A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of a federal agency from which information about an individual is retrieved by the individual's name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the
A report on the proposed new system of records has been sent to OMB and Congress in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r).
09-90-1401
Records About Restricted Dataset Requesters
Unclassified
Electronic files are maintained at the following server locations:
•
•
•
Hard-copy files are maintained at the System Manager locations; see “System Manager(s)” section below.
Individuals within and outside HHS who request restricted datasets and software products that HHS makes proactively available to qualified members of the public, usually for health-related scientific research and study purposes. Examples include individual researchers and records custodians, project officers, or other representatives of entities such as universities, government agencies, and research organizations.
Categories of records include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The purposes of this system of records is to provide restricted datasets and software products to qualified data requesters in a timely and efficient manner and consistent with applicable laws, and to enable HHS to enforce data requesters' compliance with use and security restrictions that apply to the data. Relevant HHS personnel use the records on a need-to-know basis for those purposes; specifically:
•
•
•
Information about an individual data requester may be disclosed to parties outside HHS without the individual's prior, written consent pursuant to the following routine uses:
1. Disclosures may be made to federal agencies and Department contractors that have been engaged by HHS to assist in accomplishment of an HHS function relating to the purposes of this system of records and that have a need to have access to the records in order to assist HHS in performing the activity. Any contractor will be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
2. Records may be disclosed to student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other individuals performing functions relating to the purposes of this system of records for the Department but technically not having the status of agency employees, if they need access to the records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.
3. CMS records may be disclosed to a CMS contractor (including but not limited to Medicare Administrative Contractors, fiscal intermediaries, and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program.
4. Records may be disclosed to another federal agency or an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency) that administers federally funded programs, or that has the authority to investigate, potential fraud, waste or abuse in federally funded programs, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by HHS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such programs.
5. When a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate public authority, whether federal, foreign, state, local, tribal, or otherwise, responsible for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting the violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to the enforcement, regulatory, investigative, or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving entity.
6. Information may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or to a court or other tribunal, when:
a. The agency or any component thereof, or
b. any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or
c. any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or
d. the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation and, by careful review, HHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that, therefore, the use of such records by the DOJ, court or other tribunal is deemed by HHS to be compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.
7. Records may be disclosed to a federal, foreign, state, local, tribal, or other public authority of the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to the hiring or retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of
8. Information may be disclosed to a Member of Congress or Congressional staff member in response to a written inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained. The Congressional office does not have any greater authority to obtain records than the individual would have if requesting the records directly.
9. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if captured in an intrusion detection system used by HHS and DHS pursuant to a DHS cybersecurity program that monitors Internet traffic to and from federal government computer networks to prevent a variety of types of cybersecurity incidents.
10. Disclosures may be made to appropriate federal agencies and Department contractors that have a need to know the information for the purpose of assisting the Department's efforts to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the security or confidentiality of information maintained in this system of records, when the information disclosed is relevant and necessary to that assistance.
Information about an individual data requester may also be disclosed from this system of records to parties outside HHS without the individual's consent for any of the uses authorized directly in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2) and (b)(4)-(11).
Records are stored in electronic databases and hard-copy files. DADSS, and its successors', records may also be stored on portable media.
Records are retrieved by the data requester's name, registrant/user name, User ID number, or data use agreement (DUA) number.
Records are safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including the HHS Information Technology Security Program Handbook, all pertinent National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, and OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources. Records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Safeguards conform to the HHS Information Security and Privacy Program,
Records needed to enforce data use restrictions are retained for 20 years by AHRQ (see DAA-0510-2013-0003-0001) and 5 years by CMS (see N1-440-10-04) after the agreement is closed, and may be kept longer if necessary for enforcement, audit, legal, or other purposes. The equivalent SAMHSA records will be retained indefinitely until a disposition schedule is approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). SAMHSA anticipates proposing a 5 year retention period to NARA. Records of payments made electronically are transmitted securely to a Payment Card Industry-compliant payment gateway for processing and are not stored. Records of payments made by check, purchase order, or wire transfer are disposed of once the funds have been received.
Records are disposed of using destruction methods prescribed by NIST SP 800-88.
•
•
•
An individual who wishes to know if this system of records contains records about him or her should submit a written request to the relevant System Manager at the address indicated above. The individual must verify his or her identity by providing either a notarized request or a written certification that the requester is who he or she claims to be and understands that the knowing and willful request for acquisition of a record pertaining to an individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense under the Privacy Act, subject to a five thousand dollar fine.
Same as notification procedure.
An individual seeking to amend the content of information about him or her in this system should contact the relevant System Manager and reasonably identify the record, specify the information contested, state the corrective action sought, and provide the reasons for the amendment, with supporting justification.
Information in this system of records is obtained directly from the individual data requester to whom it applies, or is derived from information supplied by the individual or provided by HHS officials.
None.
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 (FD&C Act) debarring Jun Yang for a period of 4 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for importation into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Yang was convicted, as defined in the FD&C Act, of one felony count under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food. Mr. Yang was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. As of November 7, 2014 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Yang had not responded. Mr. Yang's failure to respond constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this action.
This order is effective April 1, 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)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(C)) permits FDA to debar an individual from importing an article of food or offering such an article for import into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food.
On November 14, 2013, Mr. Yang was convicted, as defined in section 306(
FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows:
On or about February 10, 2012, Mr. Yang facilitated the sale of imported honey with a declared value of $92,800, knowing that the honey was of Chinese origin and was imported and brought into the United States contrary to law. As part of his fraudulent practice, Mr. Yang brokered the sale of two container loads of purported “100% pure Indian honey,” knowing that the honey was falsely and fraudulently imported and brought into the United States as a product of India in avoidance of U.S.-imposed anti-dumping duties, thereby causing losses to the United States of approximately $97,625.
Mr. Yang admitted that he operated and controlled National Honey, Inc., which did business as National Commodities Company, and served as the principal point of contact for brokering the sale of honey between overseas honey suppliers and U.S. customers. Mr. Yang further admits that between 2009 and 2012 he sold 778 container loads of honey valued at approximately $22,864,153 to Honey Holding and Honey Packer 1 (U.S. customers). This was part of a fraudulent practice to enter and introduce and cause others to enter and introduce transshipped Chinese-origin honey into the commerce of the United States in avoidance of U.S. imposed anti-dumping duties. Mr. Yang continued this practice even though he knew that the honey was falsely and fraudulently imported, entered, marketed, and sold as purely non-Chinese honey, including as honey from Malaysia and India. This fraudulent practice caused losses to the United States of as much as $37,991,375.
Mr. Yang also admitted that he ordered honey from Chinese honey suppliers, knowing that the Chinese honey suppliers would send the Chinese-origin honey to countries including Malaysia and India, where the honey was mislabeled as to the country of origin before it passed through a U.S. customhouse as non-Chinese origin honey. Mr. Yang and National Commodities caused the formation of at least three companies and used at least one other company to import and enter honey from a Chinese honey supplier knowing that some of the honey was Chinese in origin. Mr. Yang and National Commodities benefitted from the company's filing custom entry forms that falsely and fraudulently declared all the honey as originating from Malaysia and India. Mr. Yang and National Commodities purchased honey imported by the companies despite knowing that some or all of the honey was Chinese in origin, but declared at the time of importation and entry as entirely originating from Malaysia and India.
Mr. Yang also admitted that he obtained and circulated and caused others to obtain and circulate false and fraudulent bills of lading, invoices, packing lists, country of origin certificates, and other papers, which he knew to be false and fraudulent. These records were used to declare Chinese-origin honey as having originated from Malaysia and India. Mr. Yang also instructed an undercover law enforcement agent to destroy unfavorable test results that showed purported Vietnamese honey that he sold tested positive for the presence of chloramphenicol, an antibiotic. Residues of chloramphenicol in honey cause the honey to be adulterated under the FD&C Act. In anticipation of an investigation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and FDA, Mr. Yang knowingly concealed and covered up three laboratory reports showing the presence of chloramphenicol.
As a result of his conviction, on October 1, 2014, FDA sent Mr. Yang a notice by certified mail proposing to debar him for a period of 4 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Yang's felony conviction for smuggling of goods into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545 constitutes conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food because he committed an offense related to the importation of Chinese honey into the United States.
The proposal was also based on a determination, after consideration of the factors set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, that Mr. Yang should be subject to a 4-year period of debarment. The proposal also offered Mr. Yang an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Yang failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Jun Yang has been convicted
As a result of the foregoing finding, Jun Yang is debarred for a period of 4 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States, effective (see
Any application by Mr. Yang for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0964 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.
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 80 FR 1417-1419, dated January 9, 2015) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the title and functions statements for the
Delete in its entirety the title and the mission and function statements for the
In carrying out its mission, DPHID: (1) Provides leadership and overall direction for the execution of programs that produce scientific publications, strengthen public health science, and provide access to scientific research and innovative products for improving population health and public health decision making; (2) identifies what works in community preventive services and collaborates with CDC and the public health community to educate and encourage action to improve public health; (3) serves as a hub of research, information exchange, and learning for the CDC and the public health community; (4) provides access to scientific literature and systematic review support; (5) sets and ensures adherence to quality standards for manuscripts, reports, and other scientific products; (6) develops curriculum, training, and consultation services for CDC and other federal and non-federal partners to foster the development of skills in publication of public health information, systematic reviews, library sciences, and information literacy; (7) presents a selection of public health genomic approaches, studies, and lessons learned from efforts to build greater program collaboration and service integration; (8) advances the field of public health informatics for CSELS and the Agency through applied research and innovation; and (9) through strategic communications, fosters collaboration with CIOs across CDC and the public health community to encourage dialog about actions that can be taken to improve the quality of science and public health decision making.
In notice document 2015-06486 appearing on pages 15226-15227 in the issue of Monday, March 23, 2015 make the following correction:
On page 15226, in the third column, under the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)
30-Day Notice of Information collection for review; Form No. 10-002; Electronic Funds Transfer Waiver Request; OMB Control No. 1653-0043.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information 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 agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
(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)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Department of Homeland Security
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council will meet on April 22, 2015 in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council will meet
The meeting will be held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Floor B, Room B1.5-10, Washington, DC 20004. All visitors to the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center must bring a Government-issued photo ID. Please use the main entrance on 14th Street NW.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, send an email to
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Council prior to the adoption of the recommendations as listed in the “Supplementary Information” section below. Comments must be submitted in writing no later than Tuesday, April 14, 2015, must include DHS-2015-0010 as the identification number, and may be submitted using
•
•
•
•
One thirty-minute public comment period will be held during the meeting on April 22, 2015 after the conclusion of the presentation of draft recommendations, but before the Council deliberates. Speakers will be requested to limit their comments to three minutes. Contact the Office of Academic Engagement as indicated below to register as a speaker.
Lindsay Burton, Office of Academic Engagement/Mailstop 0440; Department of Homeland Security; 245 Murray Lane SW; Washington, DC 20528-0440, email:
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The meeting materials will be posted to the Council Web site at:
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0039, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the submission of information from claimants in order to thoroughly examine and resolve tort claims against the agency.
Send your comments by June 1, 2015.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB Control Number 1652-0039; TSA Claims Management Program allows the agency to collect information from claimants in order to thoroughly examine and resolve tort claims against the agency. TSA receives approximately
The data is collected whenever an individual believes s/he has experienced property loss or damage, a personal injury, or other damages due to the negligence or wrongful act or omission of a TSA employee, and decides to file a Federal tort claim against TSA. Submission of a claim is entirely voluntary and initiated by individuals. The claimants (or respondents) to this collection are typically the traveling public. Currently, claimants file a claim by submitting to TSA a Standard Form 95 (SF-95), which has been approved under OMB control number 1105-0008. Because TSA requires further clarifying information, claimants are asked to complete a Supplemental Information page added to the SF-95. If TSA determines payment is warranted, TSA will send the claimant a form requesting banking information (routing and accounting numbers) in order to direct payment to the claimant. This form has been approved under OMB control number 1652-0039.
Claim instructions and forms are available through the TSA Web site at
If TSA determines payment is warranted, TSA sends the claimant a form requesting: (1) Claimant signature, (2) banking information, and (3) Social Security number (required by the U.S. Treasury for all Government payments to the public pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3325).
Under the current system of claims submitted by mail or fax, TSA estimates there will be approximately 10,000 respondents on an annual basis, for a total annual hour burden of 6,000 hours.
TSA will use all data collected from claimants to examine and analyze tort claims against the agency to determine alleged TSA liability and to reimburse claimants when claims are approved. In some cases, TSA may use the information to identify victims of theft or to aid any criminal investigations into property theft.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is providing notice that it has issued an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under the authority granted in the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
Emily Su, Assistant Chief Counsel, Civil Enforcement, Office of the Chief Counsel, TSA-2, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6002; telephone (571) 227-2305; facsimile (571) 227-1380; email
On August 3, 2007, section 1302(a) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (the 9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53, 121 Stat. 392, gave TSA new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under title 49 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs transportation worker identification credentials (TWICs).
Section 1302(a) of the 9/11 Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 114(v), authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation of any surface transportation requirement under 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to TWICs under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701. TSA exercises this function under delegated authority from the Secretary.
Under 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA is required to provide the public with an annual summary of all enforcement actions taken by TSA under this subsection; and include in each such summary the identifying information of each enforcement action, the type of alleged violation, the penalty or penalties proposed, and the final assessment amount of each penalty. This summary is for calendar year 2013.
You can get an electronic copy of both this notice and the enforcement actions summary on the Internet by searching the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page at
You can get an electronic copy of only this notice on the Internet by—
(1) Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
(2) Visiting TSA's Security Regulations Web page at
In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 114(v)(7)(A), TSA provides the following summary of enforcement actions taken by TSA in calendar year 2013 under section 114(v).
Section 114(v) of title 49 of the U.S. Code gave the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) new authority to assess civil penalties for violations of any surface transportation requirements under 49 U.S.C. and for any violations of chapter 701 of title 46 of the U.S. Code, which governs transportation worker identification credentials. Specifically, section 114(v) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation of any surface transportation requirement under title 49 U.S.C. or any requirement related to transportation worker identification credentials (TWIC) under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard is changing the way in which it makes Light Lists available to the public. The Coast Guard will continue to publish electronic versions of these publications and make them available free of charge, updated weekly, by means of the Internet, but will no longer produce printed Light List volumes.
Electronic-only publication of the Light Lists began February 23, 2015.
The Coast Guard is not requesting but will accept public comments on this change. To make sure that your comments and related material are not entered more than once in the docket, please submit them by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
For information about this document call or email Mr. Frank Parker, Aids to Navigation Division, Commandant (CG-NAV-1), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7418, Washington, DC 20593-7418; telephone (202) 372-1551, email
The Coast Guard has statutory and treaty obligations to make navigation information available to the public. Coast Guard Light Lists are a means for communicating aids to navigation information that is available nowhere else. Light Lists are available free of charge via the Internet or at a cost through the Government Publishing Office. However, based on emerging technology and the ability to update these volumes on a weekly basis, the cost and time for printing the Light List on an annual basis has reached obsolescence. Technology now allows us to provide the Light List in a timelier and less costly manner via the Internet. The Coast Guard has successfully published updated Light Lists electronically via the Internet for several years. Electronic Light Lists are available on the Coast Guard Navigation Center's Web site at
Light Lists are referred to in two Coast Guard regulations, 33 CFR 72.05-1 and 72.05-5. They relate to Coast Guard agency management and are general policy statements without binding effect either on the public or on the Coast Guard. Therefore, under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Gulf Islands National Seashore. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Gulf Islands National Seashore at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
Daniel R. Brown, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, telephone (850) 934-2600, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Top of Benchmark 2, Escambia County, FL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Gulf Islands National Seashore professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Top of Benchmark 2 in Escambia County, FL. These remains were donated to Gulf Islands National Seashore at an unknown date by Yulee Lazarus of the Fort Walton Temple Mound Museum. No known individuals were identified. The nine associated funerary objects are three untyped vessel fragments, two Weeden Island Incised vessel fragments, and four Wakulla Check Stamped vessel fragments.
Top of Benchmark 2 is a prehistoric midden site that dates from the Weeden Island to the Pensacola period (400 B.C.-A.D. 1700) and was first reported by William Lazarus and Gordon Simmons in the 1960s. Based on diagnostic ceramics, the Pensacola people were most likely the inhabitants of the area during this time. The Pensacola culture extended along the western Gulf coast of Florida, but also shared ceramic styles with groups in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Conflict in the 18th century displaced the Pensacola people in Florida, and historical evidence indicates that some were assimilated into the Choctaw. Others were likely absorbed by the Creek Indians when they overtook the area. Pensacola people are also believed to have gone west with other area tribes to join the Tunica-Biloxi Indians. The Pensacola spoke a Muscogean language; other Muscogee language family speakers include the Alabama, Seminole, Miccosukee, and Coushatta.
Officials of Gulf Islands National Seashore have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the nine objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Daniel R. Brown, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway,
Gulf Islands National Seashore is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), notice is hereby given of the 2015 meeting schedule of the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee.
All meetings will be held on Fridays and will begin at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern). The meetings will take place on the following dates for the remainder of 2015: Friday, May 8, 2015, Friday, June 26, 2015, Friday, September 11, 2015, Friday, October 23, 2015, Friday, December 4, 2015
The meetings to be held on May 8, 2015, June 26, 2015, September 11, 2015, and October 23, 2015, will be held in the Beech Room at the Thompson Park Visitor Center, located at 805 Newman Springs Road, Lincroft, N.J. Thompson Park is part of the Monmouth County Park System. The final meeting of the year held on December 4, 2015, will take place at the Chapel at Sandy Hook, Hartshorne Drive, Middletown, N.J.
Further information concerning the meetings may be obtained by mail from John Warren, External Affairs Officer, Gateway National Recreation Area, 26 Hudson Road, Highlands, N.J. 07732, or by calling (732) 872-5908, or via email at
As provided under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), the purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, on the development of a reuse plan and on matters relating to future uses of certain buildings within the Fort Hancock Historic Landmark District, within the Sandy Hook Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area. Meetings are open to the public. Interested members of the public may present, either orally or through written comments, opinions or information for the Committee to consider during the public meeting.
Attendees and those wishing to provide comment are strongly encouraged to preregister through the contact information provided. The public will be able to comment at the meetings from 11:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. Written comments will be accepted prior to, during, or after the meeting. Due to time constraints during the meeting, the Committee is not able to read written public comments submitted into the record. Individuals or groups requesting to make oral comments at the public committee meeting will be limited to no more than five minutes per speaker.
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your written comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may 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. All comments will be made part of the public record and will be electronically distributed to all Committee members.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of a revision of a currently approved information collection (1028-0085).
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2015.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before June 1, 2015.
You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or
Sarah Cook, Land Remote Sensing Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 516, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-6136 (phone); or
The Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Activity (NLRSEORA) is an effort that involves the development of a U.S. National consortium in building the capability to receive, process and archive remotely sensed data for the purpose of providing access to university and State organizations in a ready-to-use format; and to expand the science of remote sensing through education, research/applications development and outreach in areas such as environmental monitoring, climate change research,
This notice concerns the collection of information that is sufficient and relevant to evaluate and select proposals for funding. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We intend to release the project abstracts and primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only.
We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received applications for enhancement of survival permits (EOS permits) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), pursuant to the Greater Sage-grouse Umbrella Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for Wyoming Ranch Management (Umbrella CCAA). The permit applications, if approved, would authorize incidental take associated with implementation of specified individual Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (individual CCAAs) developed in accordance with the Umbrella CCAA. We invite the public to comment on the EOS permit applications described below. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 1, 2015.
•
•
•
Tyler Abbott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (307) 772-2374, ext. 231 (phone);
A Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances is an agreement with the Service in which private and other non-Federal landowners voluntarily agree to undertake management activities and conservation efforts on their properties to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat to benefit species that are proposed for listing under the Act, that are candidates for listing, or that may become candidates. The Service and several State, Federal, and local
Pursuant to the Umbrella CCAA, ranchers in Wyoming may apply for an EOS permit under the Act by agreeing to implement certain conservation measures for the greater sage-grouse on their properties. These conservation measures are specified in individual CCAAs for their properties, which are developed in accordance with the Umbrella CCAA and are subject to the terms and conditions stated in that agreement. Landowners consult with the Service and other participating agencies to develop an individual CCAA for their property, and submit it to the Service for approval with their EOS permit application. If we approve the individual CCAA and EOS permit application, we will issue an EOS permit, under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following EOS permit applications. The Umbrella CCAA, as well as the individual CCAAs submitted with the permit applications, are also available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The following applicants request approval of EOS permits for the greater sage-grouse, pursuant to the Umbrella CCAA, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.
Applicant: Bull Springs LLC, Carbon County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Dexter Peak LLC, Carbon County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Charles T. Rourke, Campbell County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Hellyer Limited Partnership, Fremont County, Wyoming.
Applicant: V Ventures, LLC, Hot Springs County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Eagle Ridge Ranch Co., Natrona County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Blue Butte Ranch LLC, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Griffin Hashknife Inc., Fremont County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Blake Sheep Co., Carbon County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Battle Mountain Co., Carbon County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Ladder Livestock Company LLC, Carbon County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Rocky Point Grazing Association, Crook County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Bates Creek Cattle Co., Natrona County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Purple Sage LLC, Carbon County, Wyoming.
Applicant: Hesse Ranch, LLC, Johnson County, Wyoming.
Applicant: The Nature Conservancy, Fremont County, Wyoming.
All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will become part of the public record, and will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Montezuma Castle National Monument has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Montezuma Castle National Monument at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
Dorothy FireCloud, Superintendent, PO Box 219, Camp Verde, AZ 86322, telephone (928) 567-5276, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Camp Verde, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple sites in Yavapai County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Montezuma Castle National Monument.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Montezuma Castle National Monument professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an unnamed site near the Langdon Ranch in Yavapai County, AZ. The remains were donated to Montezuma Castle National Monument prior to 1933. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from an unnamed site on the Jackson Homestead in Yavapai County, AZ. The remains were donated to Montezuma Castle National Monument in 1933. No known individuals were identified. The 32 associated funerary objects are 8 shell bracelets, 10 beads, 2 ceramic bowls, 3 bound sticks, 1 wooden cradleboard, 1 wooden bow, 1 miniature ceramic jar, 1 pendant, 1 wooden atlatl dart shaft, 1 worked stone artifact, 1 length of cordage, 1 piece of textile, and 1 stone mosaic pendant.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Montezuma Well Cave site in Yavapai County, AZ, during unauthorized excavations. In 1959 the remains were confiscated from W.K. Duffy by the National Park Service. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Montezuma Well area in Yavapai County, AZ, by unidentified boys. The boys gave the remains to a Mrs. Hallet who passed them along to someone named Stenhouse who in turn gave them to Montezuma Castle National Monument staff. In 1978 the remains were forwarded to the Museum of Northern Arizona and in 1997 they were returned to Montezuma Castle National Monument. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Montezuma Castle in Yavapai County, AZ, by National Park Service employees conducting preservation work. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one piece of textile and one length of cordage.
At unknown dates, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Montezuma Castle by unknown park visitors. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Between 1894 and 1896, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Montezuma Castle in Yavapai County, AZ, by S.L Palmer. In 1971 the remains and funerary objects were donated to Montezuma Castle National Monument by Gaylord L. Palmer. No known individuals were identified. The 14 associated funerary objects are 9 pieces of textile, 1 bowl, 1 wooden bow, 1 arrow, and 2 arrow mainshafts.
In 1909, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Montezuma Castle in Yavapai County, AZ, by Frank P. Turner. The remains were donated to Fort Verde State Historic Park by Mr. Turner's daughter and in 1998 they were returned to Montezuma Castle National Monument by Arizona State Parks. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1927, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from Castle A in Yavapai County, AZ, by the National Park Service. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are one basketry bowl and one piece of cotton textile.
Between 1929 and 1940, human remains representing, at minimum, 19 individuals were removed from the Montezuma Well area in Yavapai County, AZ, by the William Back family, former owners of Montezuma Well. The human remains were transferred to the National Park Service when the property was purchased in 1947. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Between 1933 and 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 68 individuals were removed from Castle A in Yavapai County, AZ, during a Civil Works Administration project. No known individuals were identified. The 23 associated funerary objects are 9 pendants, 4 beads, 4 shell tinklers, 3 ceramic bowls, 2 shell bracelets, and 1 worked shell.
In the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Castle A in Yavapai County, AZ, by unknown visitors. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Between 1952 and 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Castle A in Yavapai County, AZ, by the National Park Service. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Swallet Cave in Yavapai County, AZ, during a salvage project by the National Park Service. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a Tuzigoot red ceramic bowl.
In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Montezuma Castle in Yavapai County, AZ, by National Park Service archeologists. No known individuals were identified. The nine associated funerary objects are four pieces of matting, one piece of textile, two sherds, one flake tool, and one length of cordage.
The sites from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed are located in the Verde Valley of Arizona. Most are multi-room masonry-walled pueblos or cliff dwellings and all are classified as southern Sinagua. With one exception, Swallet Cave, all are dated to A.D. 1125-1425. Swallet Cave, one of the pueblos on the inside cliff wall of Montezuma Well, a natural limestone sink hole with a lake fed by underground springs, is dated to A.D. 1125-1300.
The Ak Chin Indian Community of Maricopa (Ak Chin) Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona comprise one cultural group known as the O'odham. Archeological artifacts found at the sites, including plain woven textiles, coiled basketry, and twill matting, are similar to items made and used by historic O'odham people.
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona) trace their ancestry to Yavapai bands once living in the Verde Valley. Continuity between the people of the Verde Valley during A.D. 1125-1425 and the Fort McDowell Yavapai and Yavapai-Prescott tribes is demonstrated by geographic, linguistic, folkloric, oral tradition, and historical evidence. For example, there are specific Yavapai ancestral names for Montezuma Well, and living tribal members curate oral traditions about ancestral people living at the sites.
The Hopi Tribe of Arizona considers all of Arizona to be within traditional Hopi lands or within areas where Hopi clans migrated in the past. Evidence demonstrating continuity between the people of the Verde Valley during A.D. 1125-1425 and the Hopi Tribe includes archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, and oral traditions. Ceramic vessels made only on the Hopi mesas are found at the sites and are similar to items made by historic and modern Hopi people. Additionally, plain woven and painted textiles, coiled basketry, and woven matting are similar to items made and used by modern Hopi people. Living Hopi clan members also have ancestral names and traditional stories about specific events and people at each site.
The Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico considers the Verde Valley to be within the migration path of ancestral Zuni people. Archeological evidence, including similarities in ceramic designs, textiles, and woven basketry, demonstrates continuity between the people of the Verde Valley during A.D. 1125-1425 and the people of Zuni.
Officials of Montezuma Castle National Monument have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 128 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 83 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dorothy FireCloud, Superintendent, Montezuma Castle National Monument, PO Box 219, Camp Verde, AZ 86322, telephone (928) 567-5276, email
Montezuma Castle National Monument is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Logan Museum of Anthropology, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meets the definition of sacred object and object of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request to the Logan Museum of Anthropology. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural item to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Logan Museum of Anthropology at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
William Green, Director, Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College, 700 College St., Beloit, WI 53511, telephone (608) 363-2119, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 2006, the estate of Rita Gaples donated a mask (catalog number RG 321) to the Logan Museum of Anthropology. Associated records indicate Ms. Gaples acquired the mask from Shango Galleries in Dallas, TX in 2005. The prior owner was Ronald Slowinski. It is not known when, how, or from whom Mr. Slowinski acquired the mask. Shango Gallery records identify the mask as a Jemez Apa' Kachina mask and indicate a date of manufacture of ca. 1930, though the records contain no rationale for this date.
The mask is cylindrical in shape, with a flat base and two protruding ears. The mask is made of leather, stitched with cotton thread. On each ear, a rectangular piece of abalone shell is attached to the front surface by a leather thong through a perforation in the ear. Two sticks are secured with leather lacing to the top of the mask. The overall dimensions of the mask with the sticks are 16 inches in height and 19 inches in width. The front of the mask has perforations for the eyes and the mouth; the mouth is surrounded on the inside by pin-hole size perforations. The front of the mask is painted green, thinning or fading at the top. The eyes are surrounded by black side-facing triangles and the mouth by a small, circular rim of black paint. One red and one yellow band, both bordered in black, extend along the base of the mask and continue along the side and back toward the face, just below the eyes. The base of the mask shows wear from material that was probably attached as a collar. Four sets of leather ties are attached along the base and two long leather ties are attached from the inside. Stitching, covered by paint, extends vertically through the center of the back of the mask. The back of the mask is painted white, superimposed by images of three corn plants painted in black. The stem of each plant forms a toothed rake. The top of the mask is unpainted leather, and the stitching that attaches the top to the cylinder is not painted over, indicating the top was attached to the mask after the cylinder was built and painted. The top has pencil marks on the edges, which indicate where the pattern was drawn before the piece was cut. A letter “R” and the letters “RC” are painted in red on the interior of the top. The paint overall is matte in finish, flaky, and abrades easily. Brush marks are visible except in the green portion of the face, which appears to have been sprayed on. The corn images appear to have been painted over a previous layer of paint. Some of the previous layer is visible and apparently was also painted with corn stalks. The ears appear to have many layers of paint as evident by flaking red paint and green paint underneath.
Both long sticks fastened to the top of the mask with leather ties are carved at one end into three segments; each segment is painted yellow, red, or brown. A small remnant of feather down is present on the leather. Also on top of the mask is an open appendage with a finial made of corn husk wrapped with cotton thread embedded with remnants of green pigment.
The mask is incomplete in several respects, as it lacks the collar, top band, painted top, and feathers of Jemez Apa' masks. However, masks were repeatedly renewed, and the “missing” or unfinished features of this mask may indicate it was collected while undergoing or awaiting renovation.
Consultation with the Pueblo of Jemez included a visit from Jemez representatives in 2010. Consultation and published sources demonstrate that the mask is culturally affiliated with the Pueblo of Jemez. Jemez Kachina masks play an active role in the religious life of the community. They are used in religious practice and are owned and cared for by religious societies rather than individuals. They are considered sacred and living persons—friends and family members—rather than objects. These masks cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual regardless of whether or not the individual is a member of the Pueblo of Jemez.
Officials of the Logan Museum of Anthropology have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the 1 cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the 1 cultural item described above has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and object of cultural patrimony and the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to William Green, Director, Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College, 700 College St., Beloit, WI 53511, telephone (608) 363-2119, email
The Logan Museum of Anthropology is responsible for notifying the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Gulf Islands National Seashore. If no additional
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Gulf Islands National Seashore at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
Daniel R. Brown, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, telephone (850) 934-2600, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore.
Between 1964 and 1965, three cultural items were removed from Naval Live Oaks Reservation in Santa Rosa County, FL. These cultural items were associated with three burials. According to the excavation report one set of remains was re-interred. Given the reported conditions of the remains in the other two burials, it is likely that they were left in-situ or re-interred, but neither can be confirmed. At the time of the excavation, the Naval Live Oaks Reservation Cemetery was under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida. In 1971, the site became part of Gulf Islands National Seashore. The objects appear to have been curated at the Fort Walton Temple Mound Museum until 1981, when they were donated to Gulf Islands National Seashore by curator Yulee Lazarus. The objects are currently curated at the National Park Service's Southeast Archeological Center. The three unassociated funerary objects are one pig bone, one iron fragment, and one shell fragment.
Analysis of ceramic vessel fragments indicates that the Naval Live Oaks Reservation Cemetery site was in use during the Bear Point phase of the Pensacola period (A.D. 1500 to 1700). Historical documentation places the Pensacola Indians in the area of the Naval Live Oak Reservation Cemetery site during that time period. The Pensacola culture extended along the western Gulf coast of Florida, but also shared ceramic styles with groups in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Conflict in the 18th century displaced the Pensacola people in Florida, and historical evidence indicates that some were assimilated into the Choctaw. Others were likely absorbed by the Creek Indians when they overtook the area. Pensacola people are also believed to have gone west with other area tribes to join the Tunica-Biloxi Indians. The Pensacola spoke a Muscogean language; other Muscogee language family speakers include the Alabama, Seminole, Miccosukee, and Coushatta.
Officials of Gulf Islands National Seashore have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the three cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Daniel R. Brown, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, telephone (850) 934-2600, email
The Gulf Islands National Seashore is responsible for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
John McClelland, NAGPRA Coordinator, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210026, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-2950.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1933-1934, 10 cultural items were removed from Tuzigoot Pueblo, AZ N:4:1(ASM), in Yavapai County, AZ. The excavations were conducted by University of Arizona graduate students Louis Caywood and Edward Spicer. The cultural items were found in association with human burials, but the human remains were not collected. The collection was accessioned by the Arizona State Museum in 1934. The 10 unassociated funerary objects are 1 animal bone awl, 3 ceramic bowls, 2 macaw bones, 1 shell bracelet, and 3 shell tinklers.
In 1933-1934, two cultural items were removed from Hatalacva Pueblo, AZ N:4:3(ASM), in Yavapai County, AZ. The excavations were conducted by University of Arizona graduate students Louis Caywood and Edward Spicer. The cultural items were found in association with human burials, but the human remains were not collected. The collection was accessioned by the Arizona State Museum in 1934. The two unassociated funerary objects are one ceramic jar and one shell pendant.
Tuzigoot Pueblo is a large pueblo with more than 100 rooms, which is classified by archeologists as Southern Sinagua, Honanki and Tuzigoot phases. Occupation dates range from A.D. 1125 to A.D. 1425. Hatalacva Pueblo is a small, multi-room pueblo near Tuzigoot National Monument, also classified as Southern Sinagua, Honanki and Tuzigoot phases.
The Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona comprise one cultural group known as the O'odham. Material culture items found at the sites, including associated funerary objects, demonstrate continuity between the people of Tuzigoot and Hatalacva pueblos and the O'odham. These items include plain woven textiles, coiled basketry, and twill matting that display similar design motifs and construction styles as historic and contemporary O'odham items. Additionally, locally made plainware ceramics are similar in construction and appearance to plainware ceramics made in lands attributed to the Hohokam archeological culture, commonly considered to be ancestral O'odham. Consultation with O'odham tribes also indicates that oral traditions exist that describe ancestral O'odham people living in the Verde Valley.
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona, traces ancestry to Yavapai bands once living in the Verde Valley. Consultation with Yavapai tribes indicates the existence of specific ancestral names for the Tuzigoot and Hatalacva sites and a belief that ancestors lived near the sites. Archeological sites identified as Yavapai have also been found near the Tuzigoot and Hatalacva Pueblos. Material culture items found at Hatalacva and Tuzigoot, including basketry and turquoise pendants, are similar in construction and appearance to historic Yavapai items. Additionally, Hatalacva and Tuzigoot are identified as being within the Yavapai traditional lands.
The Hopi Tribe of Arizona considers all of Arizona to be within traditional Hopi lands or within areas where Hopi clans migrated in the past. Evidence demonstrating continuity between the people of Tuzigoot and Hatalacva Pueblos and the Hopi Tribe includes archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric and oral traditions. Ceramic vessels made only on the Hopi mesas as well as plain woven and painted textiles, coiled basketry, and woven matting demonstrate continuity between Tuzigoot, Hatalacva, and Hopi people. Burial patterns noted at Tuzigoot are also similar in appearance to burials at other ancestral Hopi sites. During consultation, Hopi clan members also identified ancestral names and traditional stories about specific events and ancestral people at each site.
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona) traces ancestry to Yavapai bands once living in the Verde Valley. Consultation with Yavapai tribes indicates the existence of specific ancestral names for the Tuzigoot and Hatalacva sites and a belief that ancestors lived near the sites. Archeological sites identified as Yavapai have also been found in and near the Tuzigoot and Hatalacva Pueblos. Material culture items found at Tuzigoot and Hatalacva including basketry, turquoise pendants, and twill matting, are similar in construction and appearance to historic Yavapai items. Additionally, Tuzigoot and Hatalacva are identified as being within the Yavapai traditional lands.
The Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, considers the Verde Valley to be within the migration path of ancestral Zuni people. Archeological evidence demonstrates continuity between the people of Tuzigoot and Hatalacva Pueblos and the people of Zuni. Material culture items, such as ceramic designs, textiles, and woven basketry, are similar in appearance and construction to historic Zuni items.
Officials of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 12 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to John McClelland, NAGPRA Coordinator, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210026, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-2950, by May 1, 2015. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, may proceed.
The Arizona State Museum is responsible for notifying the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Western Archeological and Conservation Center has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Western Archeological and Conservation Center. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Western Archeological and Conservation Center at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
Dr. Stephanie Rodeffer, Museum Services Program Manager, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 255 N. Commerce Park Loop, Tucson, AZ 85745, telephone (520) 791-6401, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from unnamed sites in Yavapai and Graham Counties, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Museum Services Program Manager, Western Archeological and Conservation Center.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made during a region-wide, multi-park process by Western Archeological and Conservation Center professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes) (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)); Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton
The following tribes were invited to consult but did not participate in the face-to-face consultation meeting: Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California); Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California); Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California); Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon); Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California); Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Invited Tribes”).
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unnamed mound site in Graham County, AZ. In 1962, the remains were donated to the Western Archeological and Conservation Center by Edith Latham, a Midland City, AZ, collector. The remains consist of a cremation in a Mogollon bowl, which was likely a trade piece. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a Mogollon bowl.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in Yavapai County, AZ. In 1956, the remains were donated to the Western Archeological and Conservation Center by Dr. Cyril M. Cron, a Miami, AZ, collector. The remains consist of a cremation in a Salado type jar, which was likely a trade piece. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a Salado type jar.
Officials of Western Archeological and Conservation Center have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. The National Park Service intends to convey the associated funerary objects to the tribes pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 18f-2.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona).
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona.
• Other credible lines of evidence, including relevant and authoritative governmental determinations and information gathered during government-to-government consultation from subject matter experts, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation,
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Stephanie Rodeffer, Museum Services Program Manager, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 255 N. Commerce Park Loop, Tucson, AZ 85745, telephone (520) 791-6401, email
Western Archeological and Conservation Center is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes and The Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Gulf Islands National Seashore at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
Daniel R. Brown, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, telephone (850) 934-2600, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, FL. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Naval Live Oaks Reservation, Santa Rosa County, FL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
In the
In the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Daniel R. Brown, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, telephone (850) 934-2600, email
Gulf Islands National Seashore is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Cherokee Nation; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), notice is hereby given of the 2015 meeting schedule of the Big Cypress National Preserve Off-Road Vehicle Advisory Committee.
The Committee will meet on the following dates: Tuesday, June 16, 2015, 3:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 20, 2015, 3:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.
All meetings will be held at the Big Cypress Swamp Welcome Center, 33000 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida. Written comments and requests for agenda items may be submitted electronically on the Web site
J. D. Lee, Acting Superintendent, Big Cypress National Preserve, 33100 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida 34141-1000, telephone (239) 695-1103, or go to the Web site
The Committee was established (
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tuzigoot National Monument, and the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, have completed inventories of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and each has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to either Tuzigoot National Monument or the Arizona State Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the associated funerary objects that are under the control of Tuzigoot National Monument should contact Tuzigoot National Monument at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects that are under the control of the Arizona State Museum should contact the Arizona State Museum at the address below by May 1, 2015.
Dorothy FireCloud, Superintendent, Tuzigoot National Monument, P.O. Box 219, Camp Verde, AZ 86322, telephone (928) 567-5276, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tuzigoot National Monument, Camp Verde, AZ, and the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, and in the physical custody of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, AZ. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from two sites in Yavapai County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice regarding the associated funerary objects under the control of Tuzigoot National Monument are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Tuzigoot National Monument. The determinations in this notice regarding the human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum are the sole responsibility of the Arizona State Museum.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Tuzigoot National Monument and the Arizona State Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Tuzigoot Pueblo and Hatalacva Pueblo, in the Verde Valley of Arizona, were excavated in 1933 and 1934 by University of Arizona graduate students, Louis Caywood and Edward Spicer, when the sites were on private land. The human remains and a small number of artifacts were accessioned by the Arizona State Museum in 1934. The rest of the artifacts were taken to a private museum in Clarkdale, AZ. After Tuzigoot National Monument was established in 1939, many of the artifacts held by the private museum were transferred to Tuzigoot National Monument. These included some funerary objects that were once associated with human remains that remained under the control of the Arizona State Museum. In 2012, human remains and funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum were transferred to the physical custody of the Western Archeological and Conservation Center.
In 1933 and 1934, human remains were removed from Tuzigoot Pueblo in Yavapai County, AZ. The remains are under the control of the Arizona State Museum and are described below. The 29 associated funerary objects under the control of Tuzigoot National Monument are 15 bowls, 8 pendants, 1 bracelet, 2 necklaces, 1 pitcher, 1 bone tool and 1 matting fragment.
In 1933 and 1934, human remains were removed from Hatalacva Pueblo in Yavapai County, AZ. The remains are under the control of the Arizona State Museum and are described below. The seven associated funerary objects under the control of Tuzigoot National Monument are five bowls, one pendant and one necklace.
In 1933 and 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 114 individuals were removed from Tuzigoot Pueblo in Yavapai County, AZ. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum are one bowl, one lot of shell beads, and one bracelet.
In 1933 and 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 14 individuals were removed from Hatalacva Pueblo in Yavapai County, AZ. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum are shell bracelets.
Tuzigoot Pueblo is a large pueblo with more than 100 rooms, which is classified by archeologists as Southern Sinagua, Honanki and Tuzigoot phases. Occupation dates range from A.D. 1125 to A.D. 1425. Hatalacva Pueblo is a small, multi-room pueblo near Tuzigoot National Monument, also classified as Southern Sinagua, Honanki and Tuzigoot phases.
The Ak Chin Indian Community of Maricopa (Ak Chin) Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona comprise one cultural group known as the O'odham. Material culture items found at the sites, including associated funerary objects, demonstrate continuity between the people of Tuzigoot and Hatalacva pueblos and the O'odham. These items include plain woven textiles, coiled basketry, and twill matting that display similar design motifs and construction styles as historic and contemporary O'odham items. Additionally, locally made plainware ceramics are similar in construction and appearance to plainware ceramics made in lands attributed to the Hohokam archeological culture, commonly considered to be ancestral O'odham. Consultation with O'odham tribes also indicates that oral traditions exist that describe ancestral O'odham people living in the Verde Valley.
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona traces ancestry to Yavapai bands once living in the Verde Valley. Consultation with Yavapai tribes indicates the existence of specific ancestral names for the Tuzigoot and Hatalacva sites and a belief that
The Hopi Tribe of Arizona considers all of Arizona to be within traditional Hopi lands or within areas where Hopi clans migrated in the past. Evidence demonstrating continuity between the people of Tuzigoot and Hatalacva Pueblos and the Hopi Tribe includes archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric and oral traditions. Ceramic vessels made only on the Hopi mesas as well as plain woven and painted textiles, coiled basketry, and woven matting demonstrate continuity between Tuzigoot, Hatalacva, and Hopi people. Burial patterns noted at Tuzigoot are also similar in appearance to burials at other ancestral Hopi sites. During consultation, Hopi clan members also identified ancestral names and traditional stories about specific events and ancestral people at each site.
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona) traces ancestry to Yavapai bands once living in the Verde Valley. Consultation with Yavapai tribes indicates the existence of specific ancestral names for the Tuzigoot and Hatalacva sites and a belief that ancestors lived near the sites. Archeological sites identified as Yavapai have also been found in and near the Tuzigoot and Hatalacva Pueblos. Material culture items found at Tuzigoot and Hatalacva including basketry, turquoise pendants, and twill matting, are similar in construction and appearance to historic Yavapai items. Additionally, Tuzigoot and Hatalacva are identified as being within the Yavapai traditional lands.
The Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, considers the Verde Valley to be within the migration path of ancestral Zuni people. Archeological evidence demonstrates continuity between the people of Tuzigoot and Hatalacva Pueblos and the people of Zuni. Material culture items, such as ceramic designs, textiles, and woven basketry, are similar in appearance and construction to historic Zuni items.
Officials of Tuzigoot National Monument have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 36 objects described in this notice under the control of Tuzigoot National Monument are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the associated funerary objects under the control of Tuzigoot National Monument and The Tribes.
Officials of the Arizona State Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice under the control of the Arizona State Museum represent the physical remains of 128 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the six objects described in this notice under the control of the Arizona State Museum are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum and The Tribes.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the associated funerary objects under the control of Tuzigoot National Monument should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dorothy FireCloud, Superintendent, Tuzigoot National Monument, P.O. Box 219, Camp Verde, AZ 86322, telephone (928) 567-5276, email
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arizona State Museum should submit a written request with information in support of the request to John McClelland, NAGPRA Coordinator, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210026, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-2950, email
After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed.
Tuzigoot National Monument and the Arizona State Museum are responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona at the address in this notice by May 1, 2015.
John McClelland, NAGPRA Coordinator, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210026, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-2950.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. The human remains were removed from a site in Yavapai County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arizona State Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In 1936-1940, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Montezuma Well, AZ O:5:92(ASM), in Yavapai County, AZ. The burials were excavated by William Back, who was the landowner before the property was purchased by the National Park Service. The fragmentary human remains, all representing adult individuals, were accessioned by the Arizona State Museum on an unknown date prior to 1951. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Montezuma Well is a large limestone sinkhole filled with warm spring water that has served as an important resource for wildlife and people of the Verde Valley for thousands of years. The earliest evidence of human occupation near the well consists of Hohokam pit houses and irrigation structures dating to about A.D. 700. Beginning about A.D. 1100, people characterized by archeologists as Sinagua appeared in the Montezuma Well area and established a small pueblo on the rim of the well. Two burial areas were located in the well vicinity. These areas appear to have been most heavily utilized during the Honanki and Tuzigoot phases, A.D. 1125-1400, based on ceramic typologies.
The Ak Chin Indian Community of Maricopa (Ak Chin) Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona comprise one cultural group known as the O'odham. Material culture items found at the site, including associated funerary objects, demonstrate continuity between the prehistoric occupants of the Montezuma Well area and the O'odham. Locally made plainware ceramics are similar in construction and appearance to plainware ceramics made in lands attributed to the Hohokam archeological culture, commonly considered to be ancestral O'odham. Consultation with O'odham tribes also includes oral traditions that describe ancestral O'odham people living in the region.
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona, traces ancestry to Yavapai bands once living in the Verde Valley. Consultation with Yavapai tribes indicates the existence of a specific ancestral name for Montezuma Well, oral traditions that attribute the rooms built around the well to Yavapai ancestors, and a belief that the well was a place of emergence for the Yavapai people. Archeological sites identified as Yavapai have also been found in the same region.
The Hopi Tribe of Arizona considers all of Arizona to be within traditional Hopi lands or within areas where Hopi clans migrated in the past. Evidence demonstrating continuity between the people of Montezuma Well and the Hopi Tribe includes archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric and oral traditions. Burial patterns noted at Montezuma Well are also similar in appearance to burials at other ancestral Hopi sites. During consultation, Hopi clan members also identified ancestral names and traditional stories about specific events and ancestral people at Montezuma Well.
The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona) traces ancestry to Yavapai bands once living in the Verde Valley. Consultation with Yavapai tribes indicates the existence of a specific ancestral name for Montezuma Well, oral traditions that attribute the rooms built around the well to Yavapai ancestors, and a belief that the well was a place of emergence for the Yavapai people. Archeological sites identified as Yavapai have also been in the same region.
The Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, considers the Verde Valley to be within the migration path of ancestral Zuni people. Archeological evidence demonstrates continuity between the people of the Montezuma Well region and the people of Zuni. Material culture items, such as ceramic designs, are similar in appearance and construction to historic Zuni items.
Officials of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to John McClelland, NAGPRA Coordinator, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, P.O. Box 210026, Tucson, AZ 85721, telephone (520) 626-2950, by May 1, 2015. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin)
The Arizona State Museum is responsible for notifying the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam and the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
Effective Date: April 1, 2015.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Background—On May 4, 2010, the Department of Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Vietnam (75 FR 23670) and antidumping duty orders on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam (75 FR 23667). On August 9, 2004, the Department of Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand (69 FR 48201, 48203, and 48204). Following first five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective July 7, 2010, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Malaysia, and Thailand (75 FR 38978). The Commission is now conducting first five-year reviews of the orders concerning Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam and second five-year reviews of the orders concerning China, Malaysia, and Thailand to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on carbazole violet pigment 23 from India and the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbazole violet pigment 23 from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on oil country tubular goods from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Effective Date: March 6, 2015.
Michael Szustakowski (202) 205-3169)), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on chloropicrin from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
Effective April 1, 2015. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by June 15, 2015.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on crepe paper from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Justice.
Notice of webinar meeting.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has scheduled a webinar meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ).
The webinar meeting will take place online on Monday, April 20, 2015, 1:00-4:00 p.m. (ET).
Kathi Grasso, Designated Federal Official, OJJDP,
The Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ), established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), will meet to carry out its advisory functions under Section 223(f)(2)(C-E) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002. The FACJJ is composed of representatives from the states and territories. FACJJ member duties include: reviewing federal policies regarding juvenile justice and delinquency prevention; advising the OJJDP Administrator with respect to particular functions and aspects of OJJDP; and advising the President and Congress with regard to State perspectives on the operation of OJJDP and federal legislation pertaining to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. More information on the FACJJ may be found at
To participate in or view the webinar meeting, FACJJ members and the public must pre-register online. Members and interested persons must link to the webinar registration portal through
An on-site room is available for members of the public interested in viewing the webinar in person. If members of the public wish to view the webinar in person, they must notify Marshall Edwards by email message at
With the exception of the FACJJ Chair, FACJJ members will not be physically present in Washington, DC
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
Meeting notice.
The purpose of this notice is to announce a meeting of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council (Council) created by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact). Thus far, the Federal Government and 30 states are parties to the Compact which governs the exchange of criminal history records for licensing, employment, and similar purposes. The Compact also provides a legal framework for the establishment of a cooperative federal-state system to exchange such records.
The United States Attorney General appointed 15 persons from state and federal agencies to serve on the Council. The Council will prescribe system rules and procedures for the effective and proper operation of the Interstate Identification Index system for noncriminal justice purposes.
Matters for discussion are expected to include:
(1) Bureau of Indian Affairs Purpose Code X Proposal
(2) Proposed Changes to the Noncriminal Justice Rap Back Policy and Implementation Guide
(3) National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Ratification Checklist
The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written statement with the Council or wishing to address this session of the Council should notify the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) Compact Officer, Mr. Gary S. Barron at (304) 625-2803, at least 24 hours prior to the start of the session. The notification should contain the individual's name and corporate designation, consumer affiliation, or government designation, along with a short statement describing the topic to be addressed and the time needed for the presentation. Individuals will ordinarily be allowed up to 15 minutes to present a topic.
The meeting will take place at the Knoxville Marriott Hotel, 501 East Hill Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee, telephone 865-637-1234.
Inquiries may be addressed to Mr. Gary S. Barron, FBI Compact Officer, Module D3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, telephone (304) 625-2803, facsimile (304) 625-2868.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 30 CFR part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before May 1, 2015.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) The trailing cables for the 480-volt bolters will not be smaller than No. 4 AWG cable.
(2) All circuit breakers used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cable or the No. 4 AWG trailing cable exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 500 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed to ensure that the settings cannot be changed, and these circuit breakers will have permanent, legible labels. Each label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting the cables.
(3) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cable or the No. 4 AWG trailing cable will be calibrated to trip at 500 amperes and they will be sealed.
(4) All components that provide short-circuit protection will have a sufficient interruption rating in accordance with the maximum calculated fault currents available.
(5) During each production day, the trailing cables and the circuit breakers will be examined in accordance with all 30 CFR provisions.
(6) Permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the load center identifying the location of each short-circuit protection device. These labels will warn miners not to change or alter the settings of these devices.
(7) If the affected trailing cables are damaged in any way during the shift, the cable will be de-energized and repairs made.
(8) The alternative method will not be implemented until all miners who have been designated to operate the bolters, or any other person designated to examine the trailing cables or trip settings on the circuit breakers, have received the proper training as to the performance of their duties.
(9) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for their approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify task training for miners designated to examine the trailing cables for safe operating condition and verify that the short-circuit settings of the circuit-interrupting devices that protect the affected trailing cables do not exceed the settings specified previously in this petition. The training will include the following elements:
(a) The hazards of setting the short-circuit interrupting device(s) too high to adequately protect the trailing cables.
(b) How to verify that the circuit interrupting device(s) protecting the trailing cable(s) are properly set and maintained.
(c) Mining methods and operating procedures that will protect the trailing cables against damage.
(d) Proper procedures for examining the trailing cables to ensure that the cables are in safe operating condition by visually inspecting the entire cable, observing the insulation, the integrity of splices, nicks and abrasions.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the standard.
(1) Prohibiting the use of an infrared (IR) digital camera under the existing standard will result in the reduction of safety for the miners at the Bowie No. 2 Mine. The use of the IR will provide an effective method to detect and identify small areas of higher than normal coal pillar oxidation that may lead to spontaneous combustion.
(2) Using currently available means of detecting coal pillar oxidation, which is limited to hand-held carbon monoxide detectors, odor, or smoke is ineffective and may allow oxidation to become a heating or spontaneous combustion event.
(3) In the alternative to compliance with the existing standard the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) Nonpermissible infrared IR scanning and digital equipment will be used only when equivalent permissible equipment does not exist.
(b) All nonpermissible battery operated IR equipment will be limited to:
(i) Flir i50 7.2 volt Li/ion S/N 399002500.
(ii) Flir E5 3.6 volt Li/ion S/N 63913354.
(iii) Flir E5 3.6 volt Li/ion S/N 63917252.
(4) Nonpermissible IR equipment will only be used until equivalent permissible IR is available.
(5) A logbook will be maintained for electronic IR and will be kept in the mine office where the equipment is located. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic IR equipment and will be made available to MSHA on request.
(6) All nonpermissible electronic IR equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by the person that will operate the equipment, prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These checks will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion.
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(vi) Recording the results of the inspection in the equipment logbook.
(7) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the logbook. Inspection entries in the logbook may be expunged after one year.
(8) All nonpermissible electronic IR equipment will be serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment logbook and will include a description of the work performed.
(9) The nonpermissible IR equipment that will be used in or inby the last open crosscut will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance.
(10) Nonpermissible IR equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more of methane is detected while the nonpermissible IR equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut. Prior to returning inby the last open crosscut, all
(11) As an additional safety check, prior to energizing nonpermissible IR equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, the operator of the equipment will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated coal dust is observed, the equipment may not be energized until sufficient rock dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of coal dust have been cleaned up. If nonpermissible IR equipment is to be used in an area that is not rock dusted, within 40-feet of a working face where a continuous miner is used to extract coal, the area is to be rock dusted prior to energizing the electronic IR equipment.
(12) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined by 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors must provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above one percent.
(13) Prior to energizing the electronic IR equipment in or inby the last open crosscut, methane tests must be made no more than eight inches from the roof or floor in the area where the equipment is to be used.
(14) All areas to be examined with nonpermissible IR equipment must be pre-shifted according to 30 CFR 75.360 prior to the IR examination. If the area is not pre-shifted a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 must be performed before any non-certified person enters the area. If the area has been examined according to 30 CFR 75.360 or 75.361, an additional examination is not required.
(15) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible IR equipment in or inby the last open crosscut.
(16) Batteries contained in the IR equipment must be changed out or charged in intake air outby the last open crosscut. Replacement batteries for the electronic IR equipment will not be brought in or inby the last open crosscut. Upon entry into the mine, all batteries for the electronic infrared equipment must be fully charged.
(17) When using nonpermissible electronic IR equipment in or inby the last open crosscut the operator must confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section that the air quantity on the section, on that shift, in the last open crosscut is the quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.
(18) Personnel engaged in the use of IR equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of the equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(19) All persons who operate nonpermissible electronic IR equipment will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of this petition before using nonpermissible electronic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut. A record of the training will be kept with other training records.
(20) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for their approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the PDO. When training is conducted an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed. Comments on the certificate of training will indicate IR operator training.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) Prohibiting the use of an infrared (IR) digital camera under the existing standard will result in the reduction of safety for the miners at the Bowie No. 2 Mine. The use of the IR will provide an effective method to detect and identify small areas of higher than normal coal pillar oxidation that may lead to spontaneous combustion.
(2) Using currently available means of detecting coal pillar oxidation, which is limited to hand-held carbon monoxide detectors, odor, or smoke is ineffective and may allow oxidation to become a heating or spontaneous combustion event.
(3) In the alternative to compliance with the existing standard the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) Nonpermissible IR scanning and digital equipment will be used only when equivalent permissible equipment does not exist.
(b) All nonpermissible battery operated IR equipment will be limited to:
(i) Flir i50 7.2 volt Li/ion S/N 399002500.
(ii) Flir E5 3.6 volt Li/ion S/N 63913354.
(iii) Flir E5 3.6 volt Li/ion S/N 63917252.
(4) Nonpermissible IR equipment will only be used until equivalent permissible IR is available.
(5) A logbook will be maintained for electronic IR and will be kept in the mine office where the equipment is located. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic IR equipment and will be made available to MSHA on request.
(6) All nonpermissible electronic IR equipment to be used in a return airway will be examined by the person that will operate the equipment, prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These checks will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion.
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(vi) Recording the results of the inspection in the equipment logbook.
(7) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the logbook. Inspection entries in the logbook may be expunged after one year.
(8) All nonpermissible electronic IR equipment will be serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service will be recorded in the equipment logbook and will include a description of the work performed.
(9) The nonpermissible IR equipment that will be used in return airways will
(10) Nonpermissible IR equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more of methane is detected while the nonpermissible IR equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn from the return airway. Prior to returning to the return airway, all requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with.
(11) As an additional safety check, prior to energizing nonpermissible IR equipment in a return airway, the operator of the equipment will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated coal dust is observed, the equipment may not be energized until sufficient rock dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of coal dust have been cleaned up.
(12) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper condition as defined by 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors must provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above one percent.
(13) Prior to energizing the electronic IR equipment in a return airway, methane tests must be made no more than eight inches from the roof or floor in the area where the equipment is to be used.
(14) All areas to be examined with nonpermissible IR equipment must be pre-shifted according to 30 CFR 75.360 prior to the IR examination. If the area is not pre-shifted a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 must be performed before any non-certified person enters the area. If the area has been examined according to 30 CFR 75.360 or 75.361, an additional examination is not required.
(15) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible IR equipment in a return airway.
(16) Batteries contained in the IR equipment must be changed out or charged in intake air outside of a return airway. Replacement batteries for the electronic IR equipment will not be brought into a return airway. Upon entry into the mine all batteries for the electronic IR equipment must be fully charged.
(17) When using nonpermissible electronic IR equipment in a return airway, the operator must confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section that the air quantity in the return airway, on that shift, is the quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.
(18) Personnel engaged in the use of IR equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of IR equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(19) All persons who operate nonpermissible electronic IR equipment will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of this petition before using nonpermissible electronic equipment in a return airway. A record of the training will be kept with other training records.
(20) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for their approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the PDO. When training is conducted an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed. Comments on the certificate of training will indicate IR operator training.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) Prohibiting the use of an infrared (IR) digital camera under the existing standard will result in the reduction of safety for the miners at the Bowie No. 2 Mine. The use of the IR will provide an effective method to detect and identify small areas of higher than normal coal pillar oxidation that may lead to spontaneous combustion.
(2) Using currently available means of detecting coal pillar oxidation, which is limited to hand-held carbon monoxide detectors, odor, or smoke is ineffective and may allow oxidation to become a heating or spontaneous combustion event.
(3) In the alternative to compliance with the existing standard the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) Nonpermissible IR scanning and digital equipment will be used only when equivalent permissible equipment does not exist.
(b) All nonpermissible battery operated IR equipment will be limited to:
(i) Flir i50 7.2 volt Li/ion S/N 399002500.
(ii) Flir E5 3.6 volt Li/ion S/N 63913354.
(iii) Flir E5 3.6 volt Li/ion S/N 63917252.
(4) Nonpermissible IR equipment will only be used until equivalent permissible IR is available.
(5) A logbook will be maintained for electronic IR and will be kept in the mine office where the equipment is located. The logbook will contain the date of manufacture and/or purchase of each particular piece of electronic IR equipment and will be made available to MSHA on request.
(6) All nonpermissible electronic IR equipment to be used within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face will be examined by the person that will operate the equipment, prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These checks will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removing the battery and inspecting for corrosion.
(iii) Inspecting the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinserting the battery and powering up and shutting down to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checking the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(vi) Recording the results of the inspection in the equipment logbook.
(7) The equipment will be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153. The examination results will be recorded weekly in the logbook. Inspection entries in the logbook may be expunged after one year.
(8) All nonpermissible electronic IR equipment will be serviced according to
(9) The nonpermissible IR equipment that will be used within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance.
(10) Nonpermissible IR equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more of methane is detected while the nonpermissible IR equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn from within 150 feet of the pillar line or longwall face. Prior to returning to within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face, all requirements of 30 CFR 75.323 will be complied with.
(11) As an additional safety check, prior to energizing nonpermissible IR equipment within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face, the operator of the equipment will conduct a visual examination of the immediate area for evidence that the area appears to be sufficiently rock dusted and for the presence of accumulated float coal dust. If the rock dusting appears insufficient or the presence of accumulated coal dust is observed, the equipment may not be energized until sufficient rock dust has been applied and/or the accumulations of coal dust have been cleaned up.
(12) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper condition as defined by 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors must provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above one percent.
(13) Prior to energizing the electronic IR equipment within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face, methane tests must be made no more than eight inches from the roof or floor in the area where the equipment is to be used.
(14) All areas to be examined with nonpermissible IR equipment must be pre-shifted according to 30 CFR 75.360 prior to the IR examination. If the area is not pre-shifted a supplemental examination according to 30 CFR 75.361 must be performed before any non-certified person enters the area. If the area has been examined according to 30 CFR 75.360 or 75.361, an additional examination is not required.
(15) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible IR equipment within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face.
(16) Batteries contained in the IR equipment must be changed out or charged in intake air outside of 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face. Replacement batteries for the electronic IR equipment will not be brought within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face. Upon entry into the mine all batteries for the electronic IR equipment must be fully charged.
(17) When using nonpermissible electronic IR equipment within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face, the operator must confirm by measurement or by inquiry of the person in charge of the section that the intake air quantity to the pillar line or the longwall face, on that shift, is the quantity that is required by the mine's ventilation plan.
(18) Personnel engaged in the use of IR equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of IR equipment in areas where methane could be present.
(19) All persons who operate nonpermissible electronic IR equipment will receive specific training on the terms and conditions of this petition before using nonpermissible electronic equipment within 150 feet of a pillar line or longwall face. A record of the training will be kept with other training records.
(20) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for their approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the PDO. When training is conducted an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) will be completed. Comments on the certificate of training will indicate IR operator training.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) The mines consist of both development and production headings. Activities include drilling, blasting, scaling, loading and hauling of ore.
(2) The compressed air and bottled water will be used in proposed refuge areas located at various locations.
(3) The mines currently use designated points of safety (DPOS) located throughout the mine for areas of safe refuge in case of an emergency. The DPOS contains compressed air with a regulator, bottled water, first aid supplies, maps and a phone.
(4) As an alternative to compliance with the existing standard, Doe Run proposes the following:
(a) The proposed refuge chambers will be constructed out of fire resistant material.
(b) The door to the proposed refuge chambers will have at least a fire rating of one and one-half hours.
(c) The chamber will be equipped with at minimum three compressed air bottles each containing 7,929 liters at 310 cubic feet of Grade D breathing air; a regulator to meter the air; a minimum of 15 gallons of bottled water; first aid kit; stretcher; six tubes of latex caulk to seal around the door; one fire extinguisher; and a set of escape maps and an escape plan.
(d) A pager phone will be used for communication. The phone line servicing the phone will be a heavy jacketed, shielded line that runs from the main shop area to the refuge area, and a second line will be installed.
(e) The refuge chambers will be equipped with a ball valve located on the wall to relieve pressure build up from the use of the compressed air inside the chambers.
(f) Two benches will be located along the walls to provide seating for the miners.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Request to be Selected as Payee,” 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 May 1, 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-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, 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 Request to be Selected as Payee information collection. Benefits are payable by the DOL to miners who are totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis and to certain survivors of a miner under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 901
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
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, “Vinyl Chloride Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for
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 Vinyl Chloride (VC) Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.1017. The VC Standard is an occupational safety and health standard that protects workers from the adverse health effects that may result from exposure to VC. The Standard's information collection requirements are essential components protecting workers from occupational exposure. An Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) covered employer and workers use the information to implement the protections the Standard requires. The information collections in the VC Standard include notifying workers of VC exposures; written compliance and emergency programs; a respirator program; a worker medical surveillance program; and the development, maintenance, and disclosure of worker's exposure monitoring and medical records. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on 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,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.
Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
April 1, 2015.
Bryan A. Geurts, Patent Counsel, Goddard Space Flight Center, Mail Code 140.1, Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001; telephone (301) 286-7351; fax (301) 286-9502.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
April 1, 2015.
Robert H. Earp, III, Patent Attorney, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 21-14, Cleveland, OH 44135; telephone (216) 433-3663; fax (216) 433-6790.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
April 1, 2015.
Mark W. Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office—JPL, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Mail Stop 180-200, Pasadena, CA 91109; telephone (818) 354-7770.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark office, and are available for licensing.
April 1, 2015.
Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel, Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058, (281) 483-4871; (281) 483-6936 [Facsimile].
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
April 1, 2015.
James J. McGroary, Patent Counsel, Marshall Space Flight Center, Mail Code LS01, Huntsville, AL 35812; telephone (256) 544-0013; fax (256) 544-0258.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.
Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
April 1, 2015.
Robin W. Edwards, Patent Counsel, Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 30, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; telephone (757) 864-3230; fax (757) 864-9190.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.
Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
April 1, 2015.
Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of public meeting on General Records Schedule (GRS) 6.1.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces an open meeting to solicit comments on General Records Schedule (GRS) 6.1, Email Managed Under a Capstone Approach. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be on Thursday, May 21, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. You must R.S.V.P. for the meeting by 5 p.m. on May 18, 2015. If you wish to submit comments in writing instead, you must email them by close of business on June 1, 2015.
All meetings are held at 2:00 p.m.
Wednesday, April 1;
Thursday, April 2;
Tuesday, April 7;
Wednesday, April 8;
Thursday, April 9;
Tuesday, April 14;
Wednesday, April 15;
Thursday, April 16;
Tuesday, April 21;
Wednesday, April 22;
Thursday, April 23;
Tuesday, April 28;
Wednesday, April 29;
Thursday, April 30.
Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, 1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 20570.
Closed.
Pursuant to § 102.139(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider “the issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition . . . of particular representation or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.” See also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).
Henry Breiteneicher, Associate Executive Secretary, (202) 273-2917.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting a one-time exemption to South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) from NRC regulations that require that a licensee must use the criteria in NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” in effect six months before the examination date to prepare the written examinations and the operating tests. NUREG-1021, Revision 10, which was published on January 2, 2015, adds guidance for licensing operators of new reactors and includes NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors, Westinghouse AP1000,” dated October 2011, but does not go into effect until July 2, 2015. The exemption allows the licensee to use NUREG-1021, Revision 10, prior to July 2, 2015, to prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations and to prepare the operating tests required by NRC regulations.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0072 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:
•
•
•
Denise McGovern, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-0681, email:
The following sections include the text of the exemption in its entirety as issued to South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the licensee).
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) is the holder of Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and No. NPF-94, issued March 30, 2012, which authorize construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 (VCSNS). The licenses provide, among other things, that the licenses are subject to, and the licensee shall comply with, all applicable provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized-water reactors located in Fairfield County, South Carolina, which are currently under construction.
Title 10 of the
NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, establishes the policies, procedures, and practices for administering the required initial written examinations and operating tests, and is appropriate to use for currently operating pressurized water reactors (PWR) and boiling water reactors (BWR). NUREG-1021, Revision 10, allows for the preparation, administration, and evaluation of initial operator licensing examinations for the currently operating PWRs, BWRs, as well as the Westinghouse AP1000 reactors (AP1000), and the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). NUREG-1021, Revision 10, also contains a new examination standard, ES-401N, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations,” which ensures the equitable and consistent administration and evaluation of examinations for all applicants.
Under 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1), the licensee is required, as described in 10 CFR 55.40(a), to use NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, to prepare the AP1000 operator licensing written examinations and operator testing for the initial licensing examination of reactor operators and senior reactor operators (applicants) because NUREG-1021, Revision 10, which was published on January 2, 2015, will not be in effect for six months, or until July 2, 2015. This limited, one-time exemption would allow the licensee to use NUREG-1021, Revision 10, for the preparation and administration of the VCSNS initial operator licensing written examinations and operator testing prior to July 2, 2015.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the Commission may, upon application by an interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 55 when the exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property and are otherwise in the public interest.
This exemption would allow the licensee to develop, prepare, and evaluate initial operator licensing written examinations and operator testing for the AP1000 reactors under construction at its Fairfield County, South Carolina site prior to July 2, 2015. Under 10 CFR 55.11, the Commission's regulations allow the Commission to grant exemptions from the regulations in 10 CFR part 55 as the Commission determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property and are otherwise in the public interest. The NRC staff has determined that granting of this limited, one-time exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or other laws, and will not endanger life or property and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The purpose of 10 CFR part 55 is to establish the procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to reactor operators and senior reactor operators, provide the terms and conditions upon which the Commission will issue or modify those licenses, and provide the terms and conditions to maintain and renew those licenses. Specifically, 10 CFR 55.40(b) establishes the criteria licensees must use for the preparation and evaluation of the written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43, and the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45. 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1) requires licensees to prepare these written examinations and operating tests in accordance with the criteria in NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” as described in 10 CFR 55.40(a), which requires the use of the version of NUREG-1021 in effect six months before the examination date. NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, which does not address examination standards for the AP1000 reactor, is currently in effect. NUREG-1021, Revision 9 requires the use of NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors.” NUREG-1122 provides the basis for developing content-valid PWR licensing examinations and, in conjunction to the instructions in NUREG-1021, will ensure that the initial licensing examination includes a representative sample of the items specified in the regulations.
VCSNS will include two new Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized-water reactors, which are currently under construction at the site. The most significant new features in the AP1000 design involve the increased use of passive safety systems for accident prevention and mitigation that rely on passive means, such as gravity, natural circulation, condensation and evaporation, and stored energy. As a result, the AP1000 design includes many features that are not found in the designs of currently operating reactors, and certain systems, components, and processes that are part of the currently operating pressurized-water reactors are not a part of the AP1000 design. The AP1000 has numerous systems, including safety systems, not covered in NUREG-1122 that should be tested as part of a comprehensive operator licensing examination. Similarly, the knowledge, skills, and abilities of current PWR licensed operators are somewhat different from those of the future AP1000 licensed operators.
NUREG-1021, Revision 10, which addresses the AP1000 reactor, was issued on January 2, 2015, and does not go into effect until July 2, 2015. NUREG-1021, Revision 10, in addition to providing guidance for currently operating PWRs and BWRs, contains a new examination standard, ES-401N, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations.” ES-401N will provide guidance for the preparation and evaluation of the AP1000 design and site specific examinations. ES-401N provides for the use of NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors.” NUREG-2103 provides the basis for developing content-valid AP1000 licensing examinations and, in conjunction with the instructions in NUREG-1021, will ensure that the initial licensing examination includes a representative sample of the items specified in the regulations and improve the comprehensiveness of the examination over an examination developed using NUREG-1021, Revision 9. Accordingly, the NRC staff has determined that granting of the exemption will not endanger life or property.
The purpose of 10 CFR part 55 is to establish the procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to reactor operators and senior reactor operators, provide the terms and conditions upon which the Commission will issue or modify those licenses, and provide the terms and conditions to maintain and renew those licenses. Specifically, 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1) establishes the criteria licensees are required to use for the preparation and evaluation of the written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43, and the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45. 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1) requires licensees to prepare these written examinations and operating tests in accordance with the criteria in NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” as described in 10 CFR 55.40(a), which
NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, which does not address AP1000, is currently in effect, while NUREG-1021, Revision 10, which does address AP1000, was issued on January 2, 2015, does not go into effect until July 2, 2015. Because the exemption enables the use of guidance specific to the new AP1000 reactors that was not available in the previous revision of NUREG-1021, and will allow the licensee to utilize the appropriate criteria to prepare and evaluate operator licensing written examinations and operating tests, the NRC staff determined that the exemption is otherwise in the public interest.
With respect to the exemption's impact on the quality of the human environment, the NRC has determined that this specific exemption request is eligible for categorical exclusion as identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) and justified by the NRC staff as discussed below.
10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i): The criteria for determining whether there is no significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c)(1) through (3):
(1) The proposed exemption is administrative in nature and is limited to allowing the licensee to use NUREG-1021, Revision 10, to prepare and evaluate operator licensing written examinations and operating tests prior to July 2, 2015. The proposed exemption does not make any changes to the facility or operating procedures and does not alter the design, function or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, issuance of this exemption does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed exemption is administrative in nature and is limited to allowing the licensee to use NUREG-1021, Revision 10, to prepare and evaluate operator licensing written examinations and operating tests prior to July 2, 2015. The proposed exemption does not make any changes to the facility or operating procedures and would not create any new accident initiators. The proposed exemption does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, this exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed exemption is administrative in nature and is limited to allowing the licensee to use NUREG-1021, Revision 10, to prepare and evaluate operator licensing written examinations and operating tests prior to July 2, 2015. The proposed exemption does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. Therefore, this exemption does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has also determined that the exemption involves no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; that there is no significant construction impact; and there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The requirement from which an exemption is sought involves education, training, experience, qualification, requalification or other employment suitability requirements. Accordingly, the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, granting a limited, one-time exemption to the licensee from the requirements in 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1), allowing the use of NUREG-1021, Revision 10, for the preparation and evaluation of operator licensing written examinations and operator testing for the AP1000 reactors under construction at VCSNS, prior to July 2, 2015, is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants South Carolina Electric and Gas Company an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1), to allow the use of NUREG-1021, Revision 10, for the preparation and evaluation of operator licensing written examinations and operator testing for the AP1000 reactors under construction at the VCSNS, prior to July 2, 2015.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22, the Commission has determined that the exemption request meets the applicable categorical exclusion criteria set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), and the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability & PRA will hold a meeting on April 24, 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 the Human Reliability Analysis Development and Progress. 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), John Lai (Telephone 301-415-5197 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.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on April 23, 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 review the second supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SER) associated with the staff's review of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 license renewal application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of 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), Kent Howard (Telephone 301-415-2989 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.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C will hold a briefing on April 24, 2015, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will be briefed on Digital I&C designs that are under current review and associated topical reports. 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), Christina Antonescu (Telephone 301-415-6792 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.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the Postal Service's notice of a minor classification change regarding the issuance of new Forever stamps. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On March 25, 2015, the Postal Service filed a notice of minor classification changes under Commission rules 39 CFR 3020.90 and 3020.91.
The Postal Service states that the proposed changes reflect its objective to simplify the transactions associated with price changes. Notice at 2. It also seeks to eliminate the need for customers and the Postal Service to acquire and distribute new denominated stamps when a prices change occurs.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3020.92, the Commission has posted the Notice on its Web site and invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in Docket No. MC2015-42 are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020 subpart E. Comments are due no later than April 2, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth E. Richardson to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2015-42 to consider matters raised by the notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments by interested persons are due by April 2, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to existing rules to establish a default management committee (“Active Base OTC Default Management Committee” or “Committee”) and address over-the-counter (“OTC”) products that are subject to CME's base financial safeguards, including OTC FX.
In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning
CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and currently offers clearing services for many different futures and swaps products. With this filing, CME proposes to make rulebook changes that are limited to its business clearing futures and swaps under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. More specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to existing rules to establish a default management committee and address OTC products that are subject to CME's base financial safeguards, including OTC FX.
CME currently has an IRS Default Management Committee to assist with the management of a defaulting IRS Clearing Member's positions and a CDS Default Management Committee to assist with the management of a defaulting CDS Clearing Member's positions. The proposed rule change establishes the Committee as a similar construct to assist with the management of portfolio of its OTC Clearing Member's positions. The Committee will be comprised of traders in OTC products that are employees or directors of Base OTC Clearing Members (or their affiliates) and will serve on the Committee on a rotating basis. The Committee will assist CME in structuring hedges and portfolios for auction. Members of the Committee will also participate in default management drills for Base OTC products.
The proposed rule amendments are summarized further as follows:
• New CME Rule 8F025. (Active Base OTC Default Management Committee) will establish the Committee and specify its composition of traders in the relevant OTC products who will serve on a rotational basis;
• CME Rule 8F004 (OTC Clearing Member Obligations and Qualifications) amendments will add requirements for OTC Clearing Members to (i) avail traders with proper experience to the Committee and (ii) participate in OTC Derivative default drill exercises;
• CME Rule 8F014 (Mitigation of Losses) amendments will harmonize with the related OTC IRS and OTC CDS rules, including the deletion of allocations of OTC positions;
• CME Rule 8F002 (Definitions) amendments will add the terms “Base OTC Clearing Member” and “OTC Derivative Product Category.”
The proposed rule change that is described in this filing is limited to CME's business as a derivatives clearing organization clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME has not cleared security based swaps and does not plan to, and therefore the proposed rule change does not impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in any way. The proposed rule change will become effective immediately. CME notes that it has also submitted the proposed rule change that is the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission 14-080.
CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act including Section 17A of the Act.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, which means it is limited in its effect to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's activities as a derivatives clearing organization clearing futures that are not security futures and swaps that are not security-based swaps. CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.
Because the proposed rule change is limited in its effect to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, the proposed rule change is properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME that:
(a) primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect to products that are not securities, including futures that are not security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
(b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule change would make amendments to existing rules to establish a default management committee to further strengthen CME's ability to take timely action to contain losses resulting from OTC positions in the event of a default of a CME OTC Clearing Member. Further, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses and, as such, does not affect the security-based swap clearing activities of CME in any way and therefore does not impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 21049-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2015-005 and should be submitted on or before April 22, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to: (1) Modify the requirements for meeting Add Volume Tiers 5 and 6; (2) delete Tier 3 of the Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers; (3) adjust rebates for orders that yield fee code A; (4) add new fee code RN; (5) add a clarifying statement regarding fee codes applicable to certain orders routed to NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”); and (6) to make a non-substantive change to remove a typographical error.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to raise the ADAV
The Exchange is also proposing to eliminate Tier 3 of the Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers. Currently, the Exchange offers a $0.0032 rebate per share added to Members that qualify for Tier 3 of the Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers by having a Step-Up Add TCV
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.0015 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code A, which routes to Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and adds liquidity. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to decrease this rebate to $0.0004 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code A. The proposed change represents a pass through of the lowest possible rebate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, receives for adding liquidity on Nasdaq. When BATS Trading routes and adds liquidity to Nasdaq, it is rebated a standard rate of $0.0004 per share for orders in select symbols (“Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program”). When BATS Trading routes to Nasdaq in other symbols, it is rebated a standard rate of $0.0015 per share. Further, BATS Trading might qualify for tiered pricing that would increase the amount of the rebate received. However, due to billing system limitations that do not allow for separate rates on a security by security basis and in order to maintain a simple to understand fee schedule, the Exchange will provide a rebate of $0.0004 per share for executions in all Tapes A, B & C securities routed to Nasdaq that yield fee code A.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is in response to Nasdaq's January 2015 fee change where Nasdaq decreased the rebate it provides its customers, such as BATS Trading, for orders in symbols included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program from a rebate of $0.0015 per share to a rebate of $0.0004 per share.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new fee code RN, which would be applied to orders routed to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy that add liquidity. Orders that yield fee code RN will receive a rebate of $0.0015 per share. The ROOC Routing strategy routes orders to participate in the opening, re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), or closing process of a primary listing market if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of such market. In turn, an order that has been sent to participate in an opening or closing process may add liquidity prior to the commencement of such process. Proposed fee code RN represents a pass through of the standard rebate that BATS Trading, the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is rebated for added liquidity on Nasdaq in securities not included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program (presuming it does not qualify for a volume tiered rebate). When BATS Trading routes to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy and an order adds liquidity, BATS Trading receives a standard rebate of $0.0015 per share for securities that are not included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program. As noted above, due to billing system limitations that do not allow for separate rates on a security by security basis and in order to maintain a simple to understand fee schedule, the Exchange will pass through the rebate of $0.0015 per share for executions in all Tapes A, B & C securities routed to Nasdaq that yield fee code RN. The Exchange notes that fee code A above will continue to be applied to all orders routed to Nasdaq not utilizing the ROOC routing strategy that add liquidity.
Orders routed via ROOC that add liquidity at Nasdaq have previously yielded fee code A, and thus, have received a rebate of $0.0015 per share. The Exchange has proposed to add fee code RN to maintain the applicable pricing (
The Exchange proposes to add a bullet under the General Notes section of the Fee Schedule to describe the rates that would apply where the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”) or NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) declare an emergency condition under their Rule 49. Under NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 49, the NYSE or NYSE MKT may invoke their emergency powers during an emergency condition and designate NYSE Arca as their backup facility to receive and process bids and offers and to execute orders on behalf of the NYSE or NYSE MKT. In such case, the Exchange will route any order that was intended to be routed to the NYSE or NYSE MKT to NYSE Arca and the Exchange's System will identify such trades as being executed on NYSE Arca, not the NYSE or NYSE MKT. Because the executions occurred on NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca will charge BATS Trading their applicable fee or rebate, and BATS Trading will pass through that fee or rebate to the Exchange who would, in turn, pass that rate along to its Members. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to add a bullet to its Fee Schedule stating that fee codes applicable to orders routed to NYSE Arca will be applied to orders routed to the NYSE or NYSE MKT where, pursuant to NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 49, the NYSE or NYSE MKT have designated NYSE Arca as their backup facility to receive and process
The Exchange is proposing to make a non-substantive change to revise references to “the BZX Top” and “the BZX Last Sale” that are currently present in the Market Data Fees section of the fee schedule. The Exchange is proposing to delete the word “the” from those references.
The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee schedule effective immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the threshold of ADAV as a percentage of TCV that a Member must achieve in order to qualify for Tiers 5 and 6 of the Add Volume Tiers is reasonable, fair, and equitable because it will provide an incentive to Members to increase the amount of liquidity that they add on the Exchange. While the proposed changes would make it more difficult to meet or exceed the threshold to qualify for Tiers 5 and 6, the Exchange believes that the increased liquidity from incentivizing Members to increase their participation on the Exchange will benefit all investors by deepening the liquidity pool on the Exchange, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor protection would offset the negative effects that such an increase would have. The Exchange believes that tiered pricing programs such as that proposed herein reward a Member's increased participation on the Exchange and that such increased volume increases the potential revenue to the Exchange, which will allow the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand the incentive programs operated by the Exchange. Such pricing programs are also fair and equitable and non-discriminatory in that they are available to all Members. Further, volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones maintained by the Exchange, including those amendments proposed herein, have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate Tier 3 from the Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers is reasonable, fair, and equitable for several of the reasons stated above. Specifically, the requirements to qualify for Tier 3 and the increased rebate associated therewith have not operated in the way that it was designed or the way the Exchange believed in that it has not resulted in an increase in liquidity or any of the ancillary benefits to the market that come from increased liquidity on the Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes that removing the tier from its fee schedule is reasonable, fair, and equitable. The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the pass through rebate for Members' orders that yield fee code A from $0.0015 to $0.0004 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to the changes related to the Nasdaq Select Symbol Program, Nasdaq provided BATS Trading a rebate of $0.0015 per share for orders that added liquidity, which BATS Trading passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange passed through to its Members pursuant to fee code A. In January 2015, Nasdaq decreased the standard rebate it provides its customers, such as BATS Trading, from a rebate of $0.0015 per share to a rebate of $0.0004 per share for orders that add liquidity on Nasdaq in symbols included in its Select Symbol Program.
The Exchange believes its proposal to adopt new fee code RN, which would be applied to orders routed to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy that add liquidity, represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to Nasdaq through BATS Trading using the ROOC routing strategy. Proposed fee code RN represents a pass through of the standard rebate that BATS Trading, the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, receives for adding liquidity to Nasdaq in securities not included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program (presuming BATS Trading does not qualify for a volume tiered rebate). The Exchange believes the proposal to provide proposed fee code RN a rebate of $0.0015 per share is equitable and reasonable because it accounts for pricing on Nasdaq in securities not subject to the Select Symbol Program and it allows the Exchange to continue to provide its Members a pass-through rebate of $0.0015 per share for orders that are routed to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy. The Exchange notes that it has proposed to pass on the standard rebate of $0.0015 for executions that yield fee code RN even though the Exchange will receive a lower rebate per share, $0.0004 per share, for executions of securities that are included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure is equitable and reasonable because it does not represent a change from the current pricing applicable to orders sent through such strategy that add liquidity at Nasdaq and
The Exchange believes that adding a bullet under the General Notes section of the Fee Schedule to describe the rates that would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT declare an emergency condition under their Rule 49 is reasonable because it is designed to provide greater transparency to Members by describing which rates would apply in such circumstances. In the case when NYSE or NYSE MKT invoke their Rule 49, the Exchange will route any order that was intended for the NYSE or NYSE MKT to NYSE Arca and the Exchange's System will identify such trades as being executed on NYSE Arca, not the NYSE or NYSE MKT. Because the executions occurred on NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca will charge their applicable fee or rebate. The proposed bullet is intended to make clear within the Fee Schedule which rate would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT invoke their emergency powers under their Rule 49, thereby eliminating potential investor confusion, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest. The Exchange notes that routing through BATS Trading is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the non-substantive changes discussed above would contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest by helping to avoid confusion with respect the Exchange fee schedule.
As further described below, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Add Volume Tiers will allow the Exchange to compete more ably with other execution venues by drawing additional volume to the Exchange, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. Further, the Exchange does not believe that these proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate Tier 3 from the Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers will have no effect on competition because, as explained above, the tier has not had a significant impact on trading activity on the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that its proposal to amend the pricing for orders routed to Nasdaq would enhance the Exchange's ability to compete because the change is designed to insure that it is not providing a greater rebate than is being provided to BATS Trading by Nasdaq for an execution. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to add fee code RN for orders that route to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy and pass through a rebate of $0.0015 per share to Members would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route orders to Nasdaq to participate in their opening, re-opening or closing process for a similar rate as entering orders in certain symbols on Nasdaq directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that adding a bullet under the General Notes section of the Fee Schedule to describe which rates that would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT declare an emergency condition under their Rule 49 would not affect intermarket nor intramarket competition because none of these changes are designed to amend any rebate or alter the manner in which the Exchange calculates rebates. This change is not designed to have a competitive impact. Rather, it is intended to make clear to Members and investors within the Fee Schedule which rate would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT invoke their emergency powers under their Rule 49, thereby eliminating potential investor confusion.
The Exchange believes that the non-substantive changes to the fee schedule would not affect intermarket nor intramarket competition because none of the proposed changes are designed to amend any fee or rebate or to alter the manner in which the Exchange asses fees or rebates. The changes are intended to make the fee schedule as clear and concise as possible.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule in order to: (i) Adjust rebates for orders that yield fee code A; (ii) add new fee code RN; and (iii) add a clarifying statement regarding fee codes applicable to certain orders routed to NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”).
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.0015 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code A, which routes to Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and adds liquidity. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to decrease this rebate to $0.0004 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code A. The proposed change represents a pass through of the lowest possible rebate that BATS Trading, Inc. (“BATS Trading”), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, receives for adding liquidity on Nasdaq. When BATS Trading routes and adds liquidity to Nasdaq, it is rebated a standard rate of $0.0004 per share for orders in select symbols (“Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program”). When BATS Trading routes to Nasdaq in other symbols, it is rebated a standard rate of $0.0015 per share. Further, BATS Trading might qualify for tiered pricing that would increase the amount of the rebate received. However, due to billing system limitations that do not allow for separate rates on a security by security basis and in order to maintain a simple to understand fee schedule, the Exchange will provide a rebate of $0.0004 per share for executions in all
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is in response to Nasdaq's January 2015 fee change where Nasdaq decreased the rebate it provides its customers, such as BATS Trading, for orders in symbols included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program from a rebate of $0.0015 per share to a rebate of $0.0004 per share.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new fee code RN, which would be applied to orders routed to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy that add liquidity. Orders that yield fee code RN will receive a rebate of $0.0015 per share. The ROOC Routing strategy routes orders to participate in the opening, re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), or closing process of a primary listing market if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of such market. In turn, an order that has been sent to participate in an opening or closing process may add liquidity prior to the commencement of such process. Proposed fee code RN represents a pass through of the standard rebate that BATS Trading, the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is rebated for added liquidity on Nasdaq in securities not included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program (presuming it does not qualify for a volume tiered rebate). When BATS Trading routes to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy and an order adds liquidity, BATS Trading receives a standard rebate of $0.0015 per share for securities that are not included in Nasdaq's Select Symbol Program. As noted above, due to billing system limitations that do not allow for separate rates on a security by security basis and in order to maintain a simple to understand fee schedule, the Exchange will pass through the rebate of $0.0015 per share for executions in all Tapes A, B & C securities routed to Nasdaq that yield fee code RN. The Exchange notes that fee code A above will continue to be applied to all orders routed to Nasdaq not utilizing the ROOC routing strategy that add liquidity.
Orders routed via ROOC that add liquidity at Nasdaq have previously yielded fee code A, and thus, have received a rebate of $0.0015 per share. The Exchange has proposed to add fee code RN to maintain the applicable pricing (
The Exchange proposes to add a bullet under the General Notes section of the Fee Schedule to describe the rates that would apply where the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”) or NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) declare an emergency condition under their Rule 49. Under NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 49, the NYSE or NYSE MKT may invoke their emergency powers during an emergency condition and designate NYSE Arca as their backup facility to receive and process bids and offers and to execute orders on behalf of the NYSE or NYSE MKT. In such case, the Exchange will route any order that was intended to be routed to the NYSE or NYSE MKT to NYSE Arca and the Exchange's System will identify such trades as being executed on NYSE Arca, not the NYSE or NYSE MKT. Because the executions occurred on NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca will charge BATS Trading their applicable fee or rebate, and BATS Trading will pass through that fee or rebate to the Exchange who would, in turn, pass that rate along to its Members. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to add a bullet to its Fee Schedule stating that fee codes applicable to orders routed to NYSE Arca will be applied to orders routed to the NYSE or NYSE MKT where, pursuant to NYSE and NYSE MKT Rule 49, the NYSE or NYSE MKT have designated NYSE Arca as their backup facility to receive and process bids and offers and to execute orders on behalf of the NYSE or NYSE MKT.
The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee schedule effective immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the pass through rebate for Members' orders that yield fee code A from $0.0015 to $0.0004 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to the changes related to the Nasdaq Select Symbol Program, Nasdaq provided BATS Trading a rebate of $0.0015 per share for orders that added liquidity, which BATS Trading passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange passed through to its Members pursuant to fee code A. In January 2015, Nasdaq decreased the standard rebate it provides its customers, such as BATS Trading, from a rebate of $0.0015 per share to a rebate of $0.0004 per share for orders that add liquidity on Nasdaq in symbols included in its Select Symbol Program.
The Exchange believes its proposal to adopt new fee code RN, which would be applied to orders routed to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy that add liquidity, represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other
The Exchange believes that adding a bullet under the General Notes section of the Fee Schedule to describe the rates that would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT declare an emergency condition under their Rule 49 is reasonable because it is designed to provide greater transparency to Members by describing which rates would apply in such circumstances. In the case when NYSE or NYSE MKT invoke their Rule 49, the Exchange will route any order that was intended for the NYSE or NYSE MKT to NYSE Arca and the Exchange's System will identify such trades as being executed on NYSE Arca, not the NYSE or NYSE MKT. Because the executions occurred on NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca will charge their applicable fee or rebate. The proposed bullet is intended to make clear within the Fee Schedule which rate would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT invoke their emergency powers under their Rule 49, thereby eliminating potential investor confusion, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest. The Exchange notes that routing through BATS Trading is voluntary. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
As further described below, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange also believes that its proposal to amend the pricing for orders routed to Nasdaq would enhance the Exchange's ability to compete because the change is designed to insure that it is not providing a greater rebate than is being provided to BATS Trading by Nasdaq for an execution. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to add fee code RN for orders that route to Nasdaq using the ROOC routing strategy and pass through a rebate of $0.0015 per share to Members would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route orders to Nasdaq to participate in their opening, re-opening or closing process for a similar rate as entering orders in certain symbols on Nasdaq directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that adding a bullet under the General Notes section of the Fee Schedule to describe which rates that would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT declare an emergency condition under their Rule 49 would not affect intermarket nor intramarket competition because none of these changes are designed to amend any rebate or alter the manner in which the Exchange calculates rebates. This change is not designed to have a competitive impact. Rather, it is intended to make clear to Members and investors within the Fee Schedule which rate would apply where the NYSE or NYSE MKT invoke their emergency powers under their Rule 49, thereby eliminating potential investor confusion.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to its rules regarding the listing of new CDS indexes available for clearing.
In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and currently offers clearing services for many different futures and swaps products. With this filing, CME proposes to make rulebook changes that are limited to its business clearing futures and swaps under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. More specifically, the proposed changes would make amendments to its rules regarding the listing of new CDS indexes available for clearing.
CME offers clearing for CDX North American Investment Grade (Series 8-24) and CDX North American High Yield (14-24) Index Contracts. Further, CME plans to clear all future on-the-run series of the respective indices on a going forward basis. The proposed amendments would permit CME to maintain a list on its Web site of each index that a cleared CDX Index Untranched CDS Contract may reference, in lieu of maintaining such list in Appendix 1 to Rule 802, as it currently does. CME currently maintains on its Web site a similar list for iTraxx Europe Index Untranched CDS Contracts; the amendments proposed hereby would simply conform CME's practice for maintaining the list of indices for CDX Index Untranched CDS Contracts to CME's existing practice for maintaining the list of indices for iTraxx Europe Index Untranched CDS Contracts. The proposed amendments would affect CME Rules 80202.A.B. and 80202.B. and Appendix 1 of Rule 802.
The proposed rule change that is described in this filing is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). CME has not cleared security based swaps and does not plan to and therefore the proposed rule change does not impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in any way. The proposed rule change would become effective immediately. CME notes that it has also submitted the proposed rule change that is the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission 14-095.
CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, which mean they are limited in their effect to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, the changes are limited to CME's activities as a DCO clearing futures that are not security futures and swaps that are not security-based swaps. CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.
Because the proposed rule change is limited in their effect to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, the proposed rule change is properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME that:
(a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect to products that are not securities, including futures that are not security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
(b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed amendments would simply provide market participants with a consistent format for identifying product eligibility requirements. Further, the changes are limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses and, as such, do not affect the security-based swap clearing activities of CME in any way and therefore do not impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2015-010 and should be submitted on or before April 22, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information discussed below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.
Section 10(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the “Act”) prohibits a registered investment company (“fund”) from purchasing any security during an underwriting or selling syndicate if the fund has certain relationships with a principal underwriter for the security.
Rule 10f-3 permits a fund to engage in a securities transaction that otherwise would violate section 10(f) if, among other things: (i) Each transaction effected under the rule is reported on Form N-SAR; (ii) the fund's directors have approved procedures for purchases made in reliance on the rule, regularly review fund purchases to determine whether they comply with these procedures, and approve necessary changes to the procedures; and (iii) a written record of each transaction effected under the rule is maintained for six years, the first two of which in an easily accessible place.
Rule 10f-3 also conditionally allows managed portions of fund portfolios to purchase securities offered in otherwise off-limits primary offerings. To qualify for this exemption, rule 10f-3 requires that the subadviser that is advising the purchaser be contractually prohibited from providing investment advice to any other portion of the fund's portfolio and consulting with any other of the fund's advisers that is a principal underwriter or affiliated person of a principal underwriter concerning the fund's securities transactions.
These requirements provide a mechanism for fund boards to oversee compliance with the rule. The required recordkeeping facilitates the Commission staff's review of rule 10f-3 transactions during routine fund inspections and, when necessary, in connection with enforcement actions.
The staff estimates that approximately 270 funds engage in a total of approximately 3,350 rule 10f-3 transactions each year.
The funds also must maintain and preserve these transactional records in accordance with the rule's recordkeeping requirement, and the staff estimates that it takes a fund approximately 20 minutes per transaction and that annually, in the aggregate, funds spend approximately 1,117 hours
In addition, fund boards must, no less than quarterly, examine each of these transactions to ensure that they comply with the fund's policies and procedures. The information or materials upon which the board relied to come to this determination also must be maintained and the staff estimates that it takes a fund 1 hour per quarter and, in the aggregate, approximately 1,080 hours
The staff estimates that reviewing and revising as needed written procedures for rule 10f-3 transactions takes, on average for each fund, two hours of a compliance attorney's time per year.
Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 251 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements each year.
The staff estimates, therefore, that rule 10f-3 imposes an information collection burden of 4,060 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Commission is required under Section 342 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street and Reform Act to develop standards and procedures for ensuring the fair inclusion of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all of the Commission's business activities. The Commission is also required to develop standards for coordinating technical assistance minority-owned and women-owned businesses. As part of its implementation of Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission is developing a new electronic Supplier Diversity Business Management System (the System) to collect up-to-date business information and capabilities statements from diverse suppliers interested in doing business with the Commission. The information collected in the System will allow the Commission to update and more effectively manage its current internal repository of diverse suppliers. Further, the information in the System will also allow the Commission to measure the effectiveness of its technical assistance and outreach efforts, and target areas where additional program efforts are necessary.
Information will be collected in the System via web-based, e-filed, dynamic form-based technology. The company point of contact will complete a profile consisting of basic contact data and information on the capabilities of the business. The profile will include a series of questions, some of which are based on the data that the individual enters. Drop-down lists will be included where appropriate to increase ease of use.
The information collection is voluntary. The System is scheduled to be released in May 2015. There are no costs associated with this collection. The public interface to the System will be available via a web-link provided by the agency.
Estimated number of annual responses = 500
Estimated annual reporting burden = 250 hours (30 minutes per submission)
On January 27, 2015, the Commission published a 60-day notice in the
Written comments continue to be invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Background documentation for this information collection may be viewed at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the handling and processing of stock-option orders on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the handling and processing of stock-option orders represented in open outcry on the floor of the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt subparagraph (d) to Rule 6.48 (Contract Made on Acceptance of Bid or Offer) to extend electronic stock component routing functionality currently only available in the electronic trading environment to Public Automated Routing (“PAR”) workstation
Under Rule 1.1, a stock-option order is defined as “an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying or a related security coupled with either (a) the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either the same number of units of the underlying or related security or the number of units of the underlying security necessary to create a delta neutral position or (b) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same number of units of stock as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the underlying or related security portion of the order.”
Stock-option orders may be handled and processed on the Exchange in open outcry, with the stock portion of the order manually transmitted (
Stock-option orders may also be handled electronically on the Exchange, with the stock portion of the order being electronically transmitted by the Exchange to a non-affiliated third party Exchange-designated broker-dealer for execution at an away stock trading venue.
Currently, TPHs that wish to participate in electronic stock-option order processing must enter into a customer agreement with one or more designated broker-dealer that is not affiliated with the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to introduce enhanced PAR functionality that would allow TPHs and PAR Officials to route the stock portion of a stock-option order directly to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer for electronic execution at a stock trading facility. Under proposed Rule 6.48(d), TPHs and PAR Officials would be able to transmit stock portions of stock-option orders represented in open outcry directly from PAR to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer not affiliated with the Exchange for electronic execution at a stock trading venue. Thus, rather than executing stock orders manually via telephone, PAR users would be able to electronically send the stock portion of the stock-option order from PAR directly to an Exchange-designated broker-dealer for immediate execution at a stock trading venue. The Exchange notes that this functionality (electronic stock component order routing, processing, and handling), is already in use for electronic stock-option orders submitted into the Hybrid Trading System. The Exchange is merely proposing to extend this functionality to stock-option orders handled on the floor of the Exchange. The Exchange believes this added functionality will support more efficient stock-option order execution, streamline the steps required for open outcry stock-option order trading, and enhance the Exchange's audit trail by creating a more robust record of the stock component of stock option order executions on the floor of the Exchange.
Proposed Rule 6.48(d) would also provide that stock portions of stock-option orders represented in open outcry may be routed to a designated broker-dealer not affiliated with the Exchange for electronic execution at a stock trading venue as single orders or as paired orders (including with orders transmitted from separate PAR workstations). Consistent with current practices, the Exchange-designated broker-dealer would be responsible for the proper execution, trade reporting, and submission to clearing of the stock trade that is part of the stock-option order. Stock-option order executions for which the stock portion of the order could not be executed at the designated price would be nullified and the parties to the trade would be notified by the Exchange.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C. Under current Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C, the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be processed automatically unless the executing TPH has entered into a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated with the Exchange that can electronically execute the equity order on a stock trading venue. The Exchange proposes to change Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C to provide that the Trading Permit Holder shall give up a Clearing Trading Permit Holder previously identified to, and processed by the Exchange as a Designated Give Up for that Trading Permit Holder in accordance with Rule 6.21 and which has entered into a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated with the Exchange to electronically execute the stock component of the stock-option order at a stock trading venue selected by the Exchange-designated broker-dealer on behalf of the Trading Permit Holder. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would bring Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C in line with the Exchange's give up rules in Rule 6.21.
All trades are finalized not when they are executed, but when they clear. It is the CTPH, not the order entry TPH that guarantees authorization of a trade and accepts financial responsibility for all Exchange transactions made by the executing TPH. Because the CTPH is the party guaranteeing the transaction, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require that the CTPH enter into a brokerage agreement with an Exchange-designated broker-dealer not affiliated with the Exchange in order to route the stock portion of a stock-option order for electronic processing rather than requiring an executing TPH (that may be acting as agent or broker) to enter into such an agreement on the CTPH's behalf. Consistent with Rule 6.21, the CTPH should be responsible for order handling and processing requirements for trades that it guarantees.
Furthermore, under current Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C, the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be processed automatically unless the executing TPH has entered into a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated with the Exchange that can electronically execute the equity order on a stock trading venue. Accordingly, even when acting as agent or broker, a TPH cannot submit the stock portion of a stock-option order for electronic processing unless the TPH has entered into a brokerage agreement with an Exchange-designated broker-dealer that is not affiliated with the Exchange. The Exchange believes that current Interpretation and Policy .06(a) has a chilling effect on market activity because it prohibits TPHs from entering orders when acting as a broker for the account of a CTPH or a CTPH customer account. Brokers that represent a stock-option order merely as an executing agent rather than on behalf of their own customers may be less willing to enter into a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers and accept counterparty risk for a one-time fee. On the other hand, a CTPH that submits such an order to a floor broker on behalf of its own customer and has already accepted counterparty risk on behalf of its customer as clearing agent and would likely enter such a brokerage agreement willing as it would extend counterparty risk current parameters.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C to provide that TPHs shall give up a CTPH previously identified to, and processed by the Exchange as a Designated Give Up in accordance with Rule 6.21 and which has entered into a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated with the Exchange to electronically execute the stock portion of the stock-option order at a stock trading venue selected by the Exchange-designated broker-dealer.
The Exchange also proposes to change Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C to provide that stock-option orders may be executed against other electronic stock-option orders rather than state that such orders may be executed against other stock-option orders through the COB or COA. This change reflects the fact that such orders may be subjected to the Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) as well as executed through the COB or COA. Finally, the Exchange proposes conforming administrative changes to the Rules to include the language describing these functionality enhancements in Rules 6.45A and 6.45B. The proposed administrative changes would provide reference to this new technology within the priority rules for stock-option orders. Thus, these administrative changes merely add clarity to the Rules regarding the functionality available to TPHs on PAR.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by eliminating steps involved in stock-option order execution on the Exchange which allows for more efficient trading.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C to provide that the Trading Permit Holder shall give up a Clearing Trading Permit Holder previously identified to, and processed by the Exchange as a Designated Give Up for that Trading Permit Holder in accordance with Rule 6.21 and which has entered into a brokerage agreement with one or more Exchange-designated broker-dealers that are not affiliated with the Exchange to electronically execute the stock component of the stock-option order at a stock trading venue selected by the Exchange-designated broker-dealer on behalf of the Trading Permit Holder would help create a more robust market for stock-option orders and protect investors interests consistent with the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would bring Interpretation and Policy .06(a) to Rule 6.53C in line with the Exchange's give up rules in Rule 6.21. Consistent with Rule 6.21, the CTPH should be responsible for order handling and processing requirements for trades that it guarantees. The proposed amendments are reasonable and provide certainty that a CTPH will always be responsible for a trade, which protects investors and the public interest.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Interpretation and Policy .06 to Rule 6.53C providing that stock-option orders may be executed against other electronic stock-option orders and the proposed amendments to Rules 6.45A and 6.45B would add additional clarity and transparency to the Rules. The Exchange continues to evaluate its Rules to add additional clarity and transparency whenever possible. The Exchange believes that its efforts to clarify the Rules are in the interests of market participants and the general public and that providing added transparency in the Rules is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange already offers such orders and is merely introducing new functionality to execute such orders. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will pose a burden on intramarket competition or intermarket competition as these orders are already available on the Exchange. The functionality is available to all TPHs that choose to enter into the necessary agreements with the Exchange designated broker-dealer that is not affiliated with the Exchange. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition as it allows for market participants to more quickly execute stock-option orders via the Exchange's Hybrid System.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 17g-1 (17 CFR 270.17g-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(g)) governs the fidelity bonding of officers and employees of registered management investment companies (“funds”) and their advisers. Rule 17g-1 requires, in part, the following:
The form and amount of the fidelity bond must be approved by a majority of the fund's independent directors at least once annually, and the amount of any premium paid by the fund for any “joint insured bond,” covering multiple funds or certain affiliates, must be approved by a majority of the fund's independent directors.
The amount of the bond may not be less than the minimum amounts of coverage set forth in a schedule based on the fund's gross assets. The bond must provide that it shall not be cancelled, terminated, or modified except upon 60-days written notice to the affected party and to the Commission. In the case of a joint insured bond, 60-days written notice must also be given to each fund covered by the bond. A joint insured bond must provide that the fidelity insurance company will provide all funds covered by the bond with a copy of the agreement, a copy of any claim on the bond, and notification of the terms of the settlement of any claim prior to execution of that settlement. Finally, a fund that is insured by a joint bond must enter into an agreement with all other parties insured by the joint bond regarding recovery under the bond.
Upon the execution of a fidelity bond or any amendment thereto, a fund must file with the Commission within 10 days: (i) A copy of the executed bond or any amendment to the bond, (ii) the independent directors' resolution approving the bond, and (iii) a statement as to the period for which premiums have been paid on the bond. In the case of a joint insured bond, a fund must also file: (i) A statement showing the amount the fund would have been required to maintain under the rule if it were insured under a single insured bond; and (ii) the agreement between the fund and all other insured parties regarding recovery under the bond. A fund must also notify the Commission in writing within five days of any claim or settlement on a claim under the fidelity bond.
A fund must notify by registered mail each member of its board of directors of: (i) Any cancellation, termination, or modification of the fidelity bond at least 45 days prior to the effective date; and (ii) the filing or settlement of any claim under the fidelity bond when notification is filed with the Commission.
Rule 17g-1's independent directors' annual review requirements, fidelity bond content requirements, joint bond agreement requirement, and the required notices to directors are designed to ensure the safety of fund assets against losses due to the conduct of persons who may obtain access to those assets. These requirements also seek to facilitate oversight of a fund's fidelity bond. The rule's required filings with the Commission are designed to assist the Commission in monitoring funds' compliance with the fidelity bond requirements.
Based on conversations with representatives in the fund industry, the Commission staff estimates that for each of the estimated 3,319 active funds (respondents),
These estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission rules. The collection of information required by rule 17g-1 is mandatory and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are requested on: (i) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (iv) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 771 entitled “Excessive Trading of Members;” 832, entitled “Price Adjustment of Open Orders on Ex-Date;” and 1006 entitled “Other Restrictions on Exchange Options Transactions and Exercises.” The Exchange proposes to make minor amendments for rule conformity to Rules 1001, entitled “Position Limits;” 1002 entitled “Exercise Limits;” 1003 entitled “Reporting of Options Positions;” 1040 entitled “Failure to Pay Premium;” 1041 entitled “Options Contracts Of Suspended Members;” 1042 “Exercise of Equity Option Contracts;” 1044 “Delivery and Payment;” 1048 “Stock Transfer Tax;” and 1090 entitled “Clerks.” The Exchange proposes to delete Rules 1021 entitled “Excessive Dealing in Options;” 1038 entitled “Open Orders on Ex-Date; ” and 1045 “Officers and Employees Restricted.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to update certain of the 1000 series options rules to harmonize the Rulebook and modernize Exchange rules. The Exchange is also proposing to amend other non-options rules as well. The Exchange proposes to amend rule text, make minor technical amendments to certain rules, such as numbering, and to delete other rules. Each proposed rule change will be discussed in greater detail below.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 771, entitled “Excessive Trading of Members,” to combine rule text from Rule 1021 entitled “Excessive Dealing in Options. Both of these rules cover the same basic topic, excessive trading of members. Rule 1021 is specific to options, while Rule 771 is broader in nature. The Exchange proposes to add a new paragraph to Rule 771 which contains similar rule text to Commentary .01 of Rule 1021.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 832, entitled “Price Adjustment of Open Orders on Ex-Date,” to combine rule text from Rule 1038 entitled “Open Orders on Ex-Date.” Both of these rules cover the same basic topic, price adjustment of open orders on “Ex-Date.” Rule 1038 is specific to options, while Rule 832 is broader in nature. The Exchange proposes to add a new paragraph to Rule 832 which contains similar rule text to Rule 1038.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1006 entitled “Other Restrictions on Exchange Options Transactions and Exercises,” to harmonize this rule with NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NOM”) and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX”) rules at Chapter III, Section 12.
The Exchange proposes to add specific language concerning exercise of American-style cash-settled index options, which shall be prohibited during any time when trading in such options is delayed, halted, or suspended.
(1) The exercise of an American-style, cash-settled index option may be processed and given effect in
(2) Exercises of expiring American-style, cash-settled index options shall not be prohibited on the business day of expiration, or in the case of an option contract expiring on a day that is not a business day, the last business day prior to their expiration;
(3) Exercises of American-style, cash-settled index options shall not be prohibited during a trading halt that occurs at or after 4 p.m. Eastern time. In the event of such a trading halt, exercises may occur through 4:20 p.m. Eastern time. .[sic] In addition, if trading resumes following such a trading halt pursuant to the procedures described in Rules 1047 and 1047A, exercises may occur during the resumption of trading and for five (5) minutes after the close of the resumption of trading. The provisions of this subparagraph (a)(iii)(3) are subject to the authority of the Board to impose restrictions on transactions and exercises pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Rule; and
(4) Phlx may determine to permit the exercise of American-style, cash-settled index options while trading in such options is delayed, halted, or suspended.
(1) Less than a majority of the securities to be publicly distributed in such distribution are being sold by existing security holders;
(2) the underwriters agree to notify Phlx Regulation upon the termination of their stabilization activities; and
(3) the underwriters initiate stabilization activities in such underlying security on a national securities exchange when the price of such security is either at a “minus” or “zero minus” tick.
The Exchange believes that adopting the NOM and BX rules provides greater specificity with respect to restrictions on options transactions and exercises.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1001, entitled “Position Limits,” to remove the header “Commentary” from the rule and replace it with consecutive numbering. The remainder of the changes correct cross-references to the newly renumbered sections, remove extraneous dashes and add a period and outside parentheses to the numbering in the rule text to conform the text to the portion that is not in the Commentary today.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1002 entitled “Exercise Limits,” to similarly remove the header “Commentary” from the rule and replace it with consecutive lettering.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1003 entitled “Reporting of Options Positions,” to remove the footnote in the rule and instead place the language in the footnote within the body of the rule. A minor grammatical correction was made to remove a dash in this section in the word “market maker.”
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1040 entitled “Failure to Pay Premium,” to capitalize the certain terms and also utilize a newly defined term “OCC” throughout the rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1041 entitled “Options Contracts Of Suspended Members,” to utilize a newly defined term “OCC” throughout the rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1042 “Exercise of Equity Option Contracts,” to define the term “CEA” within the Rule and to remove the header “Commentary” and renumber the remainder of the rule. The Exchange is also proposing to remove a specific reference to The Options Clearing Corporation's Articles and instead refer to the by-laws more generally and utilize a newly defined term “OCC” throughout the rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1044 “Delivery and Payment,” to utilize a newly defined term “OCC” throughout the rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1048 “Stock Transfer Tax, utilize a newly defined term “OCC” throughout the rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1090 entitled “Clerks,” update a reference to an outdated “DOT machine” and replace that reference with the updated term “order handling entry device.” The Exchange also proposes to remove the header “Commentary” and renumber the remainder of the rule.
The Exchange proposes to delete Rules 1021 entitled “Excessive Dealing in Options;” and 1038 entitled “Open Orders on Ex-Date;” because these Rules are being combined with Rules 771 and 832, respectively, as described above. The Exchange is also proposing to delete Rule 1045 “Officers and Employees Restricted,” which is covered in detail by the Exchange's Code of Ethics.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule changes to amend various options rules should harmonize the Exchange's Rulebook by removing duplicate rules by combining general Phlx rules with options rules, conforming the language in certain rules by defining terms within the rules and removing Commentary sections and instead renumbering the rule; and deleting unnecessary rules. It is in the interests of the protection of investors to eliminate any confusion among market participants with respect to the Rulebook. The rule changes are intended to provide a clearer Rulebook in order that market participants are aware of their obligations. The Exchange believes that these amendments will make clear the manner in which the Exchange operates and thereby remove impediments to and provide free and open markets.
The Exchange's proposed deletion of Rule 1045 would not impact members because this rule applies solely to employees of the Exchange. The Exchange has policies and procedures which are applicable to employees which are not contained in the Rulebook. The Exchange believes that this rule, which does not apply to members, is not necessary to retain in the Rulebook. The proposed amendment to Rule 1006 to adopt similar NOM and BX Rules
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposed amendments seek to harmonize the Rulebook by combining duplicative rules, conforming the text of the rules and also deleting unnecessary rules. Certain of these amendments apply to all members, equity and options, and other rules related to options, apply specifically to options members. The rules uniformly apply to members transacting a specific product. The proposed amendments do not unduly burden competition on the Exchange.
The proposed amendment to Rule 1006 will provide members with a rule substantially similar to rules on NOM and BX.
The proposed deletion of Rule 1045 applies specifically to employees of the Exchange. This rule does not impact the competition among members transacting business on the Exchange but rather concerns the operation of the Exchange and conduct of its employees.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 27, 2015, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide for the clearing of Western European sovereign CDS contracts referencing four additional reference entities: The Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Denmark (the “Additional WE Sovereign Contracts”). ICE Clear Europe currently clears CDS contracts referencing six other Western European sovereigns: Ireland, the Republic of Italy, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Republic of Austria.
ICE Clear Europe has stated that the Additional WE Sovereign Contracts will constitute “Non-STEC Single Name Contracts” for purposes of the CDS Procedures and, accordingly, will be governed by Paragraph 10 of the CDS Procedures consistent with the treatment of the other Western European sovereign CDS contracts currently cleared by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe has represented that clearing of the Additional WE Sovereign Contracts will not require any changes to ICE Clear Europe's existing Clearing Rules and Procedures, risk management framework (including relevant policies), or margin model.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or impossible to submit electronically, as provided in Rule 311 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.311). The information contained in Form SE is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form SE is filed by individuals, companies or other entities that are required to file documents electronically. Approximately 31 registrants file Form SE and it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total annual burden of 3 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
On January 23, 2015 ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-ICC-2015-003 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC proposes to adopt rules that will provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap contracts. Specifically, ICC is proposing to amend Subchapter 26D-102 of its rules to provide for the clearance of additional Standard Emerging Market Sovereign single-name constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets Index (collectively, “SES Contracts”). Currently, ICC is approved to clear eight SES Contracts: the Federative Republic of Brazil, the United Mexican States, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Argentine Republic, the Republic of Turkey, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Hungary, and the Republic of South Africa.
ICC believes that the addition of these SES Contracts will benefit the market for emerging market credit default swaps by providing market participants the benefits of clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules. ICC states that the Additional SES Contracts will be offered on the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions and have terms consistent with the other SES Contracts approved for clearing at ICC and governed by Subchapter 26D of the ICC rules. According to ICC, the clearing of the Additional SES Contracts will not require any changes to ICC's Risk Management Framework or other
On March 25, 2015, ICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The purpose of the proposed rule change in Amendment No. 1 is to modify the list of proposed contracts set forth in the Initial Rule Filing. Specifically, ICC proposes removing Ukraine from the proposed list of contracts. Therefore, the proposed rule change, as amended, seeks approval for the clearance of the Republic of Chile, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Columbia, and the Republic of Poland. ICC states that Amendment No. 1 does not significantly change the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change. ICC believes the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, remains consistent with the promotion of the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, as described in the Initial Rule Filing.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that clearing of the Additional SES Contracts, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
As discussed above, ICC submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change to removing Ukraine from the proposed list of the Additional SES Contracts. The Commission believes that the modification by Amendment No. 1 to the Initial Rule Filing is consistent with the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC, 21049-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2015-003. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2015-003 and should be submitted on or before April 22, 2015.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), which requires agencies to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before May 1, 2015.
Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 5, 2015, in Conference Rooms 8-9-10 of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Headquarters Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the sixty-eighth Session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, May 11-15, 2015.
The agenda items to be considered include:
The United States actively supports efforts to provide protection, assistance, and durable solutions for refugees. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is a critical component of the United States' overall refugee protection efforts around the globe. In Fiscal Year 2015, the President established the ceiling for refugee admissions into the United States at 70,000 refugees.
As we begin to prepare the FY 2016 U.S. Refugee Admission Program, we welcome the public's input. Information about the Program can be found at
If you have questions about submitting written comments, please contact Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by May 1, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company (IHB), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and to operate, a 0.87-mile line of railroad (including branch lines) known as the Old Hammond Industrial Track, between milepost UO 0.03 and milepost UO 0.9 (including the underlying right-of-way between milepost UO 0.06 and milepost UO 0.9) in Cook County, Ill.
IHB certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. According to IHB, the lease does not contain any provision or agreement that may limit future interchange of traffic with a third-party connecting carrier.
The proposed transaction may be consummated on or after April 15, 2015, the effective date of this exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35910, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW.,
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting notice of RTCA Special Committee 234, Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the first meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 234, Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs).
The meeting will be held May 6th to 7th, 2015 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
RTCA Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 200036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 234. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 6 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA grants exemptions that will allow these 6 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt State laws and regulations and may be renewed.
The exemptions are effective April 1, 2015. The exemptions expire on April 1, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
FMCSA grants 6 individuals an exemption from the regulatory requirement in§ 391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take anti-seizure
In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the Agency considered both current medical literature and information and the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review of scientific literature that was compiled into the “
On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.
•
•
The MEP report indicates individuals with moderate to high-risk conditions should not be certified. Drivers with a history of a single provoked seizure with low risk factors for recurrence should be recertified every year.
FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the
The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but believes relevant current medical evidence supports a less conservative approach. The medical advisory criteria for epilepsy and other seizure or loss of consciousness episodes was based on the 1988 “Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers” (NITS Accession No. PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can be found in the docket referenced in this notice.
The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007 MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to 6 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 6 drivers receiving
In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant, FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 6 drivers, some of whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS were searched for crash and violation data on the 6 applicants. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing agency.
These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical qualifications for CMV drivers.
FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a
On October 1, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on seven individuals (79 FR 59345; Docket number FMCSA-2014-23439). The comment period ended on October 31, 2014. No commenters responded to this
Mr. Bland is a 51 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a history of three possible seizures due to head trauma in 2003. He has taken anti-seizure medication since 2004 with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2009. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Bland receiving an exemption.
Mr. Celedonia is a 44 year-old driver in Maryland. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2007. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Celedonia receiving an exemption.
Mr. Chizek is a 35 year-old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2008. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Chizek receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hardy is a 54 year-old class B CDL holder in Massachusetts. He has a history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1985. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2011. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hardy receiving an exemption.
Mr. Mitchell is a 54 year-old class A CDL holder in Mississippi. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Mitchell receiving an exemption.
Mr. Sandhu is a 52 year-old driver in California. He has a history of a possible seizure after a surgical resection of an arteriovenous malformation. He does not require anti-seizure medication. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Sandhu receiving an exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting the driver to driving in intrastate commerce.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 6 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of each driver's safety experience, and medical condition. Safety analysis of information relating to these 6 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV industry will gain 6 highly trained and experienced drivers. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for 2 years, with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 6 drivers for a period of 2 years with annual medical certification required: Ronald Bland (OH); Joseph Celedonia (MD); Mathew Chizek (WI); Gregory Hardy (MA); Thomas Mitchell (MS); and Himat Sandhu (CA) from the prohibition of CMV operations by persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures. If the exemption is still in effect at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by May 1, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson at (202) 267-1416, or by email at:
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Request for nominations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests nominations of individuals for selection to the Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC). Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for IRPAC membership, including the applicant's past or current affiliations and dealings with the particular tax segment or segments of the community that he or she wishes to represent on the committee. In addition to individual nominations, the IRS is soliciting nominations from professional and public interest groups that wish to have representatives on the IRPAC. IRPAC will be comprised of 19 members. There are six positions open for calendar year 2016. It is important that IRPAC continue to represent a diverse taxpayer and stakeholder base. Accordingly, to maintain membership diversity, selection is based on the applicant's qualifications as well as the taxpayer or stakeholder base he/she represents.
The IRPAC advises the IRS on information reporting issues of mutual concern to the private sector and the federal government. The committee works with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and other IRS leadership to provide recommendations on a wide range of information reporting administration issues. Membership is balanced to include representation from the tax professional community, small and large businesses, banks, colleges and universities, and industries such as securities, payroll, finance and software.
Written nominations must be received on or before May 29, 2015.
Nominations should be sent to: Ms. Caryl Grant, IRS National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:SRM, Room 7559, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, Attn: IRPAC Nominations. Applications may also be submitted via fax to 855-811-8020 or via email at
Ms. Caryl Grant at 202-317-6851 (not a toll-free number) or
Established in 1991 in response to an administrative recommendation in the final Conference Report of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the IRPAC works closely with the IRS to provide recommendations on a wide range of issues intended to improve the information reporting program and achieve fairness to taxpayers. Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities to the Commissioner, the IRPAC is comprised of individuals who bring
Each IRPAC member is nominated by the Commissioner with the concurrence of the Secretary of Treasury to serve a three-year term. Working groups address policies and administration issues specific to information reporting. Members are not paid for their services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and transportation are reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged, and all individuals will be notified when selections have been made. In accordance with Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, a clearance process including fingerprints, annual tax checks, a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal check and a practitioner check with the Office of Professional Responsibility will be conducted. Equal opportunity practices will be followed for all appointments to the IRPAC in accordance with the Department of Treasury and IRS policies. The IRS has special interest in assuring that women and men, members of all races and national origins, and individuals with disabilities are welcomed for service on advisory committees and, therefore, extends particular encouragement to nominations from such appropriately qualified candidates.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in New York, NY.
The meeting will be held April 15, 2015.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.
John P. O'Dea, 290 Broadway, New York, NY, 10007. Telephone (212) 298-2132 (not a toll free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007. The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103. A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in Sunshine Act and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend HUD's regulations to fully implement the requirements of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as reauthorized in 2013 under the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013). VAWA 2013 provides enhanced statutory protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA 2013 also expands VAWA protections to HUD programs beyond HUD's public housing and Section 8 programs, which were covered by the reauthorization of VAWA in 2005 (VAWA 2005). In addition to proposing regulatory amendments to fully implement VAWA 2013, HUD is also publishing for public comment two documents concerning tenant protections required by VAWA 2013—a notice of occupancy rights and an emergency transfer plan. Although VAWA refers to women in its title, the statute makes clear that the protections are for all victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at
For information about: HUD's Public Housing program, contact Todd Thomas, Acting Director, Public Housing Management and Operations Division, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Room 4210, telephone number 202-402-5849; HUD's Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8), contact Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Room 4216, telephone number 202-402-6050; HUD's Multifamily Housing programs, contact Yvette M. Viviani, Director, Housing Assistance Policy Division, Office of Housing, Room 6138, telephone number 202-708-3000; HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships program, contact Virginia Sardone, Director, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Room 7164, telephone number 202-708-2684; HUD's Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program, contact William Rudy, Acting Director, Office of HIV/AIDS Housing, Office of Community Planning and Development, Room 7212, telephone number 202-708-1934; and HUD's Homeless programs, contact Ann Marie Oliva, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance, Office of Community Planning and Development, telephone number 202-708-4300. The address for all offices is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410. The telephone numbers listed above are not toll-free numbers. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.
This rule commences the rulemaking process to implement those provisions of VAWA 2013 that are not self-implementing. The reauthorization of VAWA 2013 expanded applicability of the VAWA protections to HUD programs beyond those HUD programs specified in VAWA 2005. VAWA 2013 also explicitly specifies sexual assault, which was not covered in VAWA 2005, as covered by VAWA protections. VAWA 2013 also expands the protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by requiring housing providers to have emergency transfer plans, and by providing reasonable time for tenants to establish eligibility for assistance under a VAWA-covered program where an assisted household has to be divided as a result of domestic violence. While the core protections of VAWA—prohibition on denying or terminating housing assistance on the basis that an applicant or tenant is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking—apply without rulemaking and HUD has advised its program participants of such immediate applicability, other requirements of VAWA 2013 must first be submitted for public comment, and this proposed rule addresses those requirements.
The importance of having HUD's VAWA regulations updated cannot be overstated. The expansion of VAWA 2013 to other HUD rental assistance programs emphasizes the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
Key regulatory provisions to be addressed by this rule include proposed regulations that would:
• Include “sexual assault” as an action covered by VAWA protections, an action that was not included for HUD-covered programs by VAWA 2005.
• Establish a definition for “affiliated individual” based on the statutory definition and that is usable and workable for programs covered by VAWA.
• Apply VAWA protections to the Housing Trust, which was not statutorily listed as a covered program.
• Establish a reasonable period of time during which a tenant (in situations where the tenant is not the perpetrator) may establish eligibility to remain in housing, where the tenant's household is divided due to domestic violence, dating, violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and where the tenant was not the member of the household that previously established eligibility for assistance.
• Establish what constitutes a safe and available unit to which a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking can be transferred on an emergency basis.
• Establish what documentation requirements, if any, should be required of a tenant seeking an emergency transfer to another assisted unit.
Please refer to section II of this preamble, entitled “This Proposed Rule” for a more detailed discussion of all the changes proposed by this rule.
The benefits of HUD's proposed regulations include codifying, in regulation, the protections of VAWA to HUD programs beyond HUD's public housing and Section 8 programs that have been covered since VAWA 2005; strengthening the rights of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in HUD-covered programs, including confidentiality rights; and possibly minimizing the loss of housing by such victims through the bifurcation of lease provision and emergency transfer provisions. With respect to rental housing, VAWA was enacted to bring housing stability to victims of domestic violence. It was determined that legislation was needed to require protections for victims of domestic violence in rental housing because landlords often responded to domestic violence occurring in one of their rental units by evicting the tenant regardless of whether the tenant was a victim of domestic violence, and refusing to rent to victims of domestic violence on the basis that violence would erupt in the victim's unit if the individual was accepted as a tenant. To ensure that landlords administering HUD rental assistance did not respond to domestic violence by denying or terminating assistance, VAWA 2005 brought HUD's public housing and Section 8 programs under the statute's purview, and VAWA 2013 covered the overwhelming majority of HUD programs providing rental assistance.
The costs of the regulations are primarily paperwork costs. These are the costs of providing notice to applicants and tenants of their occupancy rights under VAWA, the preparation of an emergency transfer plan, and documenting an incident or incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The costs, however, are minimized by the fact that VAWA 2013 requires HUD to prepare the notice of occupancy rights to be distributed to applicants and tenants; to prepare the certification form that serves as a means of documenting the incident or incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; and to prepare a model emergency transfer plan that guides the entities and individuals administering the rental assistance provided by HUD in developing their own plans.
HUD invites comment on its proposed regulations updating VAWA protections in HUD-covered programs. In this preamble, HUD includes twelve requests for comment on specific issues, and welcomes consideration of additional issues that may be identified by commenters.
On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed into law VAWA 2013 (Pub. L. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54). VAWA 2013 reauthorizes and amends VAWA 1994 (Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of Pub. L. 103-322), which was previously reauthorized by VAWA 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386) and VAWA 2005 (Pub. L. 109-162, approved January 5, 2006, with technical corrections made by Pub. L. 109-271, approved August 12, 2006). As originally enacted in 1994, VAWA provided protections and services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and authorized funding to combat and prosecute perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence crimes. VAWA 1994 was not applicable to HUD programs.
The VAWA 2005 reauthorization brought HUD's public housing program and HUD's tenant-based and project-based section 8 programs (collectively, the Section 8 programs) under coverage of VAWA by amending sections 6 and 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act) (42 U.S.C. 1437
Title VI of VAWA 2013, “Safe Homes for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking,” contains the provisions that are applicable to HUD programs. Specifically, section 601 of VAWA 2013 removes VAWA protections from the 1937 Act and adds a new chapter to Subtitle N of VAWA 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043e
On August 6, 2013, at 78 FR 47717, HUD issued a
Many of the comments submitted in response to the August 6, 2013, notice asked HUD to advise program participants that certain VAWA protections are in effect without the necessity of rulemaking. In response to these comments, HUD offices administering the housing programs covered by VAWA 2013 reached out to participants in the HUD programs to advise them that the basic protections of VAWA—not denying or terminating assistance to victims of domestic violence and expanding the VAWA protections to victims of sexual assault—are in effect, and do not require notice and comment rulemaking for compliance, and that they should proceed to comply with the basic VAWA protections.
This section of the preamble describes the regulatory changes that HUD proposes to make to HUD's regulations to fully implement the rights and protections of VAWA 2013.
Subpart L of 24 CFR part 5 contains the core requirements of VAWA 2013 that are applicable to the HUD housing programs covered by VAWA (defined in this proposed rule as “covered housing programs”). The regulations in this subpart are supplemented by the regulations for the covered housing programs. The program-specific regulations address how certain VAWA requirements are to be implemented for the applicable covered housing program, given the statutory and regulatory framework for the program. While the regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, establish the core requirements of VAWA and how the VAWA requirements are to be implemented generally, the program specific regulations, given the statutory parameters of the individual covered housing program, may provide for some VAWA protections to be applied differently from that provided in the part 5 regulations.
The variations in implementation primarily pertain to the requirements governing: Bifurcation of a lease to remove the perpetrator of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; emergency transfers; and who can request documentation pertaining to incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or staking. The variations are largely found in the programs administered by HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD).
VAWA 2013 continues to contain language that reflects the structure of the HUD housing programs first covered by VAWA 2005; that is, housing that is administered by a public housing agency (PHA). The VAWA 2013 provisions do not quite match the structure of the newly covered HUD programs, in which housing is not administered by a PHA. In proposing how the VAWA protections are to be implemented in the newly covered programs, HUD took into account both the statutory and regulatory framework of each program and HUD's experiences in both administering the program and in working with the different entities that administer the program. In each case, HUD strived to fulfill the underlying intent of the VAWA protections and provide meaningful protection to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. As the proposed regulatory text reflects, for some of the newly covered programs, greater responsibility to provide and oversee VAWA protections is placed on the entities that receive funding directly from HUD. For the other newly covered programs, more responsibility is placed on the housing owners or managers. For example, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME program) provides formula grants to States and localities for a wide range of activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income people, but the States and local jurisdictions are not responsible for administering assistance for rental housing in the same way that public housing agencies administer the public housing program. Under the HOME program, the assistance is administered by the property owner or manager, with the directly funded agencies (the states and localities) overseeing the administration of this eligible activity.
Existing § 5.2001 lists the HUD programs covered by VAWA. This rule would amend § 5.2001 to include the new HUD housing programs added by VAWA 2013, and to advise that the regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, address the statutory requirements of VAWA but that application of the requirements to a specific program, as discussed in the preceding section, may vary given the statutory and regulatory framework of that individual covered housing program.
As provided in § 5.2001, applicable “assistance” provided under the covered housing programs generally consists of two types (one or both): Tenant-based rental assistance, which is rental assistance that is provided to the tenant; and project-based assistance, which is assistance that attaches to the unit in which the tenant resides. For project-based assistance, the assistance may consist of such assistance as
Under VAWA, an individual who is an immediate family member as defined under VAWA 2005 or an affiliated individual under the broader terminology adopted in VAWA 2013 does not receive VAWA protections if the individual is not on the lease. However, if an affiliated individual is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and the tenant is not the perpetrator of such actions, the tenant cannot be evicted or have assistance terminated because of the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking suffered by the affiliated individual. In addition, if the affiliated individual were to apply for housing assistance, the affiliated individual could not be denied assistance on the basis that the affiliated individual is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
HUD adds this definition of “affiliated individual” to § 5.2003, but proposes to modify the statutory definition slightly for purposes of clarity and replaces the Latin term “in loco parentis” with plain language terminology. HUD proposes to define “affiliated individual” as follows: Affiliated individual, with respect to an individual, means: (A) A spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child of that individual, or a person to whom that individual stands in the place of a parent to a child (for example, the affiliated individual is a child in the care, custody, or control of that individual); or (B) any individual, tenant, or lawful occupant living in the household of that individual.
In response to HUD's August 6, 2013, notice, a few commenters asked for more information about who could be considered an “affiliated individual,” and whether a live-in aide or caregiver would qualify. A commenter stated that because program participants must inform housing authorities and gain approval for the admittance of all household members, “affiliated individuals” should not include those who are unreported members of a household, or else it would result in the situation in which VAWA protections would extend to individuals violating program regulations.
HUD agrees with the commenter and does not read the statute to apply VAWA protections to guests, and unreported members of the household. The protections of VAWA are directed to the tenants. Generally, tenants in the HUD programs covered by VAWA (in some HUD programs, tenants are referred to as “program participants” or “participants”) are individuals, who, at the time of admission, were screened for compliance with the eligibility requirements specified by the HUD covered program in which the tenant participates. Once admitted, these tenants have contractual rights under a lease and may have certain administrative protections, such as a right to an informal hearing before termination of assistance or eviction occurs. These rights and privileges do not apply to unauthorized or unreported members of the household, such as guests, nor do they apply to affiliated individuals.
A commenter asked that the VAWA regulations contain a definition of “family” that is consistent with HUD's definition of “family” at 24 CFR 5.403. With the removal of reference to “family” in the VAWA statute and regulations, HUD believes there is no need to add a definition of “family” in the VAWA regulations. Additionally, the majority of HUD programs covered by VAWA 2013 already incorporate the definition of “family” in 24 CFR 5.403.
This rule would amend the definition of “bifurcate” to remove reference to a “public housing or section 8 lease” since VAWA 2013 makes bifurcation of a lease an option in all covered housing programs, subject to permissibility to bifurcate a lease under the program requirements and/or state and local laws, as may be applicable.
This rule also proposes to revise the definition of “bifurcate” to reflect that VAWA 2013 authorizes a covered housing provider to evict, remove, or terminate assistance to any individual who is a tenant or a lawful occupant of a unit and who engages in criminal activity directly relating to domestic
The rule proposes to define “bifurcate” to mean dividing a lease as a matter of law, subject to the permissibility of such process under the requirements of the applicable covered housing program and State or local law, such that certain tenants or lawful occupants can be evicted or removed and the remaining tenants or lawful occupants can continue to reside in the unit under the same lease requirements or as may be revised depending upon the eligibility for continued occupancy of the remaining tenants and lawful occupants.
VAWA 2013 also revises the bifurcation process in VAWA 2005, and these changes are addressed in § 5.2009.
For some of the HUD covered housing programs, the program may include assistance to which VAWA protections may not apply. For example, HUD's HOME program offers homeownership assistance (see 24 CFR part 92), and the HOME program's homeownership assistance is not covered by VAWA. The type of assistance to which VAWA protections apply, based on the statutory provisions themselves, is assistance for rental housing, as discussed under the proposed definition of “assistance.” This type of assistance generally involves a tenant, a landlord (the individual or entity that owns and/or leases rental units) and a lease specifying the occupancy rights and obligations of the tenant.
Accordingly, this rule defines “covered housing program” to encompass the HUD programs specified by the statute. The following highlights the types of assistance in which the VAWA protections apply to a covered housing program, given the statutory structure of the program. HUD does not highlight in the regulatory text of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, the types of assistance within each covered housing program to which VAWA protections apply or may not apply. Programs change, as a result of statutory changes, including changes made by appropriations acts, and providing such specificity of assistance in the part 5 regulatory text could quickly be outdated. However, the program-specific regulations will reflect any changes in the coverage of VAWA protections.
(1) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (12 U.S.C. 1701q), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 891. Coverage of the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program includes Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contracts (SPRAC), and Project Assistance Contracts (PAC). Coverage excludes Section 202 Direct Loan Projects that are without project-based Section 8 assistance (assistance necessary for VAWA coverage).
(2) Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (42 U.S.C. 8013), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 891. Coverage of the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program includes housing assisted under the Capital Advance Program and the Section 811 Rental Assistance Program, as authorized under the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act (Pub. L. 111-274, approved January 4, 2011).
(3) Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program (42 U.S.C. 12901
(4) HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program (42 U.S.C. 12741
(5) Homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360
(6) Multifamily rental housing under section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 17151(d)) with a below-market interest rate (BMIR) pursuant to section 221(d)(5), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 221. The Section 221(d)(3) BMIR program insured and subsidized mortgage loans to facilitate new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental cooperative housing for low- and moderate-income families. The program is no longer active, but Section 221(d)(3) BMIR properties that remain in existence are covered by VAWA. Coverage of Section 221(d)(3)/(d)(5) BMIR housing does not include section 221(d)(3)/(d)(5) BMIR projects that refinance under section 223(a)(7) or 223(f) of the National Housing Act where the interest rate is no longer determined under section 221(d)(5).
(7) Multifamily rental housing under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 236. Coverage of the Section 236 program includes not only those projects with mortgages under section 236(j) of the National Housing Act, but also non-FHA-insured projects that receive interest reduction payments (“IRP”) under section 236(b) of the National Housing Act and formerly insured Section 236 projects that continue to receive interest reduction payments through a “decoupled” IRP contract under section 236(e)(2) of the National Housing Act. Coverage also includes projects that receive rental assistance payments authorized under section 236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act.
(8) HUD programs assisted under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437
(9) The Housing Trust Fund (12 U.S.C. 4568) (with regulations forthcoming). In addition to the statutorily covered housing programs, HUD proposes to include in the definition of “covered housing programs” the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). In its proposed rule to establish program regulations for HTF, published on October 29, 2010, at 75 FR 66978, HUD proposed to codify the HTF program regulations in the same CFR part, 24 CFR part 92, in which the HOME program regulations are codified. HUD stated that the reason for the proposed codification of the HTF regulations in the same CFR part as the HOME program regulations was that the two programs were similar to each other in most respects.
The program-specific regulations for the HUD programs covered by VAWA identify the individual or entity that carries out the duties and responsibilities of the covered housing provider, as set forth in part 5, subpart L. For any of the covered housing programs, there may be more than one covered housing provider; that is, depending upon the VAWA duty or responsibility to be performed, the covered housing provider may not always be the same individual or entity. This is the case generally for the newly covered HUD programs, for the reasons discussed earlier in this preamble, and that is that they are not administered by a PHA as was the case under the HUD program covered by VAWA 2005. For example, in the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment programs, for which regulations are found in 24 CFR parts 880, 883, 884, and 886, and for which administration involves both a PHA and an owner of the housing, it is the PHA, not the owner, that is responsible for distributing to applicants and tenants the “notice of occupancy rights under VAWA, and certification form” described at 24 CFR 5.2005(a). It is the owner (not the PHA) that may choose to bifurcate a lease as described at 24 CFR 5.2009(a), and as discussed below, but it is the PHA, not the owner, that is responsible for providing the “reasonable time to establish eligibility for assistance following bifurcation of a lease” described at 24 CFR 5.2009(b), which is also discussed below.
This rule would add the definition of “sexual assault” to the definitions in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and would also add reference to victims of sexual assault where other victims protected under VAWA are addressed (
VAWA 2013 expands on the protections provided by VAWA 2005, and which are currently codified in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 5.2005. VAWA 2005 obligated each PHA, owner, and manager of assisted housing to provide notice to tenants of their rights under VAWA, including the right to confidentiality. In addition, VAWA 2005 obligated each PHA to provide notice to owners and managers of assisted housing of their rights and obligations under VAWA. These requirements are addressed in HUD's existing regulations at 24 CFR 5.2005(a).
VAWA 2013 states that the notice, to be developed by HUD, must also include the rights to confidentiality and the limits to such confidentiality. The confidentiality rights provided by VAWA and the limits on such rights, which are to be addressed in this notice, are also proposed to be codified in § 5.2007(c) of HUD's regulations, as further discussed below. VAWA 2013 provides that any information submitted to a covered housing provider by an applicant or tenant (the individual), including the fact that the individual is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, shall be maintained in confidence by the covered housing provider and may not be entered into any shared database or disclosed to any other entity or any other individual, except to the extent that the disclosure is: (1) Requested or consented to by the individual in writing, (2) required for use in an eviction proceeding involving VAWA protections, or (3) otherwise required by applicable law. The “otherwise required by applicable law” includes any additional procedures that may be provided under the regulations of the applicable covered HUD programs, or as required by other Federal, State, or local law.
Unlike the emergency transfer plan, discussed below, which VAWA 2013 refers to as a “model plan,” the statute does not refer to the notice of occupancy rights as a “model” notice. HUD believes that the difference in referring to the emergency transfer plan as a model plan but not referring to the notice of occupancy rights as a model notice may pertain, with respect to the plan, to the ability and feasibility of a covered housing provider to transfer a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to an available and safe unit, which may vary significantly given program differences. However, the basic protections of VAWA apply to all covered housing programs, notwithstanding program differences.
HUD, therefore, reads the statutory provision as requiring covered housing providers to issue the notice as developed by HUD, without substantive changes to the core protections and confidentiality rights in the notice, but that covered housing providers should customize the notice to reflect the specific assistance provided under the particular covered housing program, and to their program operations that may pertain to or affect the notice of occupancy rights. For example, covered housing providers should add to the notice information that identifies the covered program at issue (
A commenter on the August 6, 2013, notice asked for clarification of the meaning of the term “directly relating” in the context of criminal activity stating that it assumed that the use of the word “directly” was intended to limit the reach of the protection. The commenter is correct. The prohibition in VAWA on denying or terminating assistance on the basis of criminal activity, is not intended to cover all criminal activity, such as criminal activity related to the selling and distribution of narcotics, but rather solely to the criminal activity that specifically relates to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. HUD believes that, read in context of the full VAWA provision, the term is clear and no further elaboration is needed.
Although “actual or threatened” was removed by VAWA 2013 from almost all places that this term appeared in VAWA 2005, VAWA 2013 retains its use here with respect to direction on how to construe leases. The limited use of “actual or threatened” in VAWA 2013 may be because the VAWA protections that are applicable to individuals under the “threat” of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking are limited to tenants; thus, necessitating the need to reference to “threatened” acts in determining lease violations. A tenant's fear of “threatened” harm also arises in the context of a tenant's request to be transferred to another unit. (See discussion of the emergency transfer plan later in this preamble.)
It is HUD's position that consideration of “threatened” acts of domestic violence is an important component of reducing domestic violence, and the intent of VAWA is to reduce domestic violence. In support of this position, HUD notes that the term “crime of violence” is used in VAWA's definition of “domestic violence.” “Crime of violence” is defined in 18 U.S.C. 16 to mean (a) an offense that has an element the use, attempted use, or
HUD proposes to incorporate in § 5.2005(d) the language currently found in paragraph (b) of § 5.2009 (Remedies available to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking). Section 5.2009(b) addresses court orders and provides that nothing in VAWA may be construed to limit the authority of a covered housing provider to honor court orders and civil protection orders. HUD views this provision as a limitation on VAWA protections, since such orders may result in the disclosure of confidential information, and therefore has moved this language to § 5.2005(d)(1).
Although not required by VAWA, HUD retains paragraph (d)(3) of existing § 5.2005 (§ 5.2005(d)(4) in the proposed rule) that encourages a covered housing provider to evict or terminate assistance as provided in § 5.2005(d) only when there are no other actions that could be taken to reduce or eliminate the threat of domestic violence. This paragraph provides that any eviction or termination of assistance, as provided in the regulations, should be utilized by a covered housing provider only when there are no other actions that could be taken to reduce or eliminate the threat, including, but not limited to, transferring the victim to a different unit, barring the perpetrator from the property, contacting law enforcement to increase police presence or develop other plans to keep the property safe, or seeking other legal remedies to prevent the perpetrator from acting on a threat. This paragraph was added to HUD's regulations in response to public comment in the prior rulemaking. Covered housing providers are strongly encouraged, although not mandated, to use eviction or termination as a last resort.
VAWA 2013 provides that the emergency transfer plan: (1) Must allow tenants who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to transfer to another available and safe dwelling unit assisted under a covered housing program if the tenant expressly requests the transfer; the tenant reasonably believes that the tenant is threatened with imminent harm from further violence if the tenant remains within the same dwelling unit assisted under a covered housing program; or in the case of a tenant who is a victim of sexual assault, the sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the tenant's request for transfer; and (2) must incorporate reasonable confidentiality measures to ensure that the covered housing provider does not disclose the location of the dwelling unit of a tenant to a person that commits an act of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking against the tenant. (See 42 U.S.C. 14043e-11(e).)
HUD emphasizes certain points about the statutory language.
First, the statutory language refers to “reasonable confidentiality measures” and HUD replaces “reasonable” with “strict” confidentiality measures. HUD cannot overstate the importance of guarding the identity of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and believes “strict” better reflects the intent of VAWA, which is optimum protections for victims of domestic violence.
Second, the statutory documentation requirements of VAWA, which are specified below in the discussion of § 5.2007, are not statutorily required with respect to a tenant requesting an emergency transfer. Under a strict interpretation of section 41411(c)(1), (3)(A)(ii), and (3)(B)(ii) of VAWA, the statutory requirements regarding documentation only apply when a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking requests “protection under subsection (b)” of section 41411, which pertains only to lease bifurcation and the prohibited bases for denial or termination of assistance or eviction. Emergency transfers, in contrast, are covered in subsections (e) and (f) of section 41411 and the statute is silent regarding documentation requirements for requests for protection under those subsections. In addition, the statutory language refers to “tenants who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.” This phrasing possibly indicates that the tenant may have already been determined to be victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and, therefore, no need for further documentation.
HUD has reasonable discretion over what documentation requirements, if any, to apply or allow when victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking request an emergency transfer from their existing unit to another safe and available unit. However, as noted earlier, because the statutory language refers to “victims of domestic violence” there is also the implication that the individual may have already been determined, through documentation, to be a victim of domestic violence and, therefore, further documentation would not be required.
In § 5.2007, HUD provides that the documentation requirements specified in paragraph (a) of § 5.2007 do not apply to a request for an emergency transfer requested under § 5.2005(e), unless otherwise specified by HUD by notice, or by the covered housing provider in its emergency transfer plan. Inclusion in the emergency transfer plan of any documentation requirements related to emergency transfer provides earlier notification to tenants of documentation requirements that may be imposed by the covered housing provider.
The statutory language refers to transfer to an “available and safe dwelling unit assisted under a covered housing program.” The tenant must expressly request the transfer and the tenant reasonably believe that the tenant is threatened with imminent harm from further violence if the tenant remains within the same dwelling unit, or in the case of a tenant who is a victim of sexual assault, the sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the request for transfer. The use of the terms “available and safe unit” reflect the limits of the covered housing provider's responsibility to transfer a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to another unit.
Under an emergency transfer, the covered housing provider relocates a tenant who is a victim of such actions from the unit in which the tenant is residing to another unit if the covered housing provider has a unit that is: (1) Not occupied and available to the tenant given possible considerations that may be applicable, such as eligibility requirements, waiting list, tenant preferences or prioritization, unit restrictions, or term limitations; and (2) safe (for example, an unoccupied unit immediately next door to the unit in which the victim is residing would, on its face, be safer than the unit in which the victim is currently residing, but the degree and extent of safety may be questionable if the perpetrator remains in the unit in which the victim was residing).
HUD reads “under a covered housing program” to mean the covered housing provider must, at a minimum, transfer the tenant to a unit under the provider's control and assisted under the same covered program as the unit in which the tenant was residing, again, if a unit is available and is safe. An example of the meaning of control can be found in the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program. Under this program, a covered housing provider would not be able to transfer a tenant to another Section 202 project that has a sponsor that is different from the sponsor of the project in which the tenant who is seeking to move is residing.
A covered housing provider, however, may transfer the tenant to a unit assisted under another covered program administered by the covered housing provider if a unit is available and safe, and if feasible given any possible differences in tenant eligibility. HUD provides in § 5.2005(e) that, with respect to emergency transfer of tenants, nothing in § 5.2005(e) is to be construed to supersede any eligibility, or other occupancy requirements, that may apply under a covered housing program.
HUD notes that HUD's Section 8 tenant-based rental program allows a family to move with continued assistance within a PHA's jurisdiction or to another PHA's jurisdiction (portability). The Section 8 tenant-based regulations at 24 CFR 982.314 provide that a family or member of a family may move with continued assistance if the move is needed to protect the health and safety of the family or family member as a result of domestic violence, dating, violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or any family member has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's request to move. This regulation provides that a PHA may not terminate assistance if a family moves with or without prior notification to the PHA because the family or member of the family reasonably believed they were in imminent threat from further violence (however, any family member that has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's move or request to move, is not required to believe that he or she was threatened with imminent harm from further violence if he or she remained in the dwelling unit).
HUD's Continuum of Care (CoC) program regulations currently provide for transfer of tenant-based rental assistance for a family fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 578.51(c)(3) covers program participants who have complied with all program requirements during their residence and who have been victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Section 578.51(c)(3) provide that program participants must reasonably believe they are imminently threatened by harm from further domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking (which would include threats from a third party, such as a friend or family member of the perpetrator of the violence). If program participants remain in the assisted unit, § 578.51(c)(3) provides that they must be able to document the violence and the basis for their belief. If program participants receiving tenant-based rental assistance satisfy the requirements of 24 CFR 578.51(c)(3), then they may retain rental assistance and move to a different CoC geographic area if they choose to move out of the assisted unit to protect their health and safety.
HUD is aware that the transfers of tenants from one unit to another are not without costs, and HUD proposes that covered housing providers follow, to the extent possible, existing policies and procedures in place with respect to transfers, and make every effort to facilitate transfers as quickly as possible, and to minimize such costs or bear such costs, where possible, consistent with existing policies and practices. HUD's CoC regulations, in addition to containing regulations that provide for a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to retain his or her tenant-based rental assistance and move to a different CoC geographic area, include reasonable one-time moving costs as eligible supportive services cost. (See 24 CFR 578.53(e)(2).)
This proposed rule would amend § 5.2007, which addresses documenting domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking and, now, following VAWA 2013, documenting sexual assault. The proposed rule would also revise the heading of this section to include reference to “sexual assault.” VAWA 2013 does not make significant changes to the documentation content and procedures required by VAWA 2005. The types of documents that an applicant or tenant are eligible to submit are largely the same as in HUD's existing VAWA regulations, but there are some changes.
As a result of VAWA 2005, HUD issued two approved certification forms. Form HUD-50066 is used for covered housing programs administered by HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing. Form HUD-91066 is used for covered housing programs administered by HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing, Office of Housing. These forms are available at:
Through the Paperwork Reduction Act process, the HUD covered housing programs will combine these forms into one (to be used for all programs) and modify the language to reflect updated terminology. The proposed combined certification form is modified to abbreviate the space given to a victim to describe the incident of domestic violence. HUD was concerned that the length of space made available on the form signaled that a very detailed description was required, which is not the case. As noted earlier in this preamble, HUD's proposed certification form is provided in Appendix C to this rule.
The statute and HUD's existing regulations provide that the VAWA-related information provided by a tenant shall be kept confidential unless required to be disclosed, among other permissible actions, for use in an eviction proceeding. HUD adds that disclosure is also permissible for use in a hearing regarding termination of assistance from the covered program. VAWA 2013 provides that the information provided by a tenant that is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking must be kept confidential unless requested or consented by the individual in writing, required for use in an eviction proceeding, or otherwise required by law. A hearing to determine termination of assistance is required in some covered housing programs.
The remaining changes made to 24 CFR 5.2007 are those required to extend VAWA provisions to victims of sexual assault, and to expand the HUD programs subject to the regulations under VAWA 2013.
As with the other sections in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, this proposed rule would amend § 5.2009, which addresses remedies available for victims, to include victims of sexual assault and would revise the heading of this section to include the same.
VAWA 2013 does not reflect that bifurcation of a lease may occur “notwithstanding any Federal, State, or local law to the contrary” but does reiterate the language in VAWA 2005 that the option to bifurcate a lease is subject to other Federal, State, or local law that may address bifurcation of a lease. Accordingly, HUD would revise § 5.2009(a) to remove the “notwithstanding” clause.
By providing that bifurcation of lease is an option, not a mandate, VAWA 2005 and VAWA 2013 both recognize that this remedy may not be an option in all covered housing programs, given statutory requirements of the program.
The complication that this provision presents is whether the authorizing statutes for the covered housing programs allow continued assistance to any individual if eligibility has not been established. Several commenters raised this concern in response to the August 6, 2013, notice, and asked if assistance would continue once the only eligible tenant was removed. The response varies given the statutory framework of each program.
For example, HUD's HOPWA program already has in place in its regulations at 24 CFR part 574, a provision that allows, in limited instances, a surviving member or members of a household residing in a unit receiving assistance under the HOPWA program to remain in the unit. Section 574.310(e) of HUD's HOPWA regulations provides that with respect to the surviving member or members of a family who were living in a unit assisted under the HOPWA program with the person with AIDS at
HUD's CoC program has a similar provision in its regulations at 24 CFR part 578 for permanent supportive housing projects. Section 578.75(i) of the CoC regulations provides that for permanent supportive housing projects, surviving members of any household who were living in a unit assisted under this part at the time of the qualifying member's death, long-term incarceration, or long-term institutionalization, have the right to rental assistance under this section until the expiration of the lease in effect at the time of the qualifying member's death, long-term incarceration, or long-term institutionalization. HUD would propose to amend this section to allow for the CoC grace period to extend to tenants (permanent supportive housing tenants) needing to establish eligibility after lease bifurcation.
As noted earlier, under VAWA 2013, reasonable time to establish eligibility for assistance is required if the covered housing provider opts to bifurcate the lease. Therefore, covered housing providers that exercise the bifurcation of lease option must be certain that, under the requirements of the covered housing program, they can provide the remaining tenant or tenants reasonable time to establish eligibility and allow the tenants to remain in the housing unit without assistance or to have the assistance continued for a reasonable period of time until eligibility is established. If the tenant cannot establish eligibility within a reasonable time, after the bifurcation of the lease the covered housing provider shall also provide the tenant reasonable time to find new housing or to establish eligibility for housing under another covered housing program.
HUD recognizes that, under some covered programs, the covered housing provider that bifurcates the lease (the owner of the assisted housing) may not be the covered housing provider (for example, the PHA) that determines family eligibility for assistance. This situation emphasizes the importance of the regulations for the specific covered housing program in determining how certain VAWA provisions are to be implemented.
Commenters on the August 6, 2013, notice offered several time periods as being a reasonable time period to establish eligibility. The majority of the commenters submitted a time period of no less than 60 days and a maximum of 90 days. A few commenters submitted that the time period should be 120 days, and a few others suggested a 180-day period. Some commenters suggested that HUD allow the housing provider to determine the reasonable period of time to establish eligibility, but the majority of commenters did not favor that approach.
HUD agrees with those commenters recommending that 90 days would be a reasonable period for the remaining tenant or tenants to establish eligibility. For HUD covered housing programs, such as HUD's HOPWA program and CoC program, which already provide an “eligibility grace period,” HUD does not propose to alter those periods, but rather would amend those regulations to extend those grace periods to victims of domestic violence. HUD proposes to establish the 90-day period for the HUD covered housing programs that do not currently have an eligibility grace period.
In determining what may constitute a reasonable period to establish eligibility, HUD looked at its regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart B (Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers and Employer Identification Numbers; Procedures for Obtaining Income Information) as a possible model to determine a reasonable period to provide to a tenant to establish eligibility under a covered housing program. A period of 90 calendar days is used in HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 5.216 (Disclosure and verification of Social Security and Employer Identification Numbers) to allow for a household to obtain a Social Security number for a new household member that is under the age of six. (See 24 CFR 5.216(e)(ii).) A period of 90 calendar days is also used as the period to allow an applicant to produce a Social Security number to maintain eligibility to for participation in the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (SRO) program for Homeless Individuals under 24 CFR part 882, subpart H. (See 24 CFR 5.216(h)(2).) HUD viewed these “disclosure” regulations as providing support that a minimum 90-day period presents a reasonable period to establish eligibility under a HUD covered housing program.
HUD notes that VAWA 2013 directs that the covered housing provider “shall provide” the remaining tenant (or tenants) with reasonable time to find new housing or to establish eligibility for the housing in which the tenant currently resides. HUD therefore proposes a minimum 90-day period that would be divided into two time periods: One time period would be to establish eligibility to remain in the unit in which
For the first period, the rule provides for 60 calendar days, commencing from the date of bifurcation of the lease, for the tenant to establish eligibility to remain in the unit in which the tenant is now residing. For the second reasonable period, the rule provides for 30 calendar days, commencing from the 61st date from the date of bifurcation of the lease for the tenant to find alternative housing.
Of course, during first (60 days) period and the second (30 days) period, the tenant may undertake efforts to both establish eligibility to remain in the unit in which the tenant is residing and to find alternative housing. HUD is proposing division of the time period for the tenant to obtain housing so that the tenant has sufficient opportunity to explore both options, provided by statute, for the tenant to obtain housing. A covered housing provider is strongly encouraged to assist a tenant in efforts to establish eligibility for the covered housing in which the tenant is participating, and then assist in finding alternative housing if it no longer seems possible that the tenant will be able to establish eligibility for the covered housing program.
For each of these time periods, the proposed rule would allow, but not mandate, covered providers to grant an extension for up to 30 days, subject, however, to the program regulations under the applicable covered housing program authorizing the covered housing provider to grant an extension, as part of the covered housing providers standard policies and practices or, alternatively, granting such an extension on a case-by-case basis. For some covered housing programs—for example, HUD's public housing and Section 8 voucher programs where demand for available housing and assistance is high—a period of more than 90 days may adversely affect applicants waiting for admission to public housing or receipt of a voucher, and, therefore, for these programs, the proposed is for a maximum period of 90 days, without an extension.
It is important to note that the reasonable time period may only be provided to tenants by covered housing providers that remain subject to the requirements of the other covered housing program once the eligible tenant departs the unit. Therefore the reasonable time period does not apply, generally, if the only assistance provided is tenant-based rental assistance. For such assistance, the assistance is tied to the tenant not the unit. However, where the assistance is tied to the unit, such as project-based assistance, operating assistance, or construction or rehabilitation assistance, the covered housing provider may provide the reasonable period of time to establish eligibility.
In addition, it is the tenant's responsibility to establish eligibility for assistance under the covered housing program or find alternative housing. While the covered housing provider may assist the tenant in the individual's efforts to establish eligibility for assistance under a covered housing program, or find alternative housing, and is encouraged to do so, the responsibility remains with the tenant to establish eligibility for assistance or find alternative housing.
In this regard, HUD has added a new paragraph (c) to § 5.2009, which encourages covered housing providers to undertake whatever actions permissible and feasible under their respective programs to assist individuals residing in their units who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to remain in their units or other units under the covered housing program or other covered housing providers, and for the covered housing provider to bear the costs of any transfer, where permissible.
With the exception of including “sexual assault,” this section would remain unchanged.
For the programs already covered by VAWA, additional proposed amendments are primarily directed to include reference to sexual assault, which was added by VAWA 2013.
For the new HUD programs covered by VAWA 2013, the proposed rule would amend the regulations of the HUD-covered housing programs to cross-reference the applicability of the VAWA regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L. However for certain of the newly covered programs, such as the HOME program, the HOPWA program, the Emergency Solutions Grants program, and the CoC program, regulations beyond reference to the core VAWA requirements provided in part 5, subpart L, are necessary to guide how the VAWA requirements are to be implemented in accordance with the unique program requirements of these four programs, the first three of which are formula funded programs.
As noted earlier in this preamble, HUD also proposes to amend the HOPWA regulations at 24 CFR 578.75(i) to include a reasonable time for the remaining members of the household to continue occupancy in the housing after the qualifying member was evicted for having engaged in domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
For the multifamily housing programs administered by HUD's Office of Housing, the proposed conforming amendment is made to 24 CFR part 200, subpart A, under the undesignated heading of Miscellaneous Cross-Cutting Regulations. To this group of important cross-cutting regulations, HUD would add the requirement to comply with the VAWA protections.
While this rule proposes to make the necessary regulatory amendments to fully implement VAWA 2013 in all HUD-covered housing programs, the HUD offices administering assistance under the covered programs will develop guidance for their covered housing providers to further assist covered housing providers in their implementation of VAWA and elaborate on such nonregulatory requirements, such as encouraging the providers to aid remaining tenants in their efforts to establish eligibility for assistance and how such aid may be provided. The guidance will be in such forms that HUD program offices generally issue
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The burden of the information collections in this proposed rule is estimated as follows:
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting from members of the public and affected agencies comments on the following concerning this collection of information:
(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;
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this rule. Under the provisions of 5 CFR part 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this collection of information between 30 and 60 days after the publication date. Therefore, a comment on the information collection requirements is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment within 30 days of the publication. This time frame does not affect the deadline for comments to the agency on the proposed rule, however. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (5720-P-02) and must be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: 202-395-6947 and Ms. Colette Pollard, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 2204, Washington, DC 20410.
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the information collection requirements electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
OMB reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled, “Regulatory Planning and Review”). This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of the order but not economically significant, as provided in section 3(f)(1) of the order. In accordance with the Executive order, HUD has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting primarily from the statute's documentation requirements.
This regulatory action is required to conform the provisions of HUD's VAWA regulations to those of title VI of VAWA 2013, codified at 42 U.S.C. 14043e
As stated at the outset of this preamble to this proposed rule, the importance of having HUD's VAWA regulations updated cannot be overstated. The expansion of VAWA 2013 to other HUD rental assistance programs emphasizes the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, in all HUD housing offering rental assistance. By having all covered housing providers be aware of the protections of VAWA and the actions that they must take to provide such protections if needed, HUD signals to all tenants in the covered housing programs that HUD is an active part of the national response to prevent domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
In addition to expanding the applicability of VAWA to HUD programs beyond HUD's Section 8 and public housing programs, VAWA 2013 expands the protections provided to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, which must be incorporated in HUD's codified regulations. For example, under VAWA 2013, victims of sexual assault are specifically protected under VAWA for the first time in HUD-covered programs (compare,
VAWA 2013 also increases protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking by requiring HUD to develop a model emergency transfer plan to guide covered housing providers in the development and adoption of their own emergency transfer plans. VAWA also changes the procedures for the notification to tenants and applicants of their occupancy rights under VAWA. Prior to VAWA 2013, public housing agencies administering HUD's public housing and Section 8 assistance were responsible for the development and issuance such notification to tenants. Under VAWA 2013, HUD must develop the notice. Thus, HUD's VAWA regulations must reflect that HUD will prescribe the notice of occupancy rights to be distributed by covered housing providers.
Regarding conformance to, and implementation of, the changes made by VAWA 2013, which is the primary purpose of this rulemaking, HUD has very little discretion to consider actions different from the actions and documents required by the statute. The core protections and the documentation required by VAWA are vital to providing the necessary protections for the victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
VAWA 2013 does present some implementation challenges for the newly covered HUD programs. The VAWA 2013 provisions did not alter the VAWA 2005 to more suitably address the “administration” structure of the newly covered HUD programs. As noted earlier in this preamble, the VAWA 2013 language continues to match more effectively the type housing that is administered by a PHA; that is, the public housing and Section 8 programs covered by VAWA 2005. As further noted earlier in this preamble, in proposing how the VAWA protections are to be implemented in the newly covered programs, HUD took into account both the statutory and regulatory framework of each program, and HUD's experiences in both administering such program and in working with the different entities administering such programs. In each case, HUD strived to ensure that the proposed regulations for the newly
As HUD also noted in the preamble, VAWA 2013 does not impose documentation requirements on a tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and seeks an emergency transfer from the tenant's current unit. As provided under specific solicitation of comment 4 in this preamble, HUD seeks comment on whether documentation requirement should be imposed on those seeking emergency transfers and, if they are imposed, whether they should be the same as those required of tenants seeking other protections of VAWA 2013.
With respect to emergency transfers, VAWA does not define what constitutes a safe and available dwelling unit, and HUD does not provide a definition for such unit in this rule but seeks comment on how such unit should be defined. Under specific solicitations of comment 5 and 9 in the preamble to this proposed rule, HUD specifically solicits comment on actions that covered housing providers may be able to undertake to assist tenants who are not perpetrators of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to remain in covered housing programs, consistent with existing program requirements, when a tenant household is divided as a result of lease bifurcation.
As the preamble reflects, HUD's proposed regulations adhere closely to the statutory requirements, and the alternative approaches HUD will consider in the context of information, feedback, and recommendations offered by advocates for protection of victims of domestic violence, participants in and administrators of HUD-covered programs, and the public generally.
As noted in the Executive Summary of this preamble, there are several benefits, including expanding the protections of VAWA to applicants and tenants beyond those in HUD's public housing and Section 8 programs; strengthening the rights, including confidentiality rights, of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in HUD-covered programs; and possibly minimizing the loss of housing by such victims through the bifurcation of lease provision, where such action may be a feasible option. The notice of occupancy rights to be distributed to all applicants and tenants signals the concern of HUD and the covered housing provider about the serious consequences of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking on the individual tenant victim and, at times, the victim's family or individuals affiliated to the victim, and confirms the protections to be afforded to the tenant victim if such violence occurs. The notice of occupancy rights is presented with the goal of helping applicants and tenants understand their occupancy rights under VAWA. Awareness of such rights is an important benefit.
The costs of the regulations, as also noted earlier in this preamble, are primarily paperwork costs. These are the costs of providing notice to applicants and tenants of their occupancy rights under VAWA, the preparation of an emergency transfer plan, and documenting the incident or incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The costs, however, are minimized to some extent by the fact that VAWA 2013 requires HUD to prepare the notice of occupancy rights, the certification form, and the model emergency transfer plan.
In addition to the costs related to these documents, which HUD submits is not significant given HUD's role in creating the documents, there will be a cost with respect to a tenant claiming the protections of VAWA and a covered housing provider responding to such incident. This cost will vary, however, depending on the incidence of claims in a given year and the nature and complexity of the situation. The costs will also depend on the supply and demand for the available and safe units in the situation of an emergency transfer request. HUD's covered housing providers did not confront such “movement” costs under VAWA 2005, so it remains to be seen, through implementation of VAWA 2013, if the transfer to a safe unit, as VAWA 2013 allows, is feasible in most situations in which such a request is made and becomes a substantial cost to the covered housing provider. As provided under specific solicitation of comment 7, HUD is soliciting comment on the costs of such transfer, and the extent of paperwork that is necessary to provide the transfer.
The reporting and recordkeeping matrix that accompanies HUD's Paperwork Reduction Act statement, provided above, provides HUD's estimate of the workload associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The docket file is available for public inspection between the hours of 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 the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule proposes to fully implement the protections of VAWA 2013 in all HUD covered housing programs. These protections are statutory and statutorily directed to be implemented. The statute does not allow for covered housing providers who are, or may qualify as small entities to not provide such protections to its applicants or tenants or provide fewer protections than covered entities that are larger entities. However, with respect to processes that may be found to be burdensome to small covered housing providers—such as bifurcation of the lease and the emergency transfer plan—bifurcation of the lease is a statutory option not a mandate, and the emergency transfer plan is contingent upon units to which victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking may seek transfer on an emergency basis being available and safe. Therefore, small entities are not required to carry
Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives, as described in this preamble.
This proposed rule involves a policy document that sets out nondiscrimination standards. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3) this interim rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either (i) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or (ii) preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order. The scope of this rule is limited to HUD covered housing programs, as such term is defined in the rule.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. This rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal government, or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers applicable to the programs that would be affected by this rule are: 14.103, 14.135, 14.157, 14.181, 14.195, 14.231, 14.267, 14.268, 14.239, 14.241, 14.850, 14.856, and 14.871.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Crime, Government contracts, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Penalties, Pets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, HIV/AIDS, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—social programs, Homeless, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community facilities, Continuum of Care, Emergency solutions grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant program—social programs, Homeless, Rural housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supportive housing programs— housing and community development, Supportive services.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Homeless, Lead poisoning, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Lead poisoning, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Pets, Public housing.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, and in accordance with HUD's authority in 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR parts 5, 92, 200, 574, 576, 578, 880, 882, 883, 884, 886, 891, 960, 966, 982, and 983, as follows.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 3535(d), Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2936, and 42 U.S.C. 14043e
(a) This subpart addresses the protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who are applying for, or the beneficiary of, assistance under a HUD program covered by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 13925 and 42 U.S.C. 14043e
(b)(1) The applicable assistance provided under a covered housing program generally consists of two types of assistance (one or both may be provided): Tenant-based rental assistance, which is rental assistance that is provided to the tenant; and project-based assistance, which is assistance that attaches to the unit in which the tenant resides. For project-based assistance, the assistance may consist of such assistance as operating assistance, development assistance, and mortgage interest rate subsidy.
(2) The regulations in this subpart are supplemented by the specific regulations for the HUD-covered housing programs listed in § 5.2003. The program-specific regulations address how certain VAWA requirements are to be implemented and whether they can be implemented (for example, reasonable time to establish eligibility for assistance as provided in § 5.2009(b)) for the applicable covered housing program, given the statutory and regulatory framework for the program. When there is conflict between the regulations of this subpart and the program-specific regulations, the program-specific regulations govern. Where assistance is provided under more than one covered housing program, the covered housing program that provides the greatest protection to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking governs.
The definitions of
(1) A spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child of that individual, or a person to whom that individual stands in the place of a parent to a child (for example, the affiliated individual is a child in the care, custody, or control of that individual); or
(2) Any individual, tenant, or lawful occupant living in the household of that individual.
(1) Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (12 U.S.C. 1701q), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 891.
(2) Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (42 U.S.C. 8013), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 891.
(3) Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program (42 U.S.C. 12901
(4) HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program (42 U.S.C. 12741
(5) Homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360
(6) Multifamily rental housing under section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 17151(d)) with a below-market interest rate (BMIR) pursuant to section 221(d)(5), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 221.
(7) Multifamily rental housing under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 236.
(8) HUD programs assisted under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437
(9) The Housing Trust Fund (12 U.S.C. 4568) (with regulations forthcoming).
(1) Who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and
(2) Where the existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on a consideration of the following factors:
(i) The length of the relationship;
(ii) The type of relationship; and
(iii) The frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
(1) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or
(2) Suffer substantial emotional distress.
(a)
(i) A “Notice of Occupancy Rights under VAWA,” as prescribed and in accordance with directions provided by HUD, that explains the VAWA protections under this subpart, including the right to confidentiality, and any limitations on those protections; and
(ii) A certification form, in a form approved by HUD, to be completed by the victim to document an incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, and that:
(A) States that the applicant or tenant is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
(B) States that the incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking that is the ground for protection under this subpart meets the applicable definition for such incident under § 5.2003; and
(C) Includes the name of the individual who committed the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the name is known and safe to provide.
(2) The notice required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section and certification form required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section must be provided to an applicant or tenant no later than at each of the following times:
(i) At the time the applicant is denied assistance or admission under a covered housing program;
(ii) At the time the individual is provided assistance or admission under the covered housing program; and
(iii) With any notification of eviction or notification of termination of assistance.
(3) The notice required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section and the certification form required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section must be made available in multiple languages, consistent with guidance issued by HUD in accordance with Executive Order 13166 (Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, signed August 11, 2000, and published in the
(b)
(2)
(i) The criminal activity is engaged in by a member of the household of a tenant or any guest or other person under the control of the tenant, and
(ii) The tenant or an affiliated individual of the tenant is the victim or threatened victim of such domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking.
(c)
(1) A serious or repeated violation of a lease executed under a covered housing program by the victim or threatened victim of such incident; or
(2) Good cause for terminating the assistance, tenancy, or occupancy rights under a covered housing program of the victim or threatened victim of such incident.
(d)
(i) The rights of access or control of property, including civil protection orders issued to protect a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking; or
(ii) The distribution or possession of property among members of a household in a case.
(2) Nothing in this section limits any available authority of a covered housing provider to evict or terminate assistance to a tenant for any violation not premised on an act of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking that is in question against the tenant or an affiliated individual of the tenant. However, the covered housing provider must not subject the tenant, who is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or is affiliated with an individual who is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, to a more demanding standard than other tenants in determining whether to evict or terminate assistance.
(3) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a covered housing provider to terminate assistance to or evict a tenant under a covered housing program if the covered housing provider can demonstrate an actual and imminent threat to other tenants or those employed at or providing service to property of the covered housing provider would be present if that tenant or lawful occupant is not evicted or terminated from assistance. In this context, words, gestures, actions, or other indicators will be considered an “actual and imminent threat” if they meet the standards provided in the definition of “actual and imminent threat” in § 5.2003.
(4) Any eviction or termination of assistance, as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section should be utilized by a covered housing provider only when there are no other actions that could be taken to reduce or eliminate the threat, including, but not limited to, transferring the victim to a different unit, barring the perpetrator from the property, contacting law enforcement to increase police presence or develop other plans to keep the property safe, or seeking other legal remedies to prevent the perpetrator from acting on a threat. Restrictions predicated on public safety cannot be based on stereotypes, but must be tailored to particularized concerns about individual residents.
(e)
(1) The emergency transfer plan must allow tenants who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to transfer to another unit under the covered housing program in which the tenant has been residing or to a unit in another covered housing program if such transfer is permissible under applicable program regulations, provided that a unit is available and safe, and provided, further, that:
(A) The tenant expressly requests the transfer; and
(B)(i) The tenant reasonably believes there is a threat of imminent harm from further violence if the tenant remains within the same dwelling unit that the tenant is currently occupying; or
(ii) In the case of a tenant who is a victim of sexual assault, the sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the date of the request for transfer; and
(2) The emergency transfer plan must incorporate strict confidentiality measures to ensure that the covered housing provider does not disclose the location of the dwelling unit of the tenant to a person who committed or threatened to commit an act of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking against the tenant.
(3) Nothing in this subsection (e) may be construed to supersede any eligibility or other occupancy requirements that may apply under a covered housing program.
(a)
(2)(i) If an applicant or tenant does not provide the documentation requested under paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 14 business days after the date that the tenant receives a request in writing for such documentation from the covered housing provider, nothing in § 5.2005 or § 5.2009, which addresses the protections of VAWA, may be construed to limit the authority of the covered housing provider to:
(A) Deny admission by the applicant or tenant to the covered housing program;
(B) Deny assistance under the covered housing program to the applicant or tenant;
(C) Terminate the participation of the tenant in the covered housing program; or
(D) Evict the tenant, or a lawful occupant that commits a violation of a lease.
(ii) A covered housing provider may, at its discretion, extend the 14-business-day deadline under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(b)
(i) The certification form described in § 5.2005(a)(1)(ii); or
(ii) A document:
(A) Signed by an employee, agent, or volunteer of a victim service provider, an attorney, or medical professional, or a mental health professional (collectively, “professional”) from whom the victim has sought assistance relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or the effects of abuse;
(B) Signed by the applicant or tenant; and
(C) Specifies that, under penalty of perjury, the professional believes in the occurrence of the incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking that is the ground for protection and remedies under this subpart meets the applicable definition under § 5.2003; or
(iii) A record of a Federal, State, tribal, territorial or local law enforcement agency, court, or administrative agency; or
(iv) At the discretion of a covered housing provider, a statement or other evidence provided by the applicant or tenant.
(2) If a covered housing provider receives documentation under paragraph (b)(1) of this section that contains conflicting information (including certification forms from two or more members of a household each claiming to be a victim and naming one or more of the other petitioning household members as the perpetrator), the covered housing provider may require an applicant or tenant to submit third-party documentation, as described in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), or (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall be construed to require a covered housing provider to request that an individual submit documentation of the status of the individual as a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
(c)
(1) The covered housing provider shall not allow any individual administering assistance on behalf of the covered housing provider or any persons within their employ (
(2) The covered housing provider shall not enter confidential information described in paragraph (c) of this section into any shared database or disclose such information to any other
(i) Requested or consented to in writing by the individual;
(ii) Required for use in an eviction proceeding or hearing regarding termination of assistance from the covered program; or
(iii) Otherwise required by applicable law.
(d) A covered housing provider's compliance with the protections of §§ 5.2005 and 5.2009, based on documentation received under this section shall not be sufficient to constitute evidence of an unreasonable act or omission by the covered housing provider. However, nothing in this paragraph (d) of this section shall be construed to limit the liability of a covered housing provider for failure to comply with §§ 5.2005 and 5.2009.
(a)
(i) Without regard to whether the household member is a signatory to the lease; and
(ii) Without evicting, removing, terminating assistance to, or otherwise penalizing a victim of such criminal activity who is also a tenant or lawful occupant.
(2) A lease bifurcation, as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall be carried out in accordance with any requirements or procedures as may be prescribed by Federal, State, or local law for termination of assistance or leases and in accordance with any requirements under the relevant covered housing program.
(b)
(1)
(A) Establish eligibility for the same covered housing program under which the evicted or terminated tenant was the recipient of assistance at the time of bifurcation of the lease; or
(B) Establish eligibility under another covered housing program.
(ii) The 60-calendar-day period provided by paragraph (b)(1) of this section can only be provided to a remaining tenant if the governing statute of the covered program authorizes an ineligible tenant to remain in the unit without assistance. The 60-calendar-day period does not supersede any period to establish eligibility for the covered housing program that may already be provided by the covered housing program. The 60-calendar-day period is the total period provided to a remaining tenant to establish eligibility under the two options provided in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B)of this section.
(iii) The covered housing provider, subject to authorization under the regulations of the applicable covered housing program, may extend the 60-calendar-day period up to an additional 30 calendar days.
(2)
(ii) The covered housing provider may, subject to authorization under the regulations of the applicable covered housing program, extend the 30-calendar-day period up to an additional 30 calendar days.
(c)
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to supersede any provision of any Federal, State, or local law that provides greater protection than this section for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839.
(a)
(d)
(7) Comply with the VAWA requirements prescribed in § 92.359.
(a)
(2) For the HOME program, “covered housing provider,” as such term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and that is designated to carry out the duties and responsibilities specified in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, refers to:
(i) The housing owner for the purposes of § 5.2005(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4) and § 5.2009(a);
(ii) The participating jurisdiction or its designee for purposes of § 5.2005(e); and
(iv) The housing owner and entity administering tenant-based rental assistance for the purposes of § 5.2005(d)(2) and § 5.2007.
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(1) The participating jurisdiction or its designee must establish a bifurcation policy, which at a minimum specifies:
(i) What constitutes a reasonable opportunity for the remaining tenant to establish eligibility for the HOME-assisted unit, if the qualifying tenant is removed through bifurcation;
(ii) What constitutes a reasonable opportunity for the remaining tenant to establish eligibility for HOME tenant-based rental assistance, if the qualifying tenant is removed through bifurcation; and
(iii) Which provisions, if any, the VAWA lease term/addendum for HOME tenant-based rental assistance must include to protect the remaining tenant, if the qualifying tenant is removed through bifurcation.
(2) If the qualifying tenant for a HOME-assisted unit is removed through bifurcation, the owner must provide any remaining tenant a reasonable opportunity, as determined by the participating jurisdiction, to establish eligibility for the HOME-assisted unit. If the remaining tenant cannot establish eligibility, the owner must give the tenant at least 60 days to find other housing, beginning on the date the tenant is determined ineligible.
(3) If HOME tenant-based rental assistance is the only assistance provided, the following requirements apply:
(i) If the qualifying tenant for the HOME tenant-based rental assistance is removed through the bifurcation, the housing owner and the entity administering the HOME tenant-based rental assistance must provide any remaining tenant(s) a reasonable opportunity, as determined by the participating jurisdiction, to establish eligibility for the HOME tenant-based rental assistance.
(ii) When a family separates under 24 CFR 5.2009(a) and both resulting families remain eligible for HOME tenant-based rental assistance, the participating jurisdiction or its designee must determine on a case-by-case basis which of the resulting families will keep the current HOME tenant-based rental assistance and whether the other resulting family will receive new HOME tenant-based rental assistance.
(e)
(f)
(c) Provisions in written agreements: * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(v) * * *
(F) The VAWA requirements prescribed in § 92.359.
12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21 and 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) The requirements for protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply to programs administered under section 236 and under sections 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) of the National Housing Act, as follows:
(1) Multifamily rental housing under section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 17151(d)) with a below-market interest rate (BMIR) pursuant to section 221(d)(5), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 221. The Section 221(d)(3) BMIR program insured and subsidized mortgage loans to facilitate new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental cooperative housing for low- and moderate-income families. The program is no longer active, but section 221(d)(3) BMIR properties that remain in existence are covered by VAWA. Coverage of section 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) BMIR housing does not include section 221(d)(3) and (d)(5) BMIR projects that refinance under section 223(a)(7) or 223(f) of the National Housing Act where the interest rate is no longer determined under section 221(d)(5).
(2) Multifamily rental housing under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1), with implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 236. Coverage of the section 236 program includes not only those projects with FHA-insured project mortgages under section 236(j), but also non-FHA-insured projects that receive interest reduction payments (“IRP”) under section 236(b) and formerly insured section 236 projects that continue to receive interest reduction payments through a “decoupled” IRP contract under section 236(e)(2). Coverage also includes projects that receive rental assistance payments authorized under section 236(f)(2).
(b) For the programs administered under paragraph (a) of this section, “covered housing provider” as such term is used in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, refers to the mortgagor, or owner, as applicable, and as provided in guidance issued by HUD.
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12901-12912.
With respect to participants living in a unit assisted under the HOPWA program with a person with AIDS, and the person with AIDS was found to have engaged in domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, the grantee or project sponsor shall provide a reasonable grace period for continued participation by the remaining participants, which period shall be no less than 90 days, and not more than 1 year, from the date of eviction of the person with AIDS. The grantee or project sponsor shall notify the remaining participants of the duration of their grace period and may assist them with information on other available housing programs and with moving expenses.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(1)(i) For HOPWA-assisted units, the HOPWA grantee is responsible for ensuring that the project sponsor:
(A) Sets policy for determining “reasonable opportunity” for establishing eligibility for remaining tenants in HOPWA facility-based assistance—minimum 90 days, maximum 1 year;
(B) Provides notice of occupancy rights and the certification form at admission, denial of assistance, termination, or eviction;
(C) Adopts and administers emergency transfer plan, and facilitating emergency transfers; and
(D) Maintains the confidentiality of documentation submitted by tenants requesting emergency transfers and of each tenant's housing location.
(ii)(A) If a tenant seeks VAWA protections, the tenant must submit such request through the project sponsor (or grantee if the grantee is directly administering housing assistance). The project sponsor will work with the facility owner to facilitate protections on the tenant's behalf. Project sponsors must follow the documentation specifications in 24 CFR 5.2007 and maintain confidentiality as provided in 24 CFR 5.2007.
(B) The facility owner is responsible for using a HOPWA lease addendum with VAWA protections and, if such option is exercised, bifurcating the lease to evict the tenant that perpetrated the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
(2)(i) For tenant-based rental assistance, the HOPWA grantee is responsible for ensuring that the project:
(A) Sets policy for determining “reasonable opportunity” for establishing eligibility for remaining tenants in HOPWA facility-based assistance—minimum 90 days, maximum 1 year;
(B) Provides notice of occupancy rights and the certification form at admission, denial of assistance, termination, or eviction;
(C) Adopts and administers emergency transfer plan, and facilitates emergency transfers; and
(D) Maintains the confidentiality of documentation submitted by tenants requesting emergency transfers and of each tenant's housing location.
(ii)(A) If a tenant seeks VAWA protections, the tenant must submit such request through the project sponsor (or the grantee if the grantee is directly administering housing assistance). The project sponsor will work with the facility owner to facilitate protections on the tenant's behalf. Project sponsors must follow the documentation specifications in 24 CFR 5.2007 and maintain confidentiality as provided in 24 CFR 5.2007. The project sponsor is also responsible for determining on a case-by-case basis whether to provide new tenant-based rental assistance to a remaining tenant if an emergency transfer results in division of the household.
(B) The facility owner is responsible for using a HOPWA lease addendum with VAWA protections and, if such option is exercised, bifurcating the lease to evict the tenant that perpetrated the domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
(c)
(d)
(i) At the time the eligible person is denied tenant-based rental assistance or admission to a HOPWA-assisted unit;
(ii) At the time the eligible person is admitted to a HOPWA-assisted unit or begins receiving tenant-based rental assistance; and
(iii) With any notification of eviction from the HOPWA-assisted unit or termination of HOPWA tenant-based rental assistance.
(2) The grantee is responsible for ensuring that, for each tenant receiving HOPWA tenant-based rental assistance, the owner or manager of the tenant's housing unit commits to provide the notice and certification form described in 24 CFR 5.2005 with any notification of eviction that the owner or manager provides to the tenant during the period for which the tenant is receiving HOPWA tenant-based rental assistance. This commitment, as well as the confidentiality requirements under 24 CFR 5.2007(c), must be set forth in the VAWA lease term/addendum required under paragraph (e) of this section.
(e)
(f)
42 U.S.C. 11371
(a) * * *
(7) If a program participant receiving short- or medium-term rental assistance under § 576.106 meets the conditions for an emergency transfer under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), ESG funds may be used to pay damages caused by early termination of the program participant's lease. These costs are not subject to the 24-month limit on rental assistance under § 576.106.
(e)
(g)
(g)
(2) For the ESG program, “covered housing provider,” as such term is used in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and that is designated to carry out the duties and responsibilities
(i) The recipient or subrecipient that administers the rental assistance for the purposes of § 5.2005(e);
(ii) The housing owner for the purposes of § 5.2005(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4) and § 5.2009(a);
(iii) The housing owner and the recipient or subrecipient that administers the rental assistance for the purposes of § 5.2005(d)(2) and § 5.2009(b); and
(iv) The housing owner and the recipient or subrecipient that administers the rental assistance for the purposes of § 5.2007, unless otherwise provided in a written policy authorized by this section.
(3) As provided under 24 CFR 5.2005(a)(1) and (3), each recipient or subrecipient that determines eligibility for or administers ESG rental assistance is responsible for ensuring that the notice and certification form described under 24 CFR 5.2005(a)(1) is provided to each applicant for ESG rental assistance and each program participant receiving ESG rental assistance at each of the following times:
(i) When an individual or family is denied ESG rental assistance;
(ii) When a program participant begins receiving ESG rental assistance;
(iii) When a program participant is notified of termination of ESG rental assistance; and
(iv) When a program participant receives notification of eviction.
(3)(i) The recipient must develop an emergency transfer plan to meet the requirements of 24 CFR 5.2005(e) or require its subrecipients that administer ESG rental assistance to develop emergency transfer plans to meet the requirements of 24 CFR 5.2005(e). If the recipient requires its subrecipients to develop the plans, the recipient must specify whether:
(A) One plan is to be developed for the recipient's jurisdiction as a whole;
(B) One plan is to be developed for each Continuum of Care in which the subrecipients are located; or
(C) One plan is to be developed for each subrecipient that administers ESG rental assistance.
(ii) Once the applicable plan is developed, each recipient and subrecipient that administers ESG rental assistance must adopt and implement the plan in accordance with 24 CFR 5.2005(e).
(4) The recipient or subrecipient that administers ESG rental assistance may establish a written policy that allows or requires program participants to seek the recipient or subrecipient's assistance in preventing an owner from taking actions prohibited by VAWA. The policy must be appended to the notice of occupancy rights under VAWA and in the VAWA protection provisions in leases and rental assistance agreements as provided under § 576.106. At a minimum, the policy must provide that if a program participant seeks the recipient or subrecipient's assistance in preventing an owner's action:
(i) The recipient or subrecipient may request documentation under § 5.2007, but the program participant will not be required to provide documentation to the owner, except under court order;
(ii) The recipient or subrecipient must determine whether the program participant is entitled to protection under VAWA, and immediately advise the program participant of the determination; and
(iii) If the program participant is entitled to protection, the recipient or subrecipient must notify the owner in writing that the program participant is entitled to protection under VAWA and of the actions that are prohibited under VAWA, and the recipient or subrecipient must work with the owner on the program participant's behalf to resolve the matter. Any further sharing or disclosure of the program participant's information will be subject to the requirements in § 5.2007.
42 U.S.C. 11371
(d)
(i) Requires all recipients and subrecipients in the geographic area to use the plan; and
(ii) Permits recipients and subrecipients of grants for tenant-based rental assistance to use grant funds to pay damages resulting from the early termination of a lease if the recipient or subrecipient determines that the conditions of 24 CFR 5.2005(e) are met and the program participant uses the emergency transfer plan to transfer to a “safe and available unit.” The revision will clarify what grant funds may be used to pay and will reflect the addition of 24 CFR 5.2005(e)(3).
(m)
(i)
(2)
(a)
(j)
(2)
(i) The entity that carries out the duties and responsibilities of a covered housing provider, as provided in §§ 578.7, 578.75, 578.91, and 578.99;
(ii) The owner or landlord, which may be the recipient or subrecipient, for purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(d)(1) and 5.2009(a);
(iii) The recipient, subrecipient, and owner or landlord for purposes of 24 CFR 5.2005(d)(2)-(d)(4) ; and
(iv) The recipient or subrecipient for purposes of 24 CFR 5.2007 if the recipient or subrecipient establishes a policy under § 578.99(j)(5) requiring the program participant to seek the recipient's or subrecipient's assistance; otherwise the recipient, subrecipient, and owner or landlord for purposes 24 CFR 5.2007.
(3)
(4)
(A) When an individual or family is denied permanent housing or transitional housing;
(B) When a program participant is admitted to permanent housing or transitional housing;
(C) When a program participant receives notification of eviction; and
(D) When a program participant is notified of termination of assistance.
(ii) When grant funds are used for rental assistance, the recipient or subrecipient must ensure that the owner or manager of the housing provides the notice and certification form described in 24 CFR 5.2005(a) to the program participant with any notification of eviction. This commitment and the confidentiality requirements under 24 CFR 5.2007(c) must be set forth in a contract with the owner or landlord.
(5)
(i) If a program participant seeks the recipient's or subrecipient's assistance in preventing the owner's or landlord's action, the program participant, upon request of the recipient or subrecipient for documentation under 24 CFR 5.2007, will provide the requested documentation to the recipient or subrecipient and will not be required to provide the documentation to the owner or landlord, except under court order. Any further sharing or disclosure of the program participant's information will be subject to the requirements in 24 CFR 5.2007.
(ii) The recipient or subrecipient must determine whether the program participant is entitled to protection under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and immediately advise the program participant of the determination.
(iii) If the program participant is entitled to protection, the recipient or subrecipient must notify the owner or landlord in writing that the program participant is entitled to protection under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L and of the actions that are prohibited under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and must work with the owner or landlord on the program participant's behalf to resolve the matter.
(6)
(A) The requirement to comply with 24 CFR part 5, subpart L; and
(B) Where the owner or landlord of the housing will have a lease with a program participant, the requirement to include a lease provision that includes all protections that apply to tenants under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L.
(ii) The recipient or subrecipient must include in any lease, sublease, and occupancy agreement with the program participant a provision that includes all protections that apply to tenants under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L. The lease, sublease, and occupancy agreement may specify that the protections under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, apply only during the period of assistance under the Continuum of Care Program. The period of assistance for housing where grant funds were used for acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation is 15 years from the date of initial occupancy or date of initial service provision.
(iii) Except for tenant-based rental assistance, recipients and subrecipients must require that any lease, sublease, or occupancy agreement with a program participant permits the program participant to terminate the lease, sublease, or occupancy agreement without penalty if the recipient or subrecipient determines that the conditions of 24 CFR 5.2005(e) are met.
(iv) For tenant-based rental assistance, the recipient or subrecipient must enter into a contract with the owner or landlord of the housing that:
(A) Requires the owner or landlord of the housing to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L; and
(B) Requires the owner or landlord of the housing to include a lease provision that includes all protections that apply to tenants under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L. The lease may specify that the protections under 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, only apply while the program participant receives tenant-based rental assistance under the Continuum of Care Program.
(7)
(ii) For leases for tenant-based rental assistance existing prior to the effective date in § 578.99(j)(2), recipients and subrecipients must enter into a contract under § 578.99(j)(6)(iv) before the next renewal of the lease.
(8)
(9)
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-13619.
(f)
(c) * * *
(5) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), in all cases where domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or criminal activity directly related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is involved or claimed to be involved.
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535d.
The moderate rehabilitation program is subject to applicable Federal requirements in 24 CFR 5.105 and to the requirements for protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
(g) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), in all cases where domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or criminal activity directly related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is involved or claimed to be involved.
(c)
(a) Participation in this program requires compliance with the Federal requirements set forth in 24 CFR 5.105, with the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
The provisions of 24 CFR 880.504 apply, including reference at 24 CFR 880.504(f) to the requirements of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), pertaining to the selection of tenants and occupancy requirements in cases involving or allegedly involving incidents of, or criminal activity related to, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, subject to the requirements of § 883.105.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
(c) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) in all cases where domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or criminal activity directly related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is involved or claimed to be involved.
(f) The regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply to selection of tenants and occupancy requirements in cases involving or allegedly involving incidents of, or criminal activity related to, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-13619.
Part 247 of this title (24 CFR part 247) applies to the termination of tenancy
Subpart F of 24 CFR part 5 governs selection of tenants and occupancy requirements applicable under this subpart A of part 886. Subpart L of 24 CFR part 5 (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) applies to selection of tenants and occupancy requirements in cases involving or allegedly involving incidents of, or criminal activity related to, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Part 247 of this title (24 CFR part 247) applies to the termination of tenancy and eviction of a family assisted under this subpart. For cases involving termination of tenancy because of a failure to establish citizenship or eligible immigration status, the procedures of 24 CFR part 247 and 24 CFR part 5 shall apply. For cases involving, or allegedly involving, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or criminal activity directly relating to such violence, the provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply. The provisions of 24 CFR part 5, subpart E, concerning certain assistance for mixed families (families whose members include those with eligible immigration status, and those without eligible immigration status) in lieu of termination of assistance, and concerning deferral of termination of assistance, also shall apply.
(f) The regulations of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply to selection of tenants and occupancy requirements in cases involving, or allegedly involving, incidents of, or criminal activity related to, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
12 U.S.C. 1701q; 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535(d), and 8013.
(f) The regulations of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply to selection of tenants and occupancy requirements in cases involving, or allegedly involving, incidents of, or criminal activity related to, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
(c)
(c) In actions or potential actions to terminate tenancy, the owner shall follow 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), in all cases where domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or criminal activity directly related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is involved or claimed to be involved.
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437n, 1437z-3, and 3535(d).
(d)
(b) * * *
(8) Protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
(c) * * *
(4) PHA tenant selection criteria are subject to 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) HUD's regulations in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply, if a current or future tenant or an affiliated individual of a tenant is or becomes a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L.
(e) * * *
(9) To consider lease bifurcation, as provided in 24 CFR 5.2009, in circumstances involving domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking addressed in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking).
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535d.
(e)
(a)
(d)
(b) * * *
(4) In cases involving a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) applies.
(h) * * *
(4)
(b) * * *
(4) The family or a member of the family, is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of the family or family member, or any family member who has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's request to move. A PHA may not terminate assistance if the family, with or without prior notification to the PHA, moves out of a unit in violation of the lease, if such move occurs to protect the health or safety of a family member who is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking and who reasonably believed he or she was threatened with imminent harm from further violence if he or she remained in the dwelling unit. However, any family member that has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's move or request to move, is not required to believe that he or she was threatened with imminent harm from further violence if he or she remained in the dwelling unit.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The above policies do not apply when the family or a member of the family is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of the family or family member, or any family member has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's request to move.
(a) * * *
(2) If the family break-up results from an occurrence of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), the PHA must ensure that the victim retains assistance.
(b) The factors to be considered in making this decision under the PHA policy may include:
(1) Whether the assistance should remain with family members remaining in the original assisted unit.
(2) The interest of minor children or of ill, elderly, or disabled family members.
(3) Whether family members are forced to leave the unit as a result of actual or threatened domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
(4) Whether any of the family members are receiving protection as victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and whether the abuser is still in the household.
(5) Other factors specified by the PHA.
(b)
(c) * * *
(4) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply when the family or a member of the family is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of the family or family member, or any family member who has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's request to move.
(b) * * *
(1) * * * The fact that an applicant is or has been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking is not an appropriate basis for denial of tenancy if the applicant otherwise qualifies for tenancy.
(e)
(l)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(v)
(e) In cases of criminal activity related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the victim protections of 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) apply.
(a) * * *
(2) The PHA may not commence continued tenant-based assistance for occupancy of the new unit so long as any family member owns any title or other interest in the prior home. However, when the family or a member of the family is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking), and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of the family or family member (or any family member has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's request to move), such family or family member may be assisted with continued tenant-based assistance even if such family or family member owns any title or other interest in the prior home.
(3) The PHA may establish policies that prohibit more than one move by the family during any 1 year period. However, these policies do not apply when the family or a member of the family is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, and the move is needed to protect the health or safety of the family or family member, or any family member has been the victim of a sexual assault that occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the family's request to move.
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
(b) * * *
(a) * * *
(3) The protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR
(d) The protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking in 24 CFR part 5, subpart L, apply to tenant screening.
(a) * * * 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking) applies to this part.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provides protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the Federal agency that oversees that [
If you are eligible for rental assistance under [
If you are receiving rental assistance under [
Also, if a tenant or an affiliated individual of the tenant is or has been the victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking by a member of the tenant's household or any guest, rental assistance under [
Affiliated individual means a spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child of that individual, or a person to whom that individual stands in the place of a parent (for example, the affiliated individual is in the care, custody, or control of that individual); or any individual, tenant, or lawful occupant living in the household of that individual.
HP may divide your lease in order to evict the individual or terminate the rental assistance of the individual who has engaged in criminal activity (the abuser) directly relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
If HP chooses to remove the abuser, HP may not take away the rights of eligible tenants to the unit or otherwise punish the remaining tenants. If the tenant evicted was the sole tenant to have established eligibility for rental assistance under the program, HP must allow the tenant who is or has been a victim and other household members to remain in the unit for a period of time, in order to establish eligibility under the program or find alternative housing.
In removing the abuser from the household, HP must follow Federal, State, and local eviction procedures. In order to divide a lease, HP may ask you to provide proof of incidences of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Upon your request, HP may permit you to move to another unit, subject to the availability of other units, and still keep your rental assistance. In order to approve a request, HP may ask you to provide proof that you are requesting to move because of incidences of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. If the request is a request for emergency transfer, the request must be in made in accordance with HP's emergency transfer plan.
HP can ask you to provide documentation to “certify” that you are or have been a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Such request from HP must be in writing, and HP must give you at least 14 business days (Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays do not count) to provide the documentation. HP may extend the deadline for the submission of proof upon your request.
You can provide
• A complete HUD-approved certification form given to you by HP with this notice, that documents an incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The form will ask for your name, the date, time, and location of the incident of domestic violence, and a description of the incident. The certification form provides for including the name of the abuser if the name of the abuser is known and is safe to provide.
• A record of a Federal, State, tribal, territorial, or local law enforcement agency, court, or administrative agency that documents the abuse.
• A statement, which you must sign, along with the signature of an employee, agent, or volunteer of a victim service provider, an attorney, a medical professional or a mental health professional (collectively, “professional”) from whom you sought assistance in addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, or the effects of abuse, and with the professional selected by you attesting under penalty of perjury that he or she believes that the incident or incidents of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking are grounds for protection.
• Any other statement or evidence that HP has agreed to accept.
If you fail or refuse to provide one of these documents within the 14 business days, HP does not have to provide you with the protections contained in this notice.
If HP receives conflicting evidence that an incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking has been committed (such as certification forms from two or more members of a household each claiming to be a victim and naming one or more of the other petitioning household members as the abuser), HP has the right to request that you provide third-party documentation in order to resolve the conflict.
If you fail or refuse to provide third-party documentation, HP does not have to provide you with the protections contained in this notice.
HP must keep confidential any information you provide related to the exercise of your rights under VAWA, including the fact that you are exercising your rights under VAWA.
HP must not allow any individual administering rental assistance or other services on behalf of HP (for example, employees and contractors) to have access to confidential information unless for reasons that specifically call for these individuals to have access to this information under applicable Federal, State, or local law.
HP must not enter your information into any shared database or disclose your information to any other entity or individual.
• You give written permission to HP to release the information.
• HP needs to use the information in an eviction or termination proceeding, such as to evict your abuser or terminate your abuser from rental assistance under this program.
• A law requires HP or your landlord to release the information.
VAWA does not limit HP's duty to honor court orders about access to or control of the property. This includes orders issued to protect a victim and orders dividing property among household members in cases where a family breaks up.
You can be evicted and your rental assistance can be terminated for serious or repeated lease violations that are not related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking committed against you. However, HP cannot hold you, as a tenant eligible for occupancy rights under VAWA (one who is or has been a victim), to a more demanding set of rules than it applies to tenants who are not eligible for tenancy rights under VAWA.
VAWA does not replace any Federal, State, or local law that provides greater protection for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
For questions regarding VAWA, please contact [
[Insert name of housing provider or responsible entity
This plan identifies tenants who are eligible for an emergency transfer, the documentation needed to request an emergency transfer, confidentiality protections, how an emergency transfer may occur, and guidance to tenants on safety and security. This plan is based on a model emergency transfer plan published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal agency that oversees that [
A tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as provided in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L (a copy of which is attached), is eligible for an emergency transfer, if:
• The tenant reasonably believes that there is a threat of imminent harm from further violence if the tenant remains within the same unit;
• The tenant is a victim of a sexual assault, and the sexual assault occurred on the premises within the 90-day period preceding a request for an emergency transfer.
A tenant requesting an emergency transfer must expressly request the transfer in accordance with the procedures described in this plan.
To request an emergency transfer, the tenant shall notify HP's management office and submit a written request for a transfer to [
1. A statement expressing why the tenant reasonably believes that there is a threat of imminent harm from further violence if the tenant were to remain in the same dwelling unit assisted under HP's program.
2. A statement that the tenant was a sexual assault victim and that the sexual assault occurred on the premises during the 90-day period preceding the tenant's request for an emergency transfer.
HP may request additional documentation from a tenant in accordance with the documentation policies of HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 5, subpart L.
HP will keep confidential any information that the tenant submits in requesting an emergency transfer, and information about the emergency transfer, unless the tenant gives HP written permission to release the information, or disclosure of the information is required by law or in the course of an eviction or termination proceeding. This includes keeping confidential the new location of the dwelling unit of the tenant, if one is provided, from the person(s) that committed an act(s) of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking against the tenant.
HP cannot guarantee that a transfer request will be approved or how long it will take to process a transfer request. HP will, however, act as quickly as possible to move a tenant who is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking to another unit, subject to availability and safety of a unit. If a unit is available, the transferred tenant must agree to abide by the terms and conditions that govern occupancy in the unit to which the tenant has been transferred.
Pending processing of the transfer and the actual transfer, if it is approved and occurs, the tenant is urged to take all reasonable precautions to be safe. The tenant is encouraged to contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233, or a local domestic violence shelter, for assistance in creating a safety plan. For persons with hearing impairments, that hotline can be accessed by calling 1-800-787-3224 (TTY).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to establish a new test procedure for pumps. Specifically, DOE is proposing a test method for measuring the hydraulic power, shaft power, and electric input power of pumps, inclusive of electric motors and any continuous or non-continuous controls. The proposal, if adopted, would incorporate by reference the test procedure from the Hydraulic Institute (HI)—Standard 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing.” The proposed test procedure would be used to determine the constant load pump energy index (PEI
DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section IV.M, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR before and after the public meeting, but no later than June 15, 2015. See section IV.M, “Public Participation,” for details.
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945.
Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of this proposed rule.
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV.M of this document (“Public Participation”).
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
(1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, (“ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014”), “Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;” approved 2014, sections 1.1, “Types and nomenclature,” and 1.2.9, “Rotodynamic pump icons.”
(2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, (“ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 ”), “Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions,” approved 2008, section 2.1, “Types and nomenclature.”
(3) HI 40.6-2014, (“HI 40.6-2014”), “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” except for section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and appendix B, “Reporting of test results,” approved 2014.
Copies of ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 and HI 40.6-2014 can be obtained from: The Hydraulic Institute at 6 Campus Drive, First Floor North, Parsippany, NJ 07054-4406, or by going to
(4) FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” approved October 2008.
Copies of FM Class Number 1319 can be obtained from: Factory Mutual. 270 Central Avenue Johnston, RI 02919, 401-275-3000.
(5) NFPA Standard 20-2013, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” approved 2013.
Copies of NFPA Standard 20-2013 can be obtained from: The National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169, 617-770-3000.
(6) UL Standard 448-2007, “Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” approved 2007.
Copies of UL Standard 448-2007 can be obtained from: The Underwriters Laboratory, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062.
Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to
Pumps are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. DOE does not currently regulate the energy efficiency of this equipment or have test procedures to measure the efficiency of such equipment. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for pumps and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163, as amended by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment under Title III, Part C. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified).
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)(1)), and (2) making representations about the energy consumption of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
In addition, before prescribing any final test procedures, DOE must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)(1)-(2))
DOE is authorized to prescribe energy conservation standards and corresponding test procedures for statutorily-covered equipment such as pumps. While DOE is currently evaluating whether to establish energy conservation standards for pumps, (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031), DOE must first establish a test procedure that measures the energy use, energy efficiency, or estimated operating costs of a given type of covered equipment before establishing any new energy conservation standards for that equipment.
To fulfill these requirements, DOE is proposing to establish a test procedure for pumps concurrent with its ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking for this equipment.
If adopted, manufacturers would be required to use the proposed test procedure and metric when making representations regarding the energy use of covered equipment 180 days after the publication date of any applicable energy conservation standards final rule for those pumps that are addressed by the test procedure.
DOE does not currently regulate pumps. In 2011, DOE issued a Request for Information (RFI) to gather data and information related to pumps in anticipation of initiating rulemakings to formally consider test procedures and energy conservation standards for this equipment. 76 FR 34192 (June 13, 2011). In February 2013, DOE published a Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document to initiate the energy conservation standard rulemaking for pumps. 78 FR 7304 (Feb. 1, 2013). DOE posted the February 2013 Framework Document (“Framework Document”) to its Web site.
Concurrent with these efforts, DOE also began a process through the ASRAC to discuss conducting a negotiated rulemaking to develop standards and test procedures for pumps as an alternative to the route DOE had already begun. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039)
The Working Group commenced negotiations at an open meeting on December 18 and 19, 2013, and held six additional meetings and two webinars to discuss scope, metrics, test procedures, and standard levels for pumps.
Those recommendations regarding issues pertinent to the test procedure and standard metric are addressed in this NOPR and reflected in DOE's proposed pump test procedure. In this NOPR, DOE also refers to discussions from the CIP Working Group meetings regarding potential actions that may not have been formally approved as an addition to the Working Group Recommendations. All references to approved recommendations will be specified with a citation to the Working Group Recommendations and noting the recommendation number (for example: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #X at p. Y); references to discussion or suggestions of the CIP Working Group not found in the Working Group Recommendations will have a citation to meeting transcripts (for example: Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. X at p. Y).
DOE notes that many of those who submitted comments on the Framework Document later became members of the CIP Working Group. As such, the concerns of these commenters were fully discussed as part of the meetings, and their positions may have changed as a result of the compromises inherent in a negotiation. The proposals in this NOPR incorporate and respond to several issues and recommendations that were raised in response to the Framework Document. However, where a framework commenter became a member of the CIP Working Group, DOE does not reference or respond to comments made by that stakeholder regarding issues that were later discussed or negotiated in the CIP Working Group. Table I.2 lists the framework commenters as well as whether they participated in the CIP Working Group.
DOE is proposing to establish a new subpart Y to part 431 of Title 10 of the
Consistent with the Working Group Recommendations, DOE proposes that these test methods be in accordance with HI Standard 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pumps Efficiency Testing,” (“HI 40.6-2014”), with slight modifications as noted in section III.C.2. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #10 at p. 4) Members of the pumps industry developed HI 40.6-2014, which contains methods for determining the energy performance of rotodynamic pumps without accounting for the impact of continuous or non-continuous controls. HI 40.6-2014 was developed following DOE's announcement in the Framework Document that DOE planned to develop a test procedure for pumps. In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to include testing and calculation methods to account for the energy performance of pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls. DOE has reviewed HI 40.6-2014 and finds, for the reasons stated below and in detail in section III,
DOE's approach, which is consistent with the Working Group's recommendations, proposes to use a new metric, the pump energy index (PEI), to rate the energy performance of pumps covered by this proposed test procedure. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at p. 5) The proposed test procedure contains methods for determining the constant load PEI (PEI
The proposed test procedure contains methods to determine the appropriate index for all equipment for which this test procedure would apply using either calculation-based methods and/or testing-based methods. While both methods include some amount of testing and some amount of calculation, the terms “calculation-based” and “testing-based” are used to distinguish between methods in which the input power to the pump is determined either by (a) measuring the pump shaft input power
DOE notes that the calculation-based method discussed in section III.E.1 would only apply to certain pumps: (1) Pumps sold without either a motor or controls (
DOE also proposes to establish requirements regarding the sampling plan and representations for covered pumps at subpart B of part 429 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed sampling plan requirements are similar to those for several other types of commercial equipment and are appropriate for pumps based on the expected range of measurement uncertainty and manufacturing tolerances for this equipment. Regarding representations, for those pumps addressed by this proposal, DOE is also specifying the energy consumption or energy efficiency representations that may be made, in addition to the regulated metric (PEI
DOE notes that equipment meeting the proposed pump definition is already covered equipment. However, DOE's proposal is more narrowly applied to a specific scope of pumps. Specifically, this proposal would apply to the limited scope of rotodynamic pumps
Starting on the compliance date for any energy conservation standards that DOE may set, and assuming that the provisions of this NOPR are adopted, all pumps within the scope of those energy conservation standards would be required to be tested in accordance with the proposed subpart Y of part 431 and must have their testing performed in a manner consistent with the applicable sampling requirements. Similarly, all representations regarding the energy efficiency or energy use of pumps within the scope of pumps proposed for coverage by this test procedure would be required to be made based on the adopted pump test procedure 180 days after the publication date of any final rule establishing energy conservation for those pumps that are addressed by the test procedure.
DOE's proposal would place a new pump test procedure and related definitions in a new subpart Y of part 431, and add new sampling plans and reporting requirements for this equipment in a new section 429.59 of 10 CFR part 429. This proposed subpart Y would contain definitions, materials incorporated by reference, and the test procedure for certain classes and configurations of pumps established as a result of this rulemaking, as well as any energy conservation standards for pumps resulting from the ongoing energy conservation standard rulemaking, as shown in Table III.1. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)
The following sections discuss DOE's proposals regarding establishing new testing and sampling requirements for pumps, including: Scope; rating metric; determination of pump performance; determination of motor efficiency; test methods for different combinations of pumps and drivers and controls; representations; and sampling plans.
Although a “pump” is listed as a type of covered equipment under EPCA, that term is undefined.
DOE notes that while the proposed definition of “pump” is broad, the scope of prospective energy conservation standards, as recommended by the Working Group, would be limited to a more narrow range of equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendations #4 and 6-8 at pp. 2-4) DOE also notes that the scope of this proposed test procedure is intended to be consistent with the scope of the parallel standards rulemaking effort currently under evaluation. In other words, DOE proposes that only pumps subject to an energy conservation standard would have to be tested in accordance with the adopted test procedure. Finally, DOE notes that the broad definition of “pump” being considered in this proposal would provide DOE with flexibility to make any necessary adjustments to its regulations to address potential scoping changes in the future that DOE may consider.
After considering the Working Group Recommendations, DOE is proposing to define which pumps would need to be tested with the proposed test procedure by applying three criteria: (1) The equipment class; (2) the application; and (3) applicable performance specifications—
DOE requests comment on its proposal to match the scopes of the pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings, as recommended by the Working Group.
To help set the scope for this proposal and the manner in which both the procedure and related standards would
DOE proposes to include definitions in a new 10 CFR 431.462 that would describe the components comprising a pump for scoping purposes. Consistent with the intent of the Working Group Recommendations, DOE proposes to define the following terms:
(1) Pump means equipment that is designed to move liquids (which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes at least a bare pump and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, driver and controls.
(2) Bare pump means a pump excluding mechanical equipment, driver, and controls.
Mechanical equipment means any component of a pump that transfers energy from a driver to the bare pump.
Driver means the machine providing mechanical input to drive a bare pump directly or through the use of mechanical equipment. Examples include, but are not limited to, an electric motor, internal combustion engine, or gas/steam turbine.
Control means any device that can be used to operate the driver. Examples include, but are not limited to, continuous or non-continuous speed controls, schedule-based controls, on/off switches, and float switches.
DOE notes that, while there was consensus among the members of the Working Group in favor of these definitions as part of the entirety of the Working Group Recommendations, there was one Working Group member who specifically objected to the “pump” definition that the Working Group developed,
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for “pump,” “bare pump,” “mechanical equipment,” “driver,” and “control.”
The definition of “control” proposed by DOE and recommended by the CIP Working Group is broad. DOE acknowledges the proposed definition may be include many different kinds of electronic or mechanical devices that can “control the driver” of a pump (
For this proposed test procedure, DOE is focusing on those controls that reduce energy consumption—
To explicitly establish the kinds of controls that can apply the PEI
(1)
(2)
While the proposed PEI
DOE also notes that the definitions of continuous and non-continuous controls do not require the control to include the necessary sensors and feedback logic to automatically respond to changes in the required flow, head, or pump power output. DOE recognizes that such continuous or non-continuous controls (
In summary, by not requiring continuous or non-continuous controls to be automatically actuating when distributed in commerce, DOE seeks to limit the costs and burdens of adding continuous or non-continuous controls to a given pump. Furthermore, DOE believes that the incremental cost of any continuous or non-continuous control is sufficiently high, making it extremely unlikely that a customer would buy a pump with such controls and not employ appropriate and application-specific sensors and feedback logic to achieve energy savings. As such, DOE is
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for “continuous control” and “non-continuous control.”
DOE also requests comment on the likelihood of a pump with continuous or non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce, but never being paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would enable energy savings.
In the course of regulating consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, DOE has developed the concept of a “basic model” to determine the specific product or equipment configuration(s) to which the regulations would apply. For the purposes of applying the proposed pumps regulations, DOE is also proposing to define what constitutes a “basic model” of pump. Applying this basic model concept would allow manufacturers to group similar models within a basic model to minimize testing burden. In other words, manufacturers would need to test only a representative number of units of a basic model in lieu of testing every model they manufacture. By grouping models together, a manufacturer would be able to test a smaller number of units. However, manufacturers would need to make this decision with the understanding that there is increased risk associated with these groupings due to the potential for a wider impact from a noncompliance finding. Basic model groupings increase this risk because, if DOE determines a basic model is noncompliant, all models within the basic model are determined to be noncompliant.
In keeping with this practice, DOE also proposes to define a “basic model” for pumps so manufacturers can determine the pump models on which they must conduct testing to demonstrate compliance with a prospective energy conservation standard for pumps. The proposal would define a “basic model” in a manner similar to that for other commercial and industrial equipment, with the exception of two pump-specific issues. For most commercial and industrial equipment, DOE defines basic model to include all units of a given product or equipment type (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, and having essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water efficiency.
For the purposes of establishing a basic model definition for pumps, DOE proposes modifying the general definition by addressing two particular characteristics that impact the energy consumption of pumps. First, radially split, multi-stage vertical in-line casing diffuser (RSV) and vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps for which the bare pump varies only in the number of stages would be required to be treated as the same basic model. Second, pumps for which the bare pump varies only in impeller diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered to be the same basic model or may optionally be rated as unique basic models. These exceptions are discussed in the following sections.
The first modification to the basic model definition applies to variation in the number of stages for multi-stage pumps. DOE proposes that variation in the number of stages, while it may affect efficiency and will affect power, should not constitute a characteristic that would differentiate pump basic models. Specifically, any improvements in the hydraulic design of a single stage (or bowl) would be reflected in the measured performance of the pump with any number of stages. In addition, requiring testing for each stage version of a multi-stage pump would add significant testing burden. For these reasons, the CIP Working Group recommended each multi-stage pump be tested with a specified number of stages, as discussed in section III.C.2.c. DOE notes that any representations made with respect to PEI and pump energy rating (PER) for individual models with alternate number of stages within a single basic model: (1) Must be on the same as the basic model with the specified number of stages required for testing under the test procedure and (2) must be rated using method A.1, “bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve” (explained further in section III.E).
The second modification DOE proposes to the typical basic model definition is that a trimmed impeller, though it may impact efficiency, would not be a basis for requiring units to be rated as unique basic models. This proposal is consistent with the Working Group recommendation that the rating of a given pump basic model should be based on testing at full impeller diameter only and that DOE not require testing at reduced impeller diameters. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #7 at p. 3) DOE understands that a given pump may be distributed to customers with a variety of impeller trims to meet a certain hydraulic load for a certain application, and impeller trim has a direct impact on a pump's performance characteristics. However, DOE, in general, agrees with the Working Group's proposal. Rather than requiring a manufacturer to certify to DOE a pump with any given impeller trim that may be requested by a customer, DOE is proposing to limit the number of specific pump models to certify, which would reduce the overall manufacturer burden from testing while helping ensure that a reasonably accurate measurement of a given pump's efficiency is obtained. Rating at full impeller would typically reflect the most consumptive rating for that pump, due to the higher hydraulic power provided by the full impeller, as compared to a trimmed impeller in the same bare pump bowl. Therefore, any pump model with a bare pump that is otherwise identical (
Relevant to this requirement, DOE proposes to define the term “full impeller” as it pertains to the rating of pump models in accordance with the proposed test procedure. The European Union (EU) defines “full impeller” as “the impeller with the maximum diameter for which performance characteristics are given for a pump size in the catalogues of a water pump manufacturer.”
Under DOE's proposed definition for “full impeller,” manufacturers would also be able to represent a model with a trimmed impeller as less consumptive than at full impeller. To do so, they must treat that trimmed impeller model as a different basic model and test a representative number of models at the maximum diameter distributed in commerce of that trimmed basic model listing. In such a case, the impeller trim with which the pump is rated becomes the “full impeller diameter,” which is the “maximum diameter impeller used with a given pump basic model distributed in commerce or the maximum diameter impeller referenced in the manufacturer's literature for that pump basic model, whichever is larger.” In these cases, manufacturers may elect to: (1) Group individual pump units with bare pumps that vary only impeller diameter into a single basic model or (2) establish separate basic models (with unique ratings) for any number of unique impeller trims, provided that the PEI rating associated with any individual model is based on the maximum diameter impeller for that basic model and that basic model is compliant with any energy conservation standards established as part of the parallel pumps ECS rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031)
DOE notes that, while manufacturers may group pump models with various impeller trims under one basic model with the same certified PEI rating based on the full impeller diameter, all representations of PEI and PER for any individual model must be: (1) Based on testing of the model with the full diameter impeller in the basic model and (2) rated using method A.1, “bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve” (explained further in section III.E).
DOE notes that, for pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, pump manufacturers may pair a given pump with several different motors with different performance characteristics. Under the proposed definition, each unique pump and motor pairing would represent a unique basic model. However, consistent with DOE's practice with other products and equipment, pump manufacturers may elect to group similar individual pump models within the same equipment class into the same basic model to reduce testing burden, provided all representations regarding the energy use of pumps within that basic model are identical and based on the most consumptive unit.
For example, pumps that share the same bare pump but have different motors could be grouped into the same basic model based on the least efficient pump and motor combination as long as the manufacturer did not want to make representations of the more-efficient pump and motor combination. However, for pumps sold with trimmed impellers, DOE recognizes that a given pump with a trimmed impeller may be sold with a different motor than the same pump with a full impeller. As variation in impeller trim of the bare pump does not constitute a characteristic that would differentiate basic models, variation in motor sizing as a result of different impeller trims would also not serve as a basis for differentiating basic models.
Since the proposed pump basic model definition and certified rating are both based on the pump as tested with a full impeller and a specific number of stages, to the extent that the paired motor varies between a given pump unit and the same bare pump at full impeller diameter with the specified number of stages for testing, this difference would not constitute a characteristic that would define separate basic models.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “basic model” as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in comments on DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating pumps with trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic models, provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum impeller diameter available within that basic model.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “full impeller.”
DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that are unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may require modifications to the definition of “basic model,” as proposed.
Table III.2 presents a list of the specific pump categories that DOE considered in the context of its Framework Document. The treatment of these rotodynamic pumps was extensively discussed and debated among members of the CIP Working Group. Those pump categories that the Working Group recommended for inclusion as part of DOE's standards-setting efforts are marked accordingly. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #4 at p. 2)
Discussions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of certain categories of pumps can be found in the transcripts from the first several meetings of the CIP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, Nos. 8, 9, 14, 15, 46, 47, and 62) As recommended by the Working Group, DOE is applying a scope (for both the test procedure and in evaluating potential standards) that would include the following pump equipment classes: end suction close-coupled (ESCC), end suction frame mounted (ESFM), in-line (IL), radially split multi-stage vertical IL casing diffuser (RSV), and vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps. DOE notes that, while intended to be consistent with this test procedure proposal, the scope of any energy conservation standards proposed for pumps will be discussed as part of a separate rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
To help manufacturers determine whether a given pump falls into one of the equipment classes that would be addressed by the scope of this proposal and the parallel energy conservation standards under consideration, DOE is proposing to define each pump equipment class that DOE would regulate. In developing these definitions, DOE considered the comments received in response to the Framework Document along with subsequent input provided during the CIP Working Group meetings. For example, HI preferred that DOE use the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) HI definitions for equivalent pump categories and nomenclature instead of the definitions tentatively proposed by DOE. (HI, No. 25 at p. 28)
A joint comment submitted by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Earthjustice, and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (collectively referred to as “the Advocates”)
While the CIP Working Group recommended establishing a test procedure and standards for specific classes of pumps, in the interest of time, the specific definitions of these pump equipment classes were not negotiated by the CIP Working Group. After considering the stakeholder comments on the Framework Document, DOE is proposing specific definitions for particular categories of pumps and specific pump equipment classes. DOE is proposing general definitions for some specific characteristics of pumps for which DOE is proposing that the test procedure be applicable; namely rotodynamic pump, single-axis flow pump, and end suction pump.
DOE proposes that rotodynamic pump refer to a pump in which energy is continuously imparted to the pumped fluid by means of a rotating impeller, propeller, or rotor. DOE proposes such a definition to help define the specific pump equipment classes to which the proposed test procedure is applicable and differentiate those from positive displacement pumps (
DOE also proposes to define single axis flow pump as a pump in which the liquid inlet of the bare pump is on the same axis as the liquid discharge of the bare pump to clarify when specific pump equipment classes, discussed below, are proposed to exclude similar pumps in which the pumped liquid enters and exits the pump on different axes.
DOE proposes to define end suction pump as a specific variety of rotodynamic pump that is single-stage and in which the liquid enters the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft and on the end opposite the bare pump's driver-end. Such a pump is not single axis flow because the liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the shaft.
Based on these three definitions describing general pump characteristics, DOE proposes to define the following five pump equipment classes to which the proposed test procedure would be applicable:
(1)
(a) The bare pump has its own impeller shaft and bearings and so does not rely on the motor shaft to serve as the impeller shaft;
(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
(c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 and OH1, as described in the 2008 version of ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, “Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions” (ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014).
(2)
(a) The motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump;
(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
(c) the pump does not include a basket strainer.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
(3)
(a) Liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft; and
(b) the pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
(4)
(a) liquid is discharged in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft;
(b) each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser; and.
(c) no external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in the pumped liquid.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in the 2008 version of ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, “Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions” (ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008).
(5)
(a) each stage of this pump consists of an impeller and diffuser and
(b) liquid enters and exits each stage of the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft.
Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS0, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008.
DOE notes that any references to HI nomenclature in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 or ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 are incorporated into the definitions of the aforementioned pump equipment classes as examples only. As several interested parties expressed their desire to reference the HI nomenclature to help provide clarity to the industry, DOE is proposing to list the relevant HI pump nomenclature in the definition of each pump equipment class. However, in some cases, the HI nomenclature can be vague or inconsistent.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end suction pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled pump, in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical turbine submersible pump.
DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the regulatory text, are likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies, and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when determining the appropriate equipment class for their pump models.
With regard to the proposed definition for RSV pumps, DOE understands that, in such a pump, flow typically proceeds from the bare pump inlet through the stages in series, with each stage increasing the total head, and exits at the pump discharge. DOE requests comment on whether it needs to clarify the flow direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when determining test procedure and standards applicability.
One issue related to the above that DOE is currently considering is whether its proposed RSV pump definition requires further clarification to ensure that immersible pumps do not fall within the definition. As proposed, this definition would exclude immersible pumps that would otherwise meet the remaining characteristics detailed in the definition (
Circulators, which are a specific kind of rotodynamic pump, are small, low-head pumps similar to the in-line or end suction close-coupled configuration pumps that are generally used to circulate water in hydronic space conditioning or potable water systems in buildings.
The CIP Working Group recommended that circulator pumps be addressed as part of a separate rulemaking process that would involve informal negotiation between stakeholders followed by an ASRAC-approved negotiation. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2) DOE has not yet received any proposals or requests for negotiation from the stakeholders.
To explicitly exclude circulators from this rulemaking and the parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE proposes to define the term “circulator” as referring to either:
• An end suction pump with a pump housing that requires only the support of the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected to function as designed, or
• A single-stage, single axis flow, rotodynamic pump, with a pump housing that requires only the support of the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected to function as designed.
Under this definition, such a pump would not be able to function as designed without attachment to a rigid foundation. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, or CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014.
Adopting this definition would help ensure that circulators can be clearly and unambiguously differentiated from other pumps that DOE may consider regulating and to which this proposed test procedure would apply. The proposed definition would rely on the unique and distinguishable design characteristics of circulators—namely, that circulators require only pipe-mounted support and do not need to be attached to a rigid foundation to function as designed. Conversely, ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps, by definition, require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed. DOE believes that such a definition for a circulator would encompass all pumps commonly referred to as circulators by the industry, which the CIP Working Group recommended that DOE not regulate in this rulemaking. DOE proposes to also reference the ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2—2014 nomenclature for circulators, as included in the CIP Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92 at p. 2)
By defining circulators, ESCC, ESFM, and IL pumps as mutually exclusive from each other on the basis of design characteristics, it is unnecessary to include a size-based threshold in the proposed circulator definition, as had been suggested by stakeholders. (HI, No. 25 at p. 20; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 338) DOE notes that it is uncommon for pumps larger than 3 hp to be supported only by their supply and discharge pipes. This is due to limitations on the structural weight loads that a piping system can support. The constraint imposed by the piping system, in effect, acts as an inherent upper size threshold for circulators.
The CIP Working Group also formally recommended that DOE initiate a separate rulemaking for dedicated-purpose pool pumps by December 2014. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #5A at p. 2) The CIP Working Group further sought to identify the unique characteristics of pool pumps that differentiate them from the other pump classes within the scope of this rulemaking to make clear that dedicated-purpose pool pumps are not required to be tested in accordance with the proposed procedure. During the March 26, 2014 CIP Working Group meeting, Xylem Inc. (Xylem) indicated that all dedicated-purpose pool pumps include an integrated basket strainer, unlike other end suction close-coupled pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 62 at p. 195) To distinguish a “dedicated-purpose pool pump” from other pumps that DOE is currently considering regulating in this NOPR, DOE proposes to define this device as an end suction pump designed specifically to circulate water in a pool and that includes an integrated basket strainer.
DOE notes that this definition will be discussed in more detail in a separate rulemaking to consider potential energy conservation standards and test procedures for pool pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators and pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking. DOE also requests comment on the proposed definitions for circulators and dedicated-purpose pool pumps. Finally, DOE requests comment on the extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed. Specifically, DOE is interested to know if any pumps commonly referred to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not require attachment to a rigid foundation.
“Axial/mixed flow pump” is a term used by the pump industry to describe a rotodynamic pump that is used to move large volumes of liquid at high flow rates and low heads. These pumps are typically custom-designed and used in applications such as dewatering, flood control, and storm water management.
Positive displacement (PD) pumps are a style of pump that operates by first opening an increasing volume to suction; this volume is then filled, closed, moved to discharge, and displaced. PD pumps operate at near-constant flow over their range of operational pressures and can often produce higher pressure than a centrifugal pump, at a given flow rate. PD pumps also excel at maintaining flow and efficiency for liquids more viscous than water. When used in clean water applications, PD pumps are typically chosen for high pressure, constant flow applications such as high pressure power washing, oil field water injection, and low-flow metering processes.
The CIP Working Group recommended excluding both of these types of pumps from being subject to the prospective energy conservation standards DOE is considering. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #6 at p. 2) The primary reason for excluding these pumps at this time is their low market share in the considered horsepower range and low potential for energy savings. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at pp. 114 and 372-373) In addition, the CIP Working Group acknowledged that PD pumps are more commonly used in non-clean water applications and provide a different utility than the categories of pumps addressed in this rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 114) Therefore, DOE is considering excluding these pumps from the scope of this rulemaking and the parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking.
DOE believes that the pump equipment classes and scope parameters defined in sections III.A.2 and III.A.4, respectively, implicitly exclude positive displacement and axial flow pumps.
As mentioned previously, axial/mixed flow pumps are designed to accommodate high flow-to-head-ratio applications and are therefore implicitly
As discussed previously, PD pumps are typically used to handle high viscosity liquids or handle extremely high head applications. PD pumps are not rotodynamic pumps and so do not meet the definition of any of the pump equipment classes discussed in section III.A.2.a that DOE is considering addressing in this rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/mixed flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking based on the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pump equipment classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
DOE initially considered limiting its rulemaking scope to address only rotodynamic pumps intended for use in pumping clean water, with the potential of further limiting the scope to exclude specific categories of pumps based on their design or application. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031, No. 13 at pp. 2-6) DOE also discussed the possibility of defining “clean water pump” using physical characteristics rather than just defining “clean water” as in the EU Commission Regulation No 547/2012 EU 547.
In an effort to meet the intent and recommendations of the CIP Working Group, DOE is proposing to define “clean water pump.” DOE is also proposing to define several kinds of clean water pumps that are designed for specific applications and that the Working Group had indicated should be excluded from the scope of this proposal and DOE's standards rulemaking efforts that are under development. These definitions would be laid out in a new 10 CFR 431.462.
First, DOE proposes to define “clean water pump” as a pump that is designed for use in pumping water with a maximum non-absorbent free solid content of 0.25 kilograms per cubic meter, and with a maximum dissolved solid content of 50 kilograms per cubic meter, provided that the total gas content of the water does not exceed the saturation volume, and disregarding any additives necessary to prevent the water from freezing at a minimum of −10 °C.
DOE notes that, when determining whether a given pump would satisfy the definition of clean water pump, DOE would consider marketing materials, labels and certifications, equipment design, and actual application of such equipment.
To clarify the scope of “clean water pumps,” DOE notes that several common pumps would not meet the definition of clean water pumps, as they are not designed for pumping clean water. The CIP Working Group specifically identified the following non-clean water pumps:
(1) Wastewater, sump, slurry, or solids handling pump (
(2) Pump designed for pumping hydrocarbon product fluids that meets the requirements of API's Standard 610-2010, “Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries” or ISO 13709:2009.
(3) Chemical process pump that meets the requirements of ANSI/ASME Standard B73.1-2012, “Specification for Horizontal End Suction Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical Process;” ANSI/ASME B73.2-2002, “Specifications for Vertical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical Process;” or International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2858:1975, “End-suction centrifugal pumps (rating 16 bar)—Designation, nominal duty point and dimensions,” and ISO 5199:2002, “Technical specifications for centrifugal pumps—Class II.”
(4) Sanitary pump that meets the requirements of 3-A Sanitary Standards, Inc. Standard 3A 02-11, “Centrifugal and Positive Rotary Pumps for Milk and Milk Products.”
DOE also proposes to establish a specific definition for “clear water” for testing purposes that would describe the fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the definition for “clear water” established in HI 40.6-2014. This definition would apply solely for the purposes of the test procedure and is distinct from the definition of “clean water,” as defined in this section. The definition of “clear water” as it applies to the test fluid to be used in the testing of pumps under the proposed DOE test procedure is narrower than the proposed definition of “clean water,” which would be used to establish the scope of the DOE test procedure and related energy conservation standards.
DOE also requests comment on the proposed definition for “clean water pump.”
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference the definition for “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Also in accordance with the Working Group recommendations, DOE proposes
(1) Fire pumps;
(2) self-priming pumps;
(3) prime-assist pumps;
(4) sealless pumps;
(5) pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities; and
(6) a pump meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended).
Accordingly, DOE proposes the following definitions for fire pump, self-priming pump, prime-assist pump, and sealless pump:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a) A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump using a magnetic coupling, or
(b) A pump in which the motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump, and the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped fluid.
DOE notes that the proposal to exclude fire pumps is consistent with comments submitted in response to the Framework Document, including from from stakeholders that were not members of the CIP Working Group.
DOE reviewed the requirements for fire pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility under 10 CFR 50, and pumps designed per military specification MIL-P-17639F (Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use). DOE believes that in all cases, the increased burden in design and test requirements provides a legitimate reason to exclude these from the scope of the proposed test procedure and standards.
According to Patterson Pumps, fire pumps are manufactured according to NFPA Standard 20, and certified according to either UL or FM standards. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 15 at pp. 191-192) The CIP Working Group agreed to exclude pumps compliant with NFPA 20 as long as they are certified as “fire pumps” to the relevant UL or FM standard, noting that UL and FM are the only two certification bodies for fire pumps. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 15 at p. 193-194). The CIP Working Group also represented that it was unlikely manufacturers would attempt to sell pumps intended for other applications as fire pumps in an effort to circumvent a proposed DOE standard for pumps because of the high expense in testing to complete the certification process for UL or FM. Likewise, consumers would find the expense of buying a fire pump for a non-fire pump application would be higher than that of buying a pump that complies with an eventual DOE standard. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 14 at p. 125)
Nuclear facility pumps must have certified design specifications and must conform to many specific design and testing criteria. These include, but are not limited to, classification as ASME Code Class 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, “Rule for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components,” for reactor coolant pumps. DOE understands that the design and construction of pumps in accordance with ASME Code Class 1 represent significant additional expense and significantly increases the cost of such pumps compared to the clean water pumps considered in this test procedure. Similar to fire pumps, DOE believes there is sufficient justification to exclude such nuclear facility pumps from the scope of this rulemaking without a risk of clean water pumps being marketed or sold as nuclear facility pumps for actual use in other applications.
Pumps designed to military specifications (commonly referred to as “MIL-SPEC”), such as MIL-P-17639F, must meet very specific physical and or operational characteristics and have complex and rigid reporting requirements.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “fire pump,” “self-priming pump,” “prime-assisted pump,” and “sealless pump.”
Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE notes that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in front of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump during the priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific design features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-priming, and whether such specificity is needed in the definition for clarity.
DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and criteria to determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military Specification and if
DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the test procedure: Fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, and pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended).
In addition to limiting the types of pumps that DOE would regulate at this time through pump definitions and their applications, DOE proposes to further limit its scope consistent with the Working Group's recommendation by applying the following performance and design characteristics:
(1) 1-200 hp (shaft power at the best efficiency point, BEP, at full impeller diameter for the number of stages required for testing to the standard);
(2) 25 gpm and greater (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
(3) 459 feet of head maximum (at BEP at full impeller diameter);
(4) design temperature range from −10 to 120 °C;
(5) pumps designed for nominal 3,600 or 1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) driver speeds; and
(6) 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter for VTS pumps (HI VS0).
Similarly, DOE proposes to apply the pump test procedure scope to the scope of pumps discussed in sections III.A.1 and III.A.3 possessing the characteristics presented by the CIP Working Group.
DOE notes that with respect to the limiting criterion proposed for VTS pumps (
If adopted, only those VTS pumps with bowl diameters of 6 inches or less would be required to be tested under the proposed procedure.
DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics (
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “bowl diameter” as it would apply to VTS pumps.
DOE recognizes that some pumps, particularly in the agricultural sector, may be sold and operated with non-electric drivers, such as engines, steam turbines, or generators. During the CIP Working Group's negotiations, testing and coverage of non-electric drivers were discussed. To ensure simplicity and comparability when testing and certifying pumps with non-electric drivers, the CIP Working Group recommended that pumps sold with non-electric drivers be rated as a bare pump, excluding the energy performance of the non-electric driver. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #3 at p. 2) By requiring testing and certification in this manner, any hydraulic improvements made to the bare pump to comply with any applicable energy conservation standards that may apply to the bare pump would also result in energy savings if the pump is used with a non-electric driver. DOE notes that the proposed test procedure is applicable only to drivers that are electric motors. Therefore, when rating a pump with any driver other than an electric motor, or other bare pump, DOE would provide default rating calculations in the test procedure to represent the performance of the given bare pump with a default motor that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors. See 10 CFR 431.25. This procedure is described in more detail in section III.E.1.a. (In context, as noted earlier, the terms “electric motor” and “motor” are used interchangeably.)
The Working Group's approach, as described above, is likely to reduce the test burden and complexity of the regulation. DOE notes that, in order to accurately capture the energy performance of non-electric drivers in the DOE pump test procedure, separate test procedures would be necessary for each type of driver (
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-electric drivers as bare pumps.
DOE recognizes that some pumps within the proposed scope of this rulemaking may be distributed in commerce with single-phase motors. However, DOE understands that the majority of pumps in the proposed scope of this test procedure rulemaking are sold with polyphase induction motors. One reason for the prevalence of polyphase motors is that the pumps for which the proposed test procedure would apply are typically sold into commercial and industrial applications where polyphase (three-phase) power is known to be commonplace. Additionally, single-phase induction motors are not widely available in motors with horsepower (hp) ratings greater than approximately 5 hp, while the proposed test procedure would apply to pumps from 1-200 hp, as discussed in section III.A.4. This circumstance further restricts the prevalence of single-phase motors in pumps for which the proposed test procedure would apply. According to the CIP Working Group, almost all pumps except for smaller pumps use three-phase motors, with the transition from single-phase to three-phase motors occurring at around
In addition, DOE understands that most pumps within the scope of this proposed rulemaking that are distributed in commerce with single-phase induction motors are also distributed in commerce with polyphase induction motors of similar size to
DOE understands that single-phase induction motors are, in general, less efficient than polyphase induction motors and, thus, would result in different energy consumption characteristics when paired with the same bare pump. Therefore, to establish the desired calculation-based methods for pumps paired with single-phase and polyphase motors, DOE would need to develop specific default motor efficiency assumptions and motor loss curves for both single-phase and polyphase motors. However, DOE believes that developing a separate rating methodology (including separate default motor efficiency assumptions) for pumps sold with single-phase induction motors is not justified at this time due to the small percentage of pumps sold with only single-phase induction motors. The CIP Working Group agreed that, based on the scope established for pumps being from 1-200 hp, it is more meaningful to focus the rating methodology on three-phase motors. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 105 at p. 226)
For these reasons, DOE has developed the proposed test methods to be based on polyphase induction motors in that the default nominal full load motor efficiency discussed in section III.D.1 would specify a minimum efficiency value for a National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N electric motor, which are a specific kind of polyphase induction motor. However, DOE believes that such default nominal full load motor efficiency values are not applicable to single-phase induction motors. Therefore, in order not to penalize pumps sold with single-phase induction motors, DOE proposes that such pumps be tested and rated in the bare pump configuration, using the calculation-based method.
DOE notes that, if a pump distributed in commerce with a single-phase induction motor is also distributed in commerce in a bare pump configuration, this proposal would not increase the testing or rating burden on manufacturers. DOE also wishes to clarify that, to the extent that such a pump is also sold with an electric motor other than a single-phase induction motor, the pump must also be rated based on the PEI
DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed in commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in the bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
DOE requests comment from interested parties on any other categories of electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are used with pumps considered in this rulemaking and (2) typically have efficiencies lower than the default nominal full load efficiency for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, or IEC Design N motors.
One of the first and most important issues DOE must consider in designing a test procedure is selection of the regulatory metric. The most common metric used in the pump industry today to describe the performance of bare pumps (
When a pump is tested for performance inclusive of a motor and/or controls, pump efficiency is not as useful a metric, as it does not capture the performance of the other components that are integral to the performance and utility of the pump when installed in the field. In the Framework Document, DOE discussed bare pump efficiency as well as overall pump efficiency (
The different rating approaches suggested in the Framework Document were also discussed in the negotiations of the CIP Working Group. The Working Group recommended that DOE use a wire-to-water, power-based metric for all pumps, regardless of how they are sold. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at p. 5) The CIP Working Group recommended a similar metric for all pump configurations (
In developing the metric proposed in this NOPR, DOE reviewed the CIP Working Group recommendations as well as the relevant comments made in response to the Framework Document. The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), which was not a member of the Working Group, suggested that if DOE defines pumps to be inclusive of motors and/or controls, that DOE develop a combined pump/motor/control efficiency metric using a weighted average of measurements at specified rating points (as preferable to minimum levels at multiple points because it allows more design flexibility). (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI noted that a regulatory regime that includes controls must include appropriate part load levels and operating points, reflective of part load conditions typically in use. It cited AHRI 1210-2011, “2011 Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Frequency Drives,” as an example of a relevant test procedure that requires that a variable frequency drive
DOE notes that in general, AHRI's comments are in line with the CIP Working Group recommendation. Specifically, the metric recommended by the CIP Working Group is a weighted average of measurements at specified load points. The CIP Working Group recommended metric incorporates load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow for pumps without continuous or non-continuous controls, and 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow for a pump sold with continuous or non-continuous controls. The latter load points are similar to those specified in AHRI 1210. The reasoning behind these differing loading profiles is further discussed in section III.B.2.a.
After carefully considering the Framework stage comments and the recommendations of the CIP Working Group, DOE is proposing to adopt the metric recommended by the CIP Working Group. That metric consists of a ratio of the representative performance of the pump being rated over the representative performance of a pump that would minimally comply with any prospective DOE energy conservation standard for that pump type. The representative performance is referred to as the “pump energy rating” (PER) and is calculated as the equally-weighted average of the electric input power to the pump at three or four load points. As recommended by the CIP Working Group, DOE is also proposing similar metrics for all pumps, regardless of whether they are sold with continuous or non-continuous controls.
For pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposes to use three load points near the BEP of the pump to determine the constant load pump energy rating (PER
To scale the rated pump performance (PER
Specifically, for pumps sold without continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposes using the PEI
Evaluating this metric for a given pump would entail the following steps:
(1) Determining the PER
(2) determining the PER
(3) taking a ratio of the two values.
As shown in equation (3), the PER
Similarly, for pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE is proposing using PEI
PEI
(1) Determining the PER
(2) determining the same PER
(3) taking a ratio of the two values.
PER
Under DOE's proposed approach, the performance of bare pumps or pumps paired with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous controls) would be determined for the appropriate load points along the single-speed pump curve by increasing head (
In order to determine the part load performance of pumps, DOE must define a load profile and establish specific part load rating points at which to test a given pump. DOE researched the variety of applications and usage profiles for the pumps considered for the scope of this rulemaking and determined that the data regarding typical duty profiles of covered pumps are extremely variable and not widely available. Thus, it is extremely difficult to generalize duty profiles for a given pump based on type, size, or other factors.
The CIP Working Group indicated that pumps sold as bare pumps and pumps sold with motors are more often installed in constant load applications that are intended to operate in applications with the design load closer to the BEP of the pump. Conversely, the Working Group added that pumps sold with continuous or non-continuous controls are typically applied in more variable applications with design conditions between 25 percent and 100 percent of the BEP flow and head conditions. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 73 at pp. 80-82) Based on the assessment and recommendation provided by the Working Group, DOE is therefore proposing to adopt two distinct load profiles to represent constant speed and variable speed pump operation. See Table III.3.
Lack of field data on load profiles and the wide variation in system operation also make it difficult to select appropriate weights for the load profiles. For these reasons, the CIP Working Group members concluded that equal weighting would at least create a level playing field across manufacturers. (See,
DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting for PEI
Within the PEI
In recognition of these potential advantages, DOE proposes normalizing the weighted average input power to the pump being rated against the weighted average input power to a pump that would minimally comply with the applicable standard for the same class of pump. This approach is consistent with the CIP Working Group's recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #11 at pg. 5) This approach is also similar to the approach suggested by Europump, a trade association of European pump manufacturers. Europump's approach would normalize the tested input power to the tested pump with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, as measured at the input to the continuous or non-continuous control, relative to the reference shaft power for a minimally compliant pump with a minimally compliant motor at the given BEP.
DOE is proposing implementing an approach that would approximate a baseline pump, inclusive of a minimally compliant default motor, to use as a reference pump for each combination of flow and specific speed. The minimally compliant pump would be defined as a function of variables descriptive of the bare pump's physical properties, such as flow and specific speed, as in the EU approach to regulating clean water pumps.
In the above equation (6), the specific speed (N
Under this proposal, the calculated efficiency of the minimally compliant pump reflects the pump efficiency at BEP. As pump efficiency typically varies as a function of flow rate, DOE must also determine a method to specify the default efficiency of a minimally compliant pump at the load points corresponding to 75 and 100 percent of BEP flow. To do so, DOE also proposes to follow the approach used in the EU regulations; that is, DOE proposes to scale the efficiency determined at 100 percent of BEP flow in equation (6) using nominal and standardized values that represent how pump efficiency typically changes at part load (75 percent of BEP flow) and over load (110 percent of BEP flow) load conditions. Namely, the efficiency at 75 percent of BEP flow is assumed to be 94.7 percent of that at 100 percent of BEP flow, and the pump efficiency at 110 percent of BEP flow is assumed to be 98.5 percent of that at 100 percent of BEP flow, as shown in equation (8):
L
i = 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
Equation (8) also demonstrates how the ratio between the minimally compliant pump efficiency and the hydraulic output power for the rated pump is used to determine the input power to a minimally compliant pump at each load point. Note that the pump hydraulic output power for the minimally compliant pump would be the same as that for the particular pump being evaluated. Under DOE's proposed approach, calculating the hydraulic power in equation (8) at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow, would require the following equation (9):
The calculated shaft input power for the minimally compliant pump at each load point is then combined with a minimally compliant motor for that default motor type and appropriate size, described in section III.D.1, and the default part load loss curve, described in section III.D.2, to determine the input power to the motor at each load point. The applicable minimum nominal full load motor efficiency is determined as a function of type (
The use of a reference denominator based on PER
To implement the Working Group's recommended approach, DOE's proposal would describe how to calculate PEI
Equation (10) would apply to both bare pumps and pumps sold with a motor (but without any accompanying continuous or non-continuous controls). For pumps sold with motors inclusive of continuous or non-continuous controls, the PEI
DOE requests comments on the proposed PEI
DOE notes that the default motor efficiency discussed above varies as a function of motor horsepower. As such, DOE must prescribe a consistent method to determine the rated horsepower, and thus default efficiency, of the hypothetical minimally compliant motor used to determine PER
For pumps sold with motors and pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, manufacturers could choose to sell their pump with a motor whose horsepower varies from that assumed based on the default motor selection criteria. See section III.D.1.a., infra. In such a case, the horsepower of the default motor selected to calculate PER
DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold with motors (with or without continuous or non-continuous controls).
To determine PEI
In developing this proposal, DOE reviewed domestic and international industry test procedures. Table III.4 shows a number of industry test methods that relate to the pumps for which DOE is considering adopting a test method and standards.
As presented in the Framework Document, DOE determined that ANSI/HI 14.6-2011: (1) Is the most widely used test standard in the pump industry for evaluating pump performance; (2) defines uniform methods for conducting laboratory tests to determine flow rate, head, power, and efficiency at a given speed of rotation; and (3) applies to all pumps that DOE is considering regulating. See section III.A., supra. In the Framework Document, DOE requested comments from interested parties on the use of several test procedures, including ANSI/HI 14.6-2011, as a basis for developing DOE's test procedure. HI, Grundfos, and AHRI all recommended the use of ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 for stand-alone pump testing (
After publication of the Framework Document, HI convened a group of subject matter experts to, in coordination with DOE and the CIP Working Group, revise ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 to make the test protocol more relevant for incorporation by DOE as part of the DOE test procedure. The new, revised standard was issued by HI in July 2014 as HI 40.6-2014 and incorporates several improvements over the previous testing standard, including greater precision and accuracy in describing evaluation techniques and mandatory language. The CIP Working Group recommended that whatever procedure the DOE adopts, it should be consistent with HI 40.6-2014 for determining bare pump performance. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #10 at pg. 4)
DOE has reviewed HI 40.6-2014 and determined that it contains the relevant test methods needed to accurately characterize the performance of the pumps that would be addressed by this rulemaking. These test methods include a means to determine pump shaft input power (for the calculation-based methods) and input power to the motor or motor and continuous or non-continuous controls (for the testing-based methods) at the specified load points. Specifically, HI 40.6-2014 defines and explains how to calculate pump power input,
To limit the overall burden presented by this proposal, DOE has chosen an approach that is as closely aligned as possible with existing and widely used industry test procedures. Although HI 40.6-2014 is a new test standard, its methods are substantially the same as those specified in ANSI/HI 14.6-2011 and currently used to evaluate pumps in the industry. Accordingly, in DOE's view, HI 40.6-2014, as a procedure based on an already widely used and recognized industry-developed procedure, is an appropriate method for evaluating bare pump/pump and motor performance. For this reason, DOE is proposing to incorporate this testing standard as part of DOE's test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of pumps, with the minor modifications and exceptions listed in the following sections III.C.2.a through III.C.2.f.
DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the DOE test procedure for pumps.
In general, DOE finds the test methods contained within HI 40.6-2014 are sufficiently specific and reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency and energy use. However, in DOE's view, a few minor modifications are necessary to ensure repeatable and reproducible test results and to provide measurement methods and equipment specifications for the entire scope of pumps that DOE is addressing as part of this proposal.
While DOE proposes to reference HI 40.640.6-2014 as the basis for its proposed test procedure, DOE notes that some sections of the standard are not applicable to DOE's regulatory framework. Specifically, section 40.6.5.3 provides requirements regarding the generation of a test report and appendix “B” provides guidance on test report formatting, both of which are not required for testing and rating pumps in accordance with DOE's proposed procedure. As such, DOE proposes to not incorporate by reference section 40.6.5.3 and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014.
HI 40.6-2014 also contains relevant requirements for the characteristics of the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in section 40.6.5.5, “Test conditions.” Specifically, section 40.6.5.5 requires that “tests shall be made with clear water at a maximum temperature of 10-30 °C (50-86 °F)” and clarifies that “clear water means water to be used for pump testing, with a maximum kinematic viscosity of 1.5 × 10
DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014 as part of the DOE test procedure.
In order to ensure the repeatability of test data and results, the DOE pump test procedure must provide instructions regarding how to sample and collect data at each load point such that the collected data is taken at stabilized conditions that accurately and precisely represent the performance of the pump at that load point. HI 40.6-2014 provides that all measurements shall be made under steady state conditions, which are described as follows: (1) No vortexing, (2) margins as specified in ANSI/HI 9.6.1 Rotodynamic Pumps Guideline for NPSH Margin, and (3) when the mean value of all measured quantities required for the test data point remain constant within the permissible amplitudes of fluctuations defined in Table 40.6.3.2.2 over a minimum time of 10 seconds before data are collected. However, HI 40.6-2014 does not specify the frequency of data collection. As such, determining stabilization, as specified, could occur based on a minimum of two data points (as a minimum of two data points are necessary to calculate a mean) or many data points based on a 1 second or sub-second data sampling frequency. DOE believes that, at a minimum, two data points should be used to determine stabilization and, as such, data must be collected at least every 5 seconds. DOE believes that two data points are necessary because at least two data points are necessary to determine an average. DOE proposes to specify that data shall be collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
As noted above, section 40.6.3.2.2 of HI 40.6-2014, “Permissible fluctuations,” provides permissible amplitude of fluctuations for various measured quantities throughout the test. As specified in that section, all measurements must be less than these thresholds for the duration of the measurement period for a valid measurement. The section also describes permissible dampening devices that may be used to minimize noise and large fluctuations in the data. DOE proposes to incorporate by reference section 40.6.3.2.2 except that dampening devices would only be permitted to integrate up to the data collection interval, or 5 seconds, to ensure that each data point is reflective of a unique measurement.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening devices, as described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted above (
Sections 40.6.5.6 and 40.6.5.7 of HI 40.6-2014 specify test arrangements and test conditions. However, DOE finds that the standardized test conditions described in these sections are not sufficient to produce accurate and repeatable test results. Specifically, the nominal pump speed, the input power
HI 40.6-2014 specifies that testing shall be done with clear water and defines clear water for the purposes of pump testing. HI 40.6-2014 also provides a standardized description of the method for configuring pumps for testing. However, additional specifications not present in HI 40.6-2014 are also required regarding the speed of rotation, the characteristics of the power supply, and the configuration of specific pump types for the purposes of testing pumps and for use in any subsequent calculations to determine the PEI
The rated speed of a pump affects the efficiency and PEI
DOE proposes that pumps designed to operate at speeds that include both ranges would be rated at both nominal speeds of rotations. DOE notes that each nominal speed rating would represent a different basic model of pump. DOE selected these operating speed ranges consistent with the tolerance about the nominal rating speed allowed for in the test procedure. Specifically, section 40.6.5.5.2 of HI 40.6-2014 requires that the tested speed be maintained within 20 percent of the rated speed, or the specified nominal speed of rotation in this case. Therefore, any pump “designed for operation” at any speed of rotation between, for example, 2,880 and 4,320 rpm would be able to be tested under the proposed test procedure at the design speed of rotation and the results corrected to the rated nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 rpm.
DOE notes that these speed ranges are not exclusive. That is, if a pump were to be designed to operate from 2,600 to 4,000 rpm, such a pump would have a nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 rpm for the purposes of testing and rating the pump.
For pumps sold with motors, DOE proposes that the nominal speed of rotation be selected based on the speed(s) for which the motor is designed to operate. Specifically, as shown in Table III.5, pumps sold with 2-pole induction motors would be evaluated at 3,600 rpm, and pumps sold with 4-pole induction motors would be evaluated at 1,800 rpm. Pumps sold with non-induction motors (
However, DOE acknowledges that it may not be feasible to operate pumps during the test at exactly 3,600 or 1,800 rpm. Therefore, DOE proposes that all data collected as a result of the test procedure at the speed measured during the test be adjusted to the nominal speed prior to use in subsequent calculations and that the PEI
In all cases, as required by HI 40.6-2014, the tested speed maintained during the test at each rating point must be maintained within 20 percent of the nominal speed and the speed of rotation recorded at each test point may not vary more than ±1 percent to ensure accurate and reliable results.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected at the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the nominal speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements in HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal speed and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is interested if maintaining tested speed within ±1 percent of the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce more accurate and repeatable test results.
Because pump power consumption is a component of the proposed metric, inclusive of any motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, measuring power consumption is an important element of the test. The characteristics of the power supplied to the pump affect the accuracy and repeatability of the measured power consumption of the pump. As such, to ensure accurate and repeatable measurement of power consumption, DOE is also proposing to specify nominal characteristics of the power supply. Namely, DOE is proposing nominal values for voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance levels, as well as tolerances about each of these quantities, that must be maintained at the input terminals to the motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control, as applicable.
To determine the appropriate power supply characteristics testing pumps with motors (but without continuous or non-continuous controls) and pumps with both motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE examined applicable test methods for electric motors and VSD systems. DOE determined that IEEE Standard 112-2004 (“IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators”), which is the test method incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.16 for electric motors, is the most applicable test method for electric motors when considering testing and rated values for motors that are integrated with a pump. DOE identified both AHRI 1210-2011, “2011 Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Frequency Drives,” (AHRI 1210-2011) and the 2013 version of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard C838, “Energy efficient test methods for three-phase variable frequency drive systems,” (CSA C838-2013) as applicable methods for measuring the performance of VSD control systems.
IEEE 112-2004, AHRI 1210-2011, and CSA C838-2013 all specify that voltage and frequency must be maintained at the rated voltage and frequency of the motor ±0.5 percent. In addition, all three standards specify that the power source “voltage unbalance” shall not exceed 0.5 percent during the test. Voltage unbalance is calculated as the maximum voltage deviation from the average measured voltage divided by the average measured voltage.
DOE recognizes that any harmonics in the power system can affect the measured performance of the pump when tested with a motor or motor and continuous or non-continuous control. IEEE 112-2004 and CSA C838-2013 also include requirements to maintain total harmonic distortion below 5 percent. When measuring the input power to the continuous or non-continuous controls that are paired with an electric motor-driven pump, AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-2013 also specify impedance levels of the incoming power supplied to the VSD. AHRI 1210-2011 requires that source impedance not exceed 1 percent, while CSA C838-2013 requires that source impedance shall be greater than 1 percent but not exceed 3 percent for VFDs under 500 hp.
DOE is also proposing to establish these requirements for voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance in the DOE pump test procedure when testing pumps that either have motors (but without controls) or pumps with motors with continuous or non-continuous controls.
While some pump manufacturers may be capable and equipped to accurately measure pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls in accordance with the proposed power supply characteristics, DOE recognizes that there may be some variability among manufacturers in this regard. Consequently, these requirements may represent a significant incremental burden for some testing facilities. To lessen this burden, DOE proposes to require that power supply requirements would apply only to pumps being evaluated using a physical testing-based method or pumps being tested using a calibrated motor. Pumps evaluated based on the calculation method where the input power to the motor is determined using equipment other than a calibrated motor would not have to meet these requirements, as variations in voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance are not expected to affect the tested pump's energy performance.
DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance requirements that must be met when performing a wire-to-water pump test or when testing a bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically, DOE requests comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical pump test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning equipment would be required.
RSV and VTS pumps are typically multi-stage pumps that may be offered in a variety of stages (also known as bowls), each with its own energy consumption characteristics, which scale approximately linearly with each additional bowl. With these pump designs, any improvements in the hydraulic design of the bowl would be reflected in the measured performance of the pump with any number of stages. Thus, to simplify certification requirements and limit testing burden, DOE proposes to require that certification of RSV and VTS pumps be based on testing with the following number of stages:
If a model is not available with that specific number of stages, the model would be tested with the next closest number of stages distributed in commerce by the manufacturer. This proposal was part of the Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 92, Recommendation #14 at p. 6)
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest number of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with that particular number of stages.
HI 40.6-2014 provides a specific procedure for determining BEP for a given pump based on seven data points at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110 and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow of the pump. The test protocol in HI 40.6-2014 requires that the hydraulic power and the pump shaft input power, or input power to the motor for pumps tested using the testing-based methods, be measured at each of the seven data points. HI 40.6-2014 further specifies that the pump efficiency be determined as a ratio of hydraulic power divided by shaft input power, as described in equation (1), or the measured input power to the motor multiplied by the known efficiency of a calibrated motor, depending on how the pump is tested.
The pump efficiency at each of these points is then used to determine the tested BEP for a given pump. Then, based on the determined BEP flow, the pump shaft input power or input power to the motor is determined at each of the specified load points, as discussed in section III.B.2.a. However, the specific data points measured in the test protocol may not be exactly at 75, 100, or 110 percent of the BEP flow load points specified in the proposal. Thus, the relevant test values—specifically, pump shaft input power, input power to the pump at the driver, or input power
Consistent with the CIP Working Group's recommendations, (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pp. 35) DOE proposes to address this issue by requiring that the pump shaft input power at the defined load points be obtained by performing the pump test across a complete range of flow rates (
This method would provide a low testing burden, as test data would only have to be collected at each of the specified seven load points with no measurements required at subsequent load points (
DOE recognizes that this method may overestimate pump shaft input power in cases where the pump shaft input power increases less significantly above BEP flow, which would result in a slightly higher PER
DOE discussed this proposed method with the CIP Working Group, which informally agreed with DOE's proposed approach to linearly regress the measured pump shaft input power at the relevant flow points to determine the pump shaft input power at the specific flow points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at p. 35)
DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear regression of the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at all the tested flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow to determine the pump shaft input power at the specific load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pump models for which such an approach would yield inaccurate measurements.
HI 40.6-2014 contains a method for determining the BEP of tested pumps based on the flow rate at which the maximum pump efficiency occurs. DOE recognizes that there may be some unique pump models that do not exhibit the typical parabolic relationship of pump efficiency to flow rate. Instead, for some pumps, pump efficiency will continue to increase as a function of flow until pump run-out—the maximum flow that can be developed without damaging the pump. For such pumps, it may not be possible to use the procedure described in HI 40.6-2014 to determine BEP, since the pump cannot safely operate at flows of 110 and 120 percent of the expected BEP of the pump (assuming the pump was designed intentionally to have the BEP occur at run-out or the maximum flow rate). In such cases, DOE proposes that the seven flow points for determination of BEP be 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014.
In addition, since 100 percent of BEP flow corresponds to the maximum flow rate of the pump, there are no data corresponding to 110 percent of BEP flow, or any flow rates above BEP flow. Therefore, in cases where the BEP flow is at run-out, DOE proposes that the specified constant load flow points be 100, 90, and 65 percent of the BEP (or maximum) flow rate. DOE notes that, for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, no modification would be necessary since there are no load points above 100 percent of BEP flow in the variable load profile.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that, for pumps with BEP at run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant load points for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
HI 40.6-2014 does not contain all the necessary methods and calculations to determine pump power consumption for the range of equipment that would be addressed by this proposal (
In response to the Framework Document, several commenters discussed the instrumentation needed to test a pump inclusive of motor and continuous or non-continuous controls. The CA IOUs mentioned that most VFDs introduce non-linear, or non-sinusoidal, wave forms into the utility system, which will affect the total harmonic distortion experienced in the power system.
To determine the appropriate electrical measurement equipment for pumps tested with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE consulted CSA C838-2013 and AHRI 1210-2011, since these test standards are the most relevant references for measuring input power to such controls. Both CSA C838-2013 and AHRI 1210-2011 require that electrical measurements for determining variable speed drive efficiency be taken using equipment capable of measuring current, voltage, and real power up to at least the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency
Because some variable speed control methods have the potential to introduce harmonics to the power system, which can reduce power factor
DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or non-continuous controls.
DOE notes HI 40.6-2014 does not specify how to round values for calculation and reporting purposes. DOE recognizes that the manner in which values are rounded can affect the resulting PER or PEI, and all PER or PEI values should be reported with the same number of significant digits. DOE proposes to require that all calculations be performed with the raw measured data, to ensure accuracy, and that the PER
DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all calculations and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values and that the PER
The PEI
For determining pump performance for pumps sold with motors or with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE is proposing to use either (1) the physically tested performance of the motor paired with that pump when using testing-based methods, or (2) the nominal full load motor efficiency of the motor (other than submersible) paired with that pump model when using the calculation-based test method to determine the PER
The default nominal or rated nominal full load motor efficiency, as represented by the motor manufacturer, would then be used to determine the full load losses, in horsepower, associated with that motor. The full load losses would then be adjusted using an algorithm to reflect the motor performance at partial loads, corresponding to the load points specified in the DOE test. The specific procedures for determining the default nominal and rated nominal motor part load losses are described below.
To calculate PER
Subpart B of 10 CFR 431 contains DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors, which DOE recently updated. See 79 FR 30934 (May 29, 2014). That rule established energy conservation standards for a number of different categories of electric motors DOE had not previously regulated, such as partial motors. In addition, although it did not change the required minimum efficiency of electric motors currently covered as general purpose electric motors (subtype I), it did increase the required efficiency for electric motors currently defined by DOE under the category of general purpose electric motors (subtype II), which includes close-coupled pump motors. Motors that are regulated must be manufactured in compliance with these updated standards beginning on June 1, 2016. 79 FR at 30944.
DOE proposes to use the applicable minimum nominal full load motor efficiency values at 10 CFR 431.25 for the category and horsepower of electric motors with which pumps are typically paired (
(1) Are single-speed, induction motors;
(2) are rated for continuous duty (MG 1) operation or for duty type S1 (IEC);
(3) contain a squirrel-cage (MG 1) or cage (IEC) rotor;
(4) operate on polyphase alternating current 60-hertz sinusoidal line power;
(5) are rated 600 volts or less;
(6) have a 2-, 4-, 6-, or 8-pole configuration;
(7) are built in a three-digit or four-digit NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent), including those designs between two consecutive NEMA frame sizes (or IEC metric equivalent), or an enclosed 56 NEMA frame size (or IEC metric equivalent);
(8) produce at least 1 hp (0.746 kW) but not greater than 500 hp (373 kW); and
(9) meet all of the performance requirements of one of the following motor types: A NEMA Design A or B motor or an IEC Design N. 79 FR at 31012 (to be codified at 10 CFR 431.25(g)-(h)).
For bare pumps, DOE proposes to specify the selection of the default motor used for calculating PER
DOE notes that the energy conservation standards for motors, found in Table 5 in 10 CFR 431.25(h), include minimum nominal full load motor efficiency values for both open and enclosed motor construction. In general, motors with an open construction have a lower minimum nominal full load efficiency value; however, for some pole and horsepower combinations, this relationship does not hold. Therefore, for bare pumps and the minimally compliant pump in PER
As noted in section III.B.2.b, for pumps sold either with motors or with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, the motor horsepower and number of poles selected for determining the minimally compliant full load nominal efficiency from Table 5 in 10 CFR 431.25(h)) (or the submersible motor table, in the case of submersible motors, see section III.D.1.b) and used in the equation for PER
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default motor horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input power at 120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the default, minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based on the applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps except pumps sold with submersible motors.
For pumps sold with motors and rated using the calculation-based approach, DOE proposes that the motor nominal full load efficiency used in determining the PER
DOE notes that submersible motors are not currently subject to the DOE energy conservation standards for electric motors specified at 10 CFR 431.25. For the purposes of calculating PEI
Based on the available information, DOE constructed a table of motor full load efficiencies by motor horsepower, similar to the table of energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25(h). DOE notes that because submersible motors are only available in enclosed construction, full load efficiency values are only provided for enclosed constructions.
To construct the submersible motor full load efficiency table, DOE conducted research to determine the least efficient motor commercially available within each specified horsepower and pole configuration (where data were available). DOE selected the least efficient submersible motor available because DOE recognizes that, by selecting a value higher than the minimum available, DOE could unintentionally drive the submersible motor market without explicitly regulating it. Based on the available data, DOE identified the number of “bands”
The “minimum observed efficiency” column in Table III.6 reflects the least efficient motors found by DOE. As it is not DOE's intent to impact the rated efficiency of submersible motors through this rulemaking, DOE deflated the minimum observed submersible motor efficiency by using the maximum number of “bands” across a horsepower range to ensure that the value represented a worst-case value. Where no data were available, DOE applied the same number of NEMA bands across the range of motor horsepower and numbers of poles. The observed and default number of “bands” below the minimum full load efficiency values for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors from Table 5 of 10 CFR 431.25(h), are presented in Table III.6 below.
The resulting proposed default minimum electric motor full load efficiencies for submersible motors, as presented in the “default minimum efficiency” column in Table III.7, can then be calculated by applying the number of “bands” below the minimum full load efficiency values for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC
DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum motor full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to the most current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated electric motors, through the use of “bands” as presented in Table III.6.
DOE proposes to apply this table of default minimum efficiency values for submersible motor full load efficiency when calculating PER
In summary, DOE proposes allowing the use of the default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented in Table III.7 to rate (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-water testing.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented in Table III.7 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-water testing.
To determine the full load losses of the motor, the proposal would require that the full load motor efficiency described in section III.D.1 be used. Using this value, DOE would apply an algorithm to determine the part load losses of the motor at each of the rating points.
To obtain the losses of the motor used at a fraction of full load under the proposal in this NOPR, manufacturers would be required to calculate the part load motor losses at each specified load point in accordance with the following three steps:
(1) Determine the part load loss factor (y
(2) Calculate full load losses for the motor as shown in equation (13):
(3) Multiply the full load losses by each part load loss factor to obtain part load losses at each rating point, as shown in equation (14):
DOE determined the cubic polynomial used to describe the part load loss factor (y
DOE acknowledges that losses may vary as a function of the motor's rotating speed (2-pole vs. 4-pole), motor design (open vs. enclosed), or the motor's horsepower rating. However, based on the data provided by NEMA, as well as additional data DOE gathered using DOE's MotorMaster database
These calculated part load motor losses at each of the specified load points would then be combined with the measured pump shaft input power and weighted equally to calculate PER
DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor part load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of covered motors and submersible motors, including the default motor specified in section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PER
As previously discussed, the PEI
The PER
Some test methods that DOE considered rely more on the performance of physical tests to obtain rating data (
In contrast, a calculation-based approach to determine PER
Calculation-based test methods are extremely repeatable and straightforward to conduct. However, calculation-based methods may not account for the efficiency or energy use impact of all theoretical designs of a given component. For example, to calculate the performance of a pump sold with a motor and continuous control, assumptions regarding how the continuous control affects the input power to the pump would be required at full and part load, and this assumed “system curve” may not reflect the actual measured performance of different types or brands of continuous controls available.
In the subsequent sections, DOE discusses calculation-based and testing-based test methods for different pump configurations.
Calculation-based test methods have the benefit of being repeatable, straightforward, and minimally burdensome. DOE proposes that the following calculation-based test methods would be used to rate (1) pumps sold as bare pumps (Method A.1); (2) pumps sold either with (a) motors that are regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) submersible motors (Method A.2); and (3) pumps sold with motors that are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) submersible motors, and that are equipped with continuous controls
In general, the calculation-based test method for the applicable pump types would include physical testing of the bare pump, in accordance with HI 40.6-2014, and subsequent calculations to determine the PEI
(1) Determine performance of the bare pump in accordance with HI 40.6-2014.
(a) Measure the flow rate (gpm), head (ft), rotational speed (rpm), and torque (inches-pounds force) at 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the flow rate at the expected BEP of the pump and determine the pump efficiency at each point.
(b) Determine the actual BEP by finding the maximum point of the pump efficiency curve, as measured, with respect to flow rate.
(c) Determine pump input power (torque multiplied by speed) and regress pump shaft input power with respect to flow to find a linear relationship for all flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow. Use this regression to determine pump shaft input power at 75, 100, and 110 of actual BEP flow.
(d) Adjust all values to nominal speed.
(2) Determine the part load losses of the motor and any continuous or non-continuous controls applicable to the rated pump model at each load point.
(a) For bare pumps sold alone, the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on the default motor efficiency of an appropriately sized motor that minimally complies with DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors and the default motor loss curve, as described in section III.D. Motor selection requirements are discussed in section III.D.1.a
(b) For pumps sold with motors that are regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards, the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on the rated full load motor efficiency of the motor that is paired with that pump and the default motor loss curve described in section III.D.2. For pumps sold with submersible motors, the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on the default minimum submersible motor efficiency from Table III.6 and the default motor loss curve described in section III.D.2.
(c) For pumps sold with applicable motors and continuous controls, the part load losses at each load point shall be determined based on the rated full load motor efficiency of the motor that is paired with that pump and the default motor and continuous control loss curve described in section III.E.1.c.
(3) Determine PER
(a) Sum the pump shaft input power at nominal speed and the calculated part load motor losses at each load point in the constant load or variable load profiles, as applicable, to determine the input power to the pump.
(b) Average the calculated values of input power to the pump at the applicable rating points.
(4) Determine PER
(5) Divide PER
The specific test methods for bare pumps, pumps sold with motors, and pumps sold with motors and continuous controls are described in more detail in the following sections III.E.1.a, III.E.1.b, and III.E.1.c, respectively.
As described previously, the bare pump PER
The part load motor losses would be determined for the bare pump based on an assumed default motor efficiency representative of a motor that is minimally compliant with DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards (or the default minimum motor efficiency for submersible motors), as described in section III.D.1, and the default motor loss curve, as described in section III.D.2.
The PEI
In cases where a pump's efficiency can be independently measured and that pump is sold with an applicable motor, the primary test procedure would be similar to that for pumps sold alone (A.1) except that the motor efficiency, or losses, would be that of the motor with which the pump is sold when determining PER
The PEI
As previously discussed in section III.B.2.b, in determining PER
DOE currently requires motor manufacturers to rate only full load efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.16. The extrapolation of the certified full load efficiency data to the required rating points representative of 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow for the paired pump using default part load curves is the least burdensome approach for determining part load efficiency of regulated motors when sold with pumps. This method would also allow for consistency and repeatability of results for a given pump. However, if the motor manufacturer makes certain changes to the motor design that improve part load performance without impacting efficiency at full load, this difference would not be reflected in the calculated PEI
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part load losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in accordance with DOE's electric motor test procedure, and the same default motor part load loss curve applied to the default motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the PER
DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure (except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water, testing-based approach.
For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the PEI
The input power to the pump when sold with motors and continuous controls would be determined by adding together the pump shaft input power and the combined losses from the motor and continuous controls at each of the load points i. However, in the case of determining PER
DOE understands that the system curve a given pump will follow in the field is based on the specific dynamics of the system (
With respect to VFDs, AHRI recommended that DOE take time to develop a sound method for testing pump/motor/VFD packages and consider typical VFD operation in those packages. (AHRI, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI noted that AHRI Standard 1210-2011 will soon provide performance maps for VFDs tested with standard NEMA Design B four-pole motors that meet the criteria of NEMA Standard MG-1, “Motors and Generators,” Part 31.
For pumps tested without continuous or non-continuous controls, no reference system is required as measurements are taken at various loading points along a pump curve at the nominal rating speed only. For pumps tested inclusive of motors and continuous or non-continuous controls (using a calculation-based or testing-based method), a reference system curve must be implemented to standardize the system curve shape on which multiple points will be calculated. Such a system curve describes the relationship between the head and the flow at each load point.
AHRI 1210-2011 specifies a quadratic (or nearly quadratic) system curve, which would maximize the benefits of the speed control provided by continuous or non-continuous controls. A quadratic system curve, theoretically, is more representative of system curves in the field.
Consistent with these suggestions, DOE proposes to use a quadratic reference system curve which goes through the BEP and offsets the y-axis, as specified in equation (18):
For this test procedure, the system head at zero flow rate (H
DOE notes that this reference system curve would apply to pumps sold with a motor and continuous controls that are tested using this calculation-based method as well as to pumps sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls that are tested using the wire-to-water testing-based methods discussed in section III.E.2.c. As mentioned in section III.A.1.b, the calculation-based approach is not applicable to non-continuous controls, as such controls will not follow the assumed system curve precisely, as continuous controls would. Accordingly, DOE believes that the power consumption calculated along this reference curve would not be representative of the energy consumption of such pumps. Instead, DOE is proposing that pumps with a multi-speed motor, for example, or other non-continuous controls, would be rated using a physical “wire-to-water” test, which would capture some reduction in power consumption as measured by the test procedure at some reduced flow rates. Such a pump would be rated using the testing-based method for pumps sold with motors and controls, described in section III.E.2.c. DOE discussed this proposal with the CIP Working Group and the CIP Working Group generally agreed with DOE's approach, although such a recommendation was not specifically included in the CIP Working Group Recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at pp. 49-50).
DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to use, as well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead of the statically loaded offset.
Under the proposed calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the rated efficiency of the motor and continuous control would be combined with the pump shaft input power at the specified load points to calculate the PER
The pump shaft input power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of BEP flow would then be determined by applying the reference system curve discussed in section III.E.1.c and assuming continuous speed reduction is applied to achieve the reduced load points. Specifically, the reduction in pump shaft input power at part loadings is assumed to be equivalent to the relative reduction in pump hydraulic output power assumed by the system curve.
Based on this relationship, the pump shaft input power can be determined at each of the load points by multiplying the calculated ratio by the measured pump shaft input power at BEP, as shown in equation (21):
Where:
DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for determining pump shaft input power for pumps sold with motors and continuous controls when rated using the calculation-based method.
DOE recognizes that determining the PER
DOE notes that, although a new test method for determining combined efficiency of motors and VFDs is available (AHRI 1210-2011), DOE does not currently require VFD manufacturers to test and certify their drives in accordance with that procedure or any other available test procedure for VFDs or other applicable speed controls. Therefore, consistent and standardized information regarding the efficiency of speed controls (combined with or separate from motor efficiency) is not available at this time. As such, requiring controller efficiency to be measured in a specific manner and used to determine performance of a pump sold with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls would represent a significant additional burden for pump manufacturers. In addition, such a requirement may also have the potential of requiring controller manufacturers to perform a specifically prescribed test.
The Working Group also indicated that applying a standardized set of loss curves for determining the inefficiencies associated with motor and speed control components together would greatly simplify the method for calculating the total power consumption of the tested pump and present the least burdensome approach for manufacturers to implement. (EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 107 at p. 218) For these reasons, DOE proposes to use a method similar to that applied to single-speed motors for determining the efficiency at part load points, discussed in section III.D.2, for the motor and continuous control.
In order to develop the default part load loss equation to allow the calculation of the losses associated with motor and continuous control components, DOE used performance data generated from testing five motor and VFD combinations according to the AHRI 1210-2011 test method and examined additional data for 24 VFDs tested per AHRI 1210-2011, provided confidentially to DOE's contractors by one VFD manufacturer.
The DOE combined motor and VFD tests, conducted in accordance with AHRI 1210-2011, consisted of expanding upon the test points specified in the test procedure and taking up to 16 measurements of input power for each model tested based on permutations of 4 prescribed torque points tested at each of 4 speeds. Efficiency at each combination of torque and speed was determined by taking the ratio of the output power of the motor and input power to the VFD, where the output power was determined by the measured rotational speed and torque produced by the motor. The test data for the 24 VFD models provided by the VFD manufacturer included eight measurements at full load and part load.
Based on the VFD performance data collected, DOE proposes using four part load loss equations to represent the combined efficiency of the motor and continuous control as a function of the output power of the continuous control. When analyzing the continuous control and motor efficiency as a function of the horsepower rating of the continuous control, DOE observed a significant variation by horsepower range and is proposing to account for this situation by establishing four equations as a function of the VFD's horsepower (see Table III.8).
DOE proposes to describe the part load loss curves for the combined motor and continuous control as a function of the brake horsepower, or output power, of the motor (
To derive the part load losses equations, DOE analyzed the results of all AHRI 1210-2011 test results to establish the maximum values of the ratio of VFD and motor losses to the motor full load losses (or part load loss factor). DOE determined this ratio at several motor load points using a regression as a function of the motor load percentage to derive the coefficients of the polynomial equation. The polynomial equation used to represent the part load loss factor is defined in equation (22):
To calculate the part load losses of the motor and continuous control, manufacturers would apply the part load loss curve polynomial, with the appropriate coefficient as established in Table III.8, to the nominal full load losses for the motor being sold with that pump in the same manner as that for determining the part load losses for single-speed motors (see equation (14) in section III.D.2).
DOE recognizes that the loading of the motor and continuous control when paired with a particular pump model may differ from those observed during DOE's testing and that this may affect the specific losses associated with a given pump. However, DOE believes that it is likely pump manufacturers would select a motor with a similar horsepower and control combinations to pair with a particular pump, as significantly oversized equipment will add unnecessary additional expense for the customer.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load loss factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor (
DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed equation compared to one that accounts for multiple performance variables (speed and torque).
DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor that was applied to the measured VFD efficiency data to generate the proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling factor would be more appropriate in this context.
DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and motor horsepower.
DOE requests comment and data from interested parties regarding the extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve would represent minimally efficient motor and continuous control combinations.
DOE is proposing to require that each bare pump model be physically tested in accordance with the test procedure rather than to allow the use of calculation methods for determining performance of a bare pump with a similar design. DOE notes that the proposed calculation-based test procedure for certain applicable pumps already contains provisions for tested bare pump performance to be combined with default or tested performance data regarding the motor or motor with continuous or non-continuous controls to calculate the PER of multiple pump basic models. This proposal would apply to: (1) Bare pumps; (2) pumps sold with either (a) motors regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) submersible motors; and (3) pumps sold with continuous-controlled motors that are either (a) motors regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) submersible motors. DOE also notes that, beyond the calculations proposed in this NOPR, DOE is not considering
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of each individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEI
DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
In summary, DOE proposes to establish the calculation-based methods discussed in this section III.E.1 for determining PEI
Testing-based methods directly measure the input power to the motor, continuous control, or non-continuous control at the load points of interest (
DOE is also proposing providing these “wire-to-water” testing-based methods as an optional procedure for all pumps sold with motors or motors with continuous controls. The benefit of using a testing-based approach is that the test protocol is straightforward and accurate for a given pump sold with a motor or pump sold with a motor and continuous control combination. In these cases, it may be appropriate to use this testing-based approach for custom equipment that is already being tested for a specific customer. However, for standard pump models that may be paired with a variety of motors or continuous or non-continuous controls, testing each combination would significantly increase the burden of testing as compared to the calculation-based approach presented in section III.E.1.
The following sections describe how to determine BEP for pumps rated using the testing-based method, as well as the specific test methods for pumps sold with motors (Method B.2) and pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls (Method B.3).
DOE notes that when testing some pumps using the testing-based methods, it is not possible to determine BEP as a ratio of pump input power over pump hydraulic power unless additional measurements are made of bare pump performance or pump shaft input power, in addition to input power to the motor. See section III.C.2.d, supra.
In the case of pumps sold with motors or motors with continuous or non-continuous controls for which input power to the shaft is not measured directly, DOE proposes to determine the BEP using what is typically known as overall efficiency. Overall efficiency is the input power to the driver or continuous control, if any, divided by the pump hydraulic output power with no speed control (
To maintain consistent nomenclature, DOE proposes to define BEP for pumps tested using testing-based methods as the maximum measured value of the ratio of driver input power over pump hydraulic output at a single, nominal speed. Under this proposal, DOE would require use of the procedure specified in section III.C.2.d, except that the BEP would be determined based on the combined pump and motor efficiency instead of the bare pump efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for pumps rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input power to the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic output. DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may yield significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is determined based on pump efficiency.
For pumps sold with motors, the PEI
The PEI
For pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE proposes that the PEI
(1) the input power is the “driver input power,” defined in table 40.6.2.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and referenced in table 40.6.3.2.3, section 40.6.4.4, and section 40.6.6.2 refers to the input power to the continuous or non-continuous control and the input power to the continuous or non-continuous control and
(2) is determined in accordance with the tolerances and requirements for measuring electrical power described in AHRI 1210-2011 and CSA C838-2013, as proposed in section III.C.2.e.
With this approach, pump manufacturers would determine the BEP of the pump, inclusive of motor and continuous or non-continuous controls, as described in section III.E.2.a, and then adjust the operating speed of the motor and the head until the specified head and flow conditions are reached (
DOE recognizes that each test lab may have a similar but unique system curve that is representative of the specific valves, elbows, and other system components present in the test loop. As such, DOE proposes to specify the specific load points that must be determined based on the reference system curve to ensure repeatability among labs. However, DOE also recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve the exact load points given measurement and experimental uncertainty. To address this issue, DOE also proposes to establish an acceptable tolerance around each load point. The use of tolerances in this context is not unique. For example, EU 641 regulation
DOE recognizes that it is still important for the input power values to represent the power at each specific load point. As such, DOE also proposes to require that load points determined via testing that are within the specified 10 percent tolerance band be extrapolated to the reference system curve to normalize the test data to the exact load points specified by the system curve. In this case, the pump shaft input power at the head at tested point i (
In this case, the PER becomes an average of the measured power input to the continuous or non-continuous control at the four specified rating points based on the assumed system curve (as in Test Method C.1), as shown in equation (25):
DOE notes that some pumps are sold with non-continuous controls, such as multi-speed motors with two or three discrete speed options. Pumps with these types of non-continuous controls are not able to use the calculation-based test method C.1 because they are not able to follow the reference system curve described in section III.E.1.c. For example, in the case of a pump sold with a two-speed motor, the pump will operate at full speed (
For these types of pumps sold with non-continuous controls, DOE proposes that the testing-based method found in HI 40.6-2014 be modified slightly to accommodate the operation of non-continuous controls and representatively account for their impact on pump energy performance. DOE proposes that for pumps sold with a motor and non-continuous controls, the input power to the pump at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of BEP flow be determined in the same manner as that for pumps sold with continuous controls described in section III.E.2.c, except that the head associated with each of the specified flow points does not have to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified head, as described by the reference system curve—only the flow rate would need to be achieved within 10 percent of the specified value. DOE proposes to require that the measured total head corresponding to the 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent of BEP flow points be no lower than 10 percent below that defined by referenced system curve. That is, the associated total head may be anywhere in the region between the reference system curve and the full speed pump curve. In this case, the measured head and flow rate should not be corrected to the reference system curve. Instead, the measured points should be used directly in further calculations of PEI
The presence of continuous or non-continuous controls will positively impact the PEI
In addition, the proposed testing-based method for pumps sold with motors and continuous controls will allow for more accurate differentiation of the variable performance of different continuous control technologies that cannot be adequately captured in the calculation-based method for pumps sold with regulated motors and continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous control that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test procedure would not apply.
In summary, Table III.9 outlines which test methods would apply to which pump configurations under this proposal.
For bare pumps, DOE is proposing to establish the calculation approach as the default test procedure (method A.1, which is discussed in section III.E.1.a). Testing-based methods would not apply to bare pumps because a PEI rating (which includes the efficiency of the motor) could not be determined based on a test of the bare pump alone.
For pumps sold with motors that are either regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or are submersible motors, DOE is proposing to also allow the use of the applicable calculation-based method (B.1, discussed in section III.E.1.b) or the testing-based method (B.2, discussed in section III.E.2.b).
For pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor standards (except for submersible motors), DOE proposes to require use of the testing-based method B.2, discussed in section III.E.2.b, because the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as determined using a specific standardized procedure, is not available for those motors.
For pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric motors or (b) submersible motors, DOE proposes to allow use of either the applicable calculation-based method (Method C.1, discussed in section III.E.1.c) or the testing-based method (Method C.2, discussed in section III.E.2.c).
For pumps sold with non-continuous control-equipped motors that are either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards for electric motors or (b) submersible motors, as defined in section III.E.1.c, the calculation-based method C.1 would not be applicable because these controls are not able to follow the reference system curve described in section III.E.1.c. As such, pumps sold with non-continuous controls would also have to be tested using the testing-based method C.2 under this proposal.
For pumps sold with motors not regulated by DOE's electric motor standards (excluding submersible motors) that are equipped with either continuous or non-continuous controls, DOE notes that the proposed calculation-based methods would also not apply, just as they do not apply to pumps sold with non-continuous controls. Thus, DOE proposes that such pumps would need to be evaluated using the testing-based method C.2 discussed in section III.E.2.c.
DOE's proposed applicability of testing-based and calculation-based test methods, as shown in Table III.9, is intended to maximize the number of pumps that can be rated using the less burdensome calculation-based methods A.1, B.1, and C.1.
In the case of a pump sold with a continuous or non-continuous controlled motor that is either (a) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (b) a submersible motor, DOE proposes to allow use of either the calculation-based test method or the testing-based test method when determining the efficiency rating. In this case, if a manufacturer wishes to represent the improved performance of a given pump and believes that the assumptions made in the calculation method would not adequately represent the improved performance of that pump, the manufacturer may use the testing-based methods to rate the PEI
DOE has designed the calculation-based approach to be conservative (through the assumed motor loss curve and assumed default motor efficiencies) to allow for comparability between the calculation-based and testing-based methods for pumps paired with continuous controls for motors that are (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors. However, DOE notes that, since the actual measured efficiency of any single motor could be higher or lower than the nominal full load efficiency ratings assigned to that basic model of motor, it is possible for a given pump to be tested with a motor that is more or less efficient than its nameplate efficiency. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for the calculation-based method B.1 to generate ratings that are better or worse than the testing-based method B.2 based solely on the performance of the motor. To address this possibility, DOE proposes that, when performing enforcement testing, it would use the same test method (
DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-based test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and testing-based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps sold with any motors and with non-continuous controls.
DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either testing-based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on the level of burden in include with any certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by a manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with any energy conservation standards DOE may set.
As noted previously, manufacturers of any pumps within the scope of the pump test procedure would be required to use the test procedure established through this rulemaking when making representations about the energy efficiency or energy use of their equipment. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) provides that “[n]o manufacturer . . . may make any representation . . . respecting the energy consumption of such equipment or cost of energy consumed by such equipment, unless such equipment has been tested in accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly discloses the results of such testing.” Manufacturers of equipment that would be addressed by this test procedure and any applicable standards that DOE may set would have 180 days after the promulgation of those standards to begin using the DOE procedure. Performing this test procedure for pumps requires a key component (C-value) that will be addressed through the standards rulemaking for pumps. (As noted earlier, DOE is working on a parallel rulemaking to set these standards.) Because of this dependency, in DOE's view, the 180-day provision prescribed by 42 U.S.C. 6314(d) would necessarily apply only when both the test procedure and standards rules have been finalized. Accordingly, under this approach, manufacturers would not be required (nor would they be able) to use the proposed procedure until standards have been set.
With respect to representations, generally, DOE understands manufacturers often make representations (graphically or in numerical form) of energy use metrics, including pump efficiency, overall (wire-to-water) efficiency, bowl efficiency, driver power input, pump power input (brake or shaft horsepower), and/or pump power output (hydraulic horsepower). Manufacturers often make these representations at multiple impeller trims, operating speeds, and number of stages for a given pump. DOE proposes to allow manufacturers to continue making these representations.
Any representations of PEI and PER must be made in accordance with the DOE test procedure, and there may only be one PEI or PER representation for each basic model. In other words, representations of PEI and PER that differ from the full impeller PEI and PER cannot be made at alternate speeds, stages, or impeller trims. Additionally, if the PEI and PER for a basic model is rated using any method other than method A.1, “bare pump with default motor efficiency and default motor part load loss curve,” such a basic model may not include individual models with alternate stages or impeller trims.
If a manufacturer wishes to make unique representations of PEI or PER based on a trimmed impeller, DOE proposes that the manufacturer must certify the trimmed impeller as a separate basic model. In such a case, the “trimmed impeller” being rated would become the full impeller for the new basic model, or the maximum diameter impeller distributed in commerce for that pump model (see section III.A.1.c).
DOE provides in subpart B to 10 CFR part 429 sampling plans for all covered equipment. The purpose of these sampling plans is to provide uniform statistical methods for determining compliance with prescribed energy conservation standards and when making representations of energy consumption and energy efficiency for each covered equipment type on labels and in other locations such as marketing materials. DOE proposes to adopt for pumps the same statistical sampling plans used for other commercial and industrial equipment. These requirements would be added to 10 CFR Part 429.
Under this proposal, for purposes of certification testing, the determination that a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard would be based on testing conducted using the proposed DOE test procedure and sampling plan. The general sampling requirement currently applicable to all covered products and equipment provides that a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure compliance and that, unless otherwise specified, a minimum of two units must be tested to certify a basic model as compliant. 10 CFR 429.11 This minimum is implicit in the requirement to calculate a mean—an average—which requires at least two values.
DOE proposes to apply this minimum requirement to pumps. Thus, under no circumstances would a sample size of one be authorized for the purposes of determining compliance with any prescribed energy conservation standards or for making representations of energy use of covered pumps. Manufacturers may need to test a sample of more than two units depending on the variability of their sample, as provided by the statistical sampling plan.
DOE is also proposing to create a new section 10 CFR 429.59 for commercial and industrial pump certification that would include sampling procedures and certification report requirements for pumps. DOE proposes to adopt in 10 CFR 429.59 the same statistical sampling procedures that are applicable to many other types of commercial and industrial equipment. DOE believes equipment variability and measurement
DOE is proposing to determine compliance in an enforcement matter based on the arithmetic mean of a sample not to exceed four units.
DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for certification and enforcement of compliance for commercial and industrial pumps.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
DOE reviewed today's proposed rule, which would establish new test procedures for pumps, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed rule, if adopted, would result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis is set forth below.
For the industrial pump manufacturing industry, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purpose of the statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine whether any small entities would be required to comply with the rule. The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of equipment covered by this rulemaking. During its market survey, DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved the review individual company Web sites and marketing research tools (
DOE then reviewed these data to determine whether the entities met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of pumps and then screened out companies that do not offer equipment covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated. Based on this review, DOE has identified 38 companies that would be considered small manufacturers by the SBA definition, which represents approximately 33 percent of pump manufacturers with facilities in the United States, as identified by DOE. Fourteen of the 38 manufacturers that qualify as being a small business were found to be foreign owned or operated, leaving 25 small businesses in the analysis. These 25 companies represent 29 percent of pump manufacturers with facilities in the United States.
Table IV.1 groups the small businesses according to their number of employees. The majority of the small businesses affected by this rulemaking (60 percent) have fewer than 100 employees. According to DOE's analysis, annual sales associated with these small manufacturers were estimated at $1.09 billion ($43.97 million average annual sales per small manufacturer), which represents less than one percent of total industrial pump manufacturer annual sales. Although $1.09 billion in annual sales by the industry and over $43.97 million per small manufacturer are significant in many markets, many industrial and commercial pump manufacturers are large, multi-national companies, with annual sales ranging between a few million to over a trillion dollars.
The proposed test procedure would impact manufacturers by requiring them to test the energy consumption of certain models of pumps they manufacture. As such, DOE conducted a focused inquiry into the number of basic models manufactured by large and small business in order to determine whether small business would be disproportionally impacted compared to large manufacturers. DOE used the definition of basic model and the scope of pumps proposed in section III.A as the basis for its inquiry into the number of pump models manufactured per company. Small manufacturers of pumps produce an average of 41 basic models per company covered under this scope.
DOE notes that this estimate is based on the number of different bare pump models manufactured by a specific company because often information was not available regarding the number and type of motor or control options with which a pump could be sold. As such, DOE acknowledges that this estimate of basic models may be an under estimate. However, DOE also notes that, based on its research, pumps are often distributed in commerce as a bare pump, with different motors, continuous controls, and non-continuous controls offered as add-on options. As such, based on the proposed test procedure, only physical testing of the fundamental bare pump would be required under DOE's proposed test. Subsequent ratings when the pump is sold either with a motor or with a motor and continuous or non-continuous controls could be developed based on calculations with no additional testing if the motor is covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors and the control is a continuous control.
DOE notes that the vast majority of pumps that are sold with motors are sold with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards. This understanding was confirmed by discussions of the CIP Working Group. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039, No. 09 at p. 57) Based on a review of industry literature, DOE also finds that almost all controls available to be paired with pumps are VSD controls and would meet DOE's proposed definition of continuous control and, thus, the calculation method would be applicable.
As discussed in more detail in the following, physical testing of each pump is by far the more burdensome and costly part of conducting the DOE test procedure, and any subsequent calculations should not significantly affect the burden associated with conducting DOE's proposed test procedure. Therefore, DOE acknowledges that, while different configurations of a bare pump, motor, and/or control may represent several basic models, estimating the burden associated with rating those models will be fundamentally based on the physical testing that must be performed on only the underlying bare pump, for most pumps. Therefore, DOE believes that calculating the burden of testing based on the number of bare pump models offered by a manufacturer is a reasonable and representative estimate of the burden associated with establishing a rating for the entire family, or group, or pump models that might be based on the individual bare pump. DOE notes that physical testing of the bare pump is commonly performed to describe pump performance information in manufacturer's literature. However, it is not clear that all pump manufacturers have facilities capable of performing in accordance with the DOE test procedure. As such, DOE has conservatively assumed that manufacturers would have to make a decision to incur the burden of constructing a test facility in order to perform the proposed DOE test procedure or conduct the testing a third party laboratory, as discussed further in section IV.B.3. DOE does not expect that every pump manufacturer will incur the cost as estimated in this IRFA given that many of the manufacturers are already testing and making representations of the bare pump efficiency.
DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for which the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump sold with a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental physical test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the number of pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump models sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of continuous control.
Pumps would be newly regulated equipment; accordingly, DOE has no test procedures or standards for this equipment. As such, this proposal would apply a uniform test procedure for those pumps that would be required to be tested and an accompanying burden on the manufacturers of those pumps. As discussed in the proposed sampling provisions in section III.F, this test procedure would require manufacturers to test at least two units of each pump basic model to develop a certified rating.
DOE notes that certification of covered pump models is not currently required because energy conservation standards do not exist for pumps. However, EPCA also requires that manufacturers use the DOE test procedure to make representations regarding energy efficiency or energy use based on the DOE test procedure for any covered pump models. For the purposes of this IRFA, DOE estimates that each manufacturer would rate each basic model of covered pump in order to make representations about a given basic model. Thus, the testing burden associated with this test procedure NOPR is similar regardless of whether standards apply. The potential difference between these cases, as discussed below, is any burden associated specifically with creating and maintaining certification reports to demonstrate compliance with any energy conservation standards for pumps.
DOE recognizes that making representations regarding the energy efficiency or energy use of covered pump models is voluntary and thus, technically, the proposed test procedure does not have any incremental burden associated with it, unless DOE establishes energy conservation standards. If necessary, a manufacturer could elect to not make representations about the energy use of covered pump models. Since certification is not currently required because there are no pump energy conservation standards, manufacturers would not be required to conduct testing in accordance with this proposed test procedure and, thus, would not incur any incremental burden associated with such testing. However, DOE realizes that manufacturers often provide information about the energy performance of the pumps they manufacture since this information is an important marketing tool to help distinguish their pumps from competitor offerings. In addition, DOE recognizes that pump energy conservation standards are currently being considered in an associated rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0031) and may be proposed or promulgated in the near future. Therefore, DOE is estimating the full burden of developing certified ratings for covered pump models for the purposes of making representations regarding the energy use of covered
DOE expects that in order to determine the pump performance of any covered pump models for the purposes of making representations or certifying compliance with under any future energy conservation standards for pumps, each manufacturer would have to either (a) have the units tested in-house or (b) have the units tested at a third party testing facility. If the manufacturer elects to test pumps in-house, each manufacturer would have to undertake the following burden-inducing activities:
(1) construct and maintain a test facility that is capable of testing pumps in compliance with the test procedure, including acquisition and calibration of any necessary measurement equipment, and
(2) conduct the DOE test procedure on two units of each covered pump model.
DOE recognizes that many pump manufacturers already have pump test facilities of various types and conduct pump testing as part of an existing manufacturing quality control process, to develop pump performance information for new and existing products, and to demonstrate the performance of specific pump units for customers. However, DOE recognizes that, as such testing is not currently required or standardized, testing facilities may vary widely from one pump manufacturer to another. As such, for the purposes of estimating testing burden associated with this test procedure NOPR, DOE has estimated the burden associated with a situation where a given pump manufacturer does not have existing test facilities at all and would be required to construct such facilities to test equipment in accordance with any test procedure final rule. This is the most burdensome assumption.
DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by pump manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary to transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure as proposed in this NOPR.
The proposed test procedure would require manufacturers to conduct the calculation-based method or the testing-based method, depending on the type and configuration of pump being tested. As discussed in section III.E.1, DOE is proposing the less burdensome calculation-based test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and pumps sold with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards.
In contrast, DOE is proposing to require that manufacturers use a testing-based method where pumps are sold either with motors that are not covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards or with non-continuous controls. For pumps sold with motors that are covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards and continuous controls, DOE is proposing to allow either testing-based methods or calculation-based methods be used to rate such equipment.
Both the calculation-based method and the testing-based method would require physical testing of pumps at some level and, as such, would utilize a similar basic testing facility. To collect information on constructing a testing facility capable of performing the proposed DOE test procedure on the proposed scope of covered equipment, DOE utilized estimates from pump testing facilities and conversations with pump testing personnel.
From these sources, DOE estimates that the testing facility would need to be configured with 100 to 280 feet of stainless steel pipe of 6 to 8 inches in diameter. DOE estimates that this configuration, including its respective fittings and valves, would cost between $17,000 and $100,000 to construct, based on cost data from RS Means.
The test platform of the facility could use a variety of devices to operate the bare pump. For example, a dynamometer can be used to simultaneously drive and measure the torque and rotating speed of the pump, the bare pump could be driven by a calibrated motor, or the pump could be driven by a non-calibrated motor with independent measurement of speed and torque. For testing of a pump and motor or pump, motor, and control, a separate drive system would not be necessary.
In this analysis, DOE assumed that such a facility would use a VFD and a motor to enable each pump to be analyzed for energy consumption. DOE believes that this is likely to be the most common and cost-effective approach for determining the energy consumptions of bare pumps. DOE estimates that the VFD, rated up to 250 horsepower in accordance with the scope of this rulemaking, would cost approximately $18,000 based on estimates obtained from retailers.
DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-calibrated test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly approach for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE test procedure.
During testing, each pump is matched to an appropriately sized motor to drive the pump along at least seven points from 40 to 120 percent of the expected BEP flow of the pump on the pump performance curve. To test the full range of pumps covered in the scope of this standard, DOE estimates that a minimum of four motors would be necessary.
The motors would have to be sized based upon the range of pumps, which vary between 1 and 200 horsepower, to ensure that the pairing lowers the part load motor losses. These properly sized motors would be between 5 and 250 hp, and the combined cost of the motors ranges between $20,000 and $66,000.
To measure energy consumption, measurements of head, pump rotating speed, flow rate, and either electrical power or torque would be necessary. DOE estimates that the total cost of this measurement equipment would be between $15,000 and $33,000.
DOE estimates that building a testing facility capable of testing the range of pumps covered in the standard would cost approximately $91,000 to $277,000 per manufacturer.
DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs to build a pump testing facility as presented.
DOE estimates that a majority of pumps are sold with motors that are covered under the current DOE motor standard or submersible motors and have been rated and, if equipped with controls, would use continuous controls. Under the proposed test procedure, DOE would not require these configurations of pumps and motors to be tested using the wire-to-water test, but would allow manufacturers the option to conduct the wire-to-water test.
All pumps sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards would be required to conduct the wire-to-water test. The proposed wire-to-water test would utilize the basic test lab setup described above without the standard four test motors, but would require additional instrumentation to measure power into and out of the motor or VFD, as described in section III.C.2.e. DOE estimates the instrumentation required
DOE understands that the characteristics of the power supplied to the test facility may impact the results of testing the controls in the system. However, DOE is not incorporating the testing or correction of power quality in the burden estimate presented in this NOPR because DOE could not identify reliable or consistent estimates for the cost of maintaining the proposed power supply requirements discussed in section III.C.2.a above. These factors, taken together, would result in a testing facility capable of conducting the wire-to-water test that costs between $72,000 and $213,000.
DOE requests comment on the test facility description and measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in the NOPR.
DOE amortized the cost of building the testing facility based on loan interest rates and product lifetimes gathered in manufacturer surveys. The average interest rate for business loans reported by manufacturers was 11.8 percent, based on feedback obtained during preliminary analysis interviews for the standards rulemaking. DOE used a loan period of 7 years based on the assumption that the machinery qualifies for a 7-year depreciation schedule under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS).
In addition to the capital expenses associated with acquiring the appropriate equipment and facilities to conduct testing, manufacturers would incur recurring burden associated with maintaining the test facility and conducting each pump test. Each testing facility would need to calibrate the instrumentation used in the test loop as specified in HI 40.6-2004 appendix D. The flowmeter, torque sensor, and power quality meter all should be calibrated once a year. The pressure transducer should be calibrated every 4 months and a laser tachometer should be calibrated every 3 years. These calibrations, together, cost a testing facility about $1,241.67 per year to calibrate.
Both methods of the proposed test procedure would require test personnel to set up, conduct, and remove each pump in accordance with that procedure. Based on conversations with test engineers, DOE estimates it would take between 1 and 2 hours of an engineer's time to complete the test procedure per model tested, which would result in a cost of $53.87 to $107.74 per model based on an engineer's labor rate of $53.87 per hour. DOE estimates that setting up and removing the pumps from the test stand would require 2 to 6 hours of the engineer's time depending on the size of the pump and any other fittings that need to be configured to enable testing, resulting in a cost between $107.74 to $323.22 per model based on the labor rate of $53.87 per hour for an engineer. The total cost of testing a pump, including setup, tests, and takedown ranges between $161.61 and $430.96 per model. DOE estimates that the time required to conduct the calculation-based method of test would be the same as the time required to conduct the wire-to-water test.
As described earlier, the proposed default calculation-based method, using the basic test facility set up, would require testing each bare pump model. The test results from that rated bare pump could then be used in subsequent calculations to determine certified ratings for that pump when sold as a bare pump, with a motor that is covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors, or with a covered motor and continuous controls. However, for pumps sold with motors not certified to the DOE motor standard or with non-continuous controls, manufacturers would be required to conduct the wire-to-water test on each pump model in a test facility with additional electrical instrumentation, as described previously. Manufacturers conducting the wire-to-water tests on their equipment would need to test each pump and motor combination, which may incur a higher burden than the default calculation-based method.
As previously discussed, DOE's estimate of burden for rating pump models covered by the proposed DOE test procedure is based on the assumption that the majority of covered pump models will be able to use the calculation-based method and same fundamental bare pump test to certify a given pump in the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, or pump sold with a motor and controls configurations. DOE notes that the wire-to-water test would be available as an option for these pump models, but would not be required. DOE acknowledges that some pump models, such as pumps sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors or submersible motors and pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, would be required to use the wire-to-water test procedure proposed in section III.E.2. However, based on DOE's research, very few pump models will be required to use these methods.
DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per manufacturer that would be required to use the wire-to-water test method to certify pump performance.
These costs, taken together, would result in an additional burden for manufacturers conducting the DOE test procedure from the construction of a testing facility and the requirement to test all pumps under the scope of the proposed test procedure. Fifteen of 25 small manufacturers identified in DOE's initial survey of manufacturers produce pumps that fall within the scope of this rulemaking and would be required to perform testing; the other 10 produce pump types that are not within the scope of pumps for which the proposed test procedure is applicable (see section III.A).
The burden of building a testing facility and testing pumps varied across small manufacturers. The lowest burden estimate is approximately $61,000 in the first year and the highest burden experienced in the first year is estimated to be around $221,000 for small manufacturers affected by the rule. Table IV.2 presents the small manufacturers stratified by employee size and shows the average burden estimated for each employee bin size as a percentage of average annual sales.
The burden estimates were based on annual sales data gathered in the manufacturer surveys, company Web sites, and marketing research tools. Total revenue for businesses was not used because data for all relevant companies were not publicly available. Annual average value added was another financial indicator investigated for the burden analysis. This indicator was not utilized because the value added pooled companies that manufacture other commodities and was not found to be representative of the pump manufacturing industry.
DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the financial indicator for this analysis and whether another financial indicator would be more representative to assess the burden upon the pump manufacturing industry.
As the number of employees increases, the average estimated burden, as a percentage of average annual sales, decreases. The average number of basic models is highest for small manufacturers with 51-100 employees; however, the average annual sales were a much larger factor in determining the average burden than the number of basic models per manufacturer.
For the 15 small manufacturers that produce pumps within the scope of the rulemaking, the average burden is estimated to be 1.56 percent of their average annual sales. Based on the burden estimates described herein, 3 of the 15 manufacturers would incur a burden of over 2 percent of their annual sales if the maximum burden is applied. The other 12 companies have an average estimated burden of 0.63 percent of annual sales.
Based on the estimates presented, DOE believes that the proposed test procedure amendments may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis may be required. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions and estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with implementing the proposed DOE test procedure.
All collections of information from the public by a Federal agency must receive prior approval from OMB. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for covered consumer products and industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the framework document considering energy conservation standards for pumps on February 1, 2013. 78 FR 7304. In an application to renew the OMB information collection approval for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements, DOE included an estimated burden for manufacturers of pumps in case DOE ultimately sets energy conservation standards for this equipment. OMB has approved the revised information collection for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015). DOE estimated that it will take each respondent approximately 30 hours total per company per year to comply with the certification and recordkeeping requirements based on 20 hours of technician/technical work and 10 hours clerical work to actually submit the Compliance and Certification Management System templates. This rulemaking would include recordkeeping requirements on manufacturers that are associated with executing and maintaining the test data for this equipment. DOE notes that the certification requirements would be established in a final rule establishing energy conservation standards for pumps. DOE recognizes that recordkeeping burden may vary substantially based on company preferences and practices.
DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the proposed recordkeeping requirements.
DOE also generally notes that notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In this proposed rule, DOE is proposing a test procedure for pumps that will be used to support the upcoming pumps energy conservation standard rulemaking. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that today's regulatory action, which would prescribe the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of pumps, is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The proposed rule incorporates by reference the testing methods contained in HI 40.6-2014, “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” except section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and appendix B, “Reporting of test results.” In addition, the NOPR's proposed definitions incorporate by reference the following standards:
(1) Sections 1.1, “types and nomenclature,” and 1.2.9, “rotodynamic pump icons,” of the 2014 version of ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, “Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;”
(2) section 2.1, “types and nomenclature,” of the 2008 version of ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, “Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;”
While today's proposed test procedure is not exclusively based on these industry testing standards, some components of the DOE test procedure would adopt definitions, test parameters, measurement techniques, and additional calculations from them without amendment. The Department has evaluated these industry testing standards and is unable to conclude whether they would fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference five industry standards related to pump nomenclature, definitions, and specifications, which DOE has referenced in its proposed definitions. These standards include ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014, “Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;” ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008, “Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;” FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type);” UL Standard 448-2007, “Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service;” and NFPA Standard 20-2013, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection.” These are industry-accepted standards used by pump manufacturers when designing and marketing pumps in North America. The definitions proposed in this NOPR reference specific sections of the HI standards for definitional clarity and the entirety of the NFPA, UL, and FM standards as a basis for scope exclusions. These standards are available through the respective Web sites of each individual organization.
DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by HI titled “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” HI 40.6-2014, with the exception of section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and appendix B, “Reporting of test results.” HI 40.6-2014 was developed to support DOE's test procedure development and is heavily based on the industry-accepted test standard ANSI/HI 14.6. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references nearly the entirety of ANSI/HI 14.6, in regards to test setup, instrumentation, and test conduct. HI 40.6-2014 is available from HI.
The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the
Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures, which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding identification (ID) requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific States and U.S. territories. As a result, driver's licenses from the following States or territory will not be accepted for building entry, and instead, one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.
DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the States of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these States are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other Federal government-issued Photo-ID card.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its proposal to match the scopes of the pump test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings, as recommended by the Working Group.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for “pump,” “bare pump,” “mechanical equipment,” “driver,” and “control.”
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for “continuous control” and “non-continuous control.”
DOE also requests comment and information regarding how often pumps with continuous or non-continuous controls are packaged and distributed in commerce, by manufacturers, with integrated sensors and feedback logic that would allow such pumps to automatically actuate.
DOE also requests comment on the likelihood of pumps with continuous and non-continuous controls being distributed in commerce, but never paired with any sensor or feedback mechanisms that would enable energy savings.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “basic model” as applied to pumps. Specifically, DOE is interested in comments on DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the option of rating pumps with trimmed impellers as a single basic model or separate basic models, provided the rating for each pump model is based on the maximum impeller diameter for that model.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “full impeller.”
DOE requests comment on the proposal to require that all pump models be rated in a full impeller configuration only.
DOE requests comment on any other characteristics of pumps that are unique from other commercial and industrial equipment and may require modifications to the definition of “basic model,” as proposed.
DOE requests comment on the proposed applicability of the test procedure to the five pump equipment classes noted above, namely ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, and VTS pumps.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for end suction pump, end suction frame mounted pump, end suction close-coupled pump, in-line pump, radially split multi-stage vertical in-line casing diffuser pump, rotodynamic pump, single axis flow pump, and vertical turbine submersible pump.
DOE requests comment on whether the references to ANSI/HI nomenclature are necessary as part of the equipment definitions in the regulatory text, are likely to cause confusion due to inconsistencies, and whether discussing the ANSI/HI nomenclature in this preamble would provide sufficient reference material for manufacturers when determining the appropriate equipment class for their pump models.
DOE requests comment on whether it needs to clarify the flow direction to distinguish RSV pumps from other similar pumps when determining test procedure and standards applicability.
DOE requests comment on whether any additional language is necessary in the proposed RSV definition to make the exclusion of immersible pumps clearer.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to exclude circulators and pool pumps from the scope of this test procedure rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for circulators and dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
DOE requests comment on the extent to which ESCC, ESFM, IL, and RSV pumps require attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed. Specifically, DOE is interested to know if any pumps commonly referred to as ESCC, ESFM, IL, or RSV do not require attachment to a rigid foundation.
DOE requests comment on its initial determination that axial/mixed flow and PD pumps are implicitly excluded from this rulemaking based on the proposed definitions and scope parameters. In cases where commenters suggest a more explicit exclusion be used, DOE requests comment on the appropriate changes to the proposed definitions or criteria that would be needed to appropriately differentiate axial/mixed flow and/or PD pumps from the specific rotodynamic pumps equipment classes proposed for coverage in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “clean water pump.”
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference the definition for “clear water” in HI 40.6-2014 to describe the testing fluid to be used when testing pumps in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “fire pump,” “self-priming pump,” “prime-assisted pump,” and “sealless pump.”
Regarding the proposed definition of a self-priming pump, DOE notes that such pumps typically include a liquid reservoir above or in front of the impeller to allow recirculating water within the pump during the priming cycle. DOE requests comment on any other specific design features that enable the pump to operate without manual re-priming, and whether such specificity is needed in the definition for clarity.
DOE requests comment on the proposed specifications and criteria to determine if a pump is designed to meet a specific Military Specification and if Military Specifications other than MIL-P-17639F should be referenced.
DOE requests comment on excluding the following pumps from the test procedure: Fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, sealless pumps, pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50—Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, and pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended).
DOE requests comment on the listed design characteristics (power, flow, head, design temperature, design speed, and bowl diameter) as limitations on the scope of pumps to which the proposed test procedure would apply.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for “bowl diameter” as it would apply to VTS pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test pumps sold with non-electric drivers as bare pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that any pump distributed in commerce with a single-phase induction motor be tested and rated in the bare pump configuration, using the calculation method.
DOE requests comment from interested party on any categories of electric motors, except submersible motors, that: (1) Are used with pumps
DOE requests comment on the proposed load points and weighting for PEI
DOE requests comments on the proposed PEI
DOE requests comment on its proposal to base the default motor horsepower for the minimally compliant pump on that of the pump being evaluated. That is, the motor horsepower for the minimally compliant pump would be based on the calculated pump shaft input power of the pump when evaluated at 120 percent of BEP flow for bare pumps and the horsepower of the motor with which that pump is sold for pumps sold with motors and controls (with or without continuous or non-continuous controls).
DOE requests comment on using HI 40.6-2014 as the basis of the DOE test procedure for pumps.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to not incorporate by reference section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B of HI 40.6-2014 as part of the DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that data be collected at least every 5 seconds for all measured quantities.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow dampening devices, as described in section 40.6.3.2.2, but with the proviso noted above (
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require data collected at the pump speed measured during testing to be normalized to the nominal speeds of 1,800 and 3,600.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the requirements in HI 40.6-2014 regarding the deviation of tested speed from nominal speed and the variation of speed during the test. Specifically, DOE is interested if maintaining tested speed within ±1 percent of the nominal speed is feasible and whether this approach would produce more accurate and repeatable test results.
DOE requests comment on the proposed voltage, frequency, voltage unbalance, total harmonic distortion, and impedance requirements that are required when performing a wire-to-water pump test or when testing a bare pump with a calibrated motor. Specifically, DOE requests comments on whether these tolerances can be achieved in typical pump test labs, or whether specialized power supplies or power conditioning equipment would be required.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test RSV and VTS pumps in their 3- and 9-stage versions, respectively, or the next closest number of stages if the pump model is not distributed in commerce with that particular number of stages.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to use a linear regression of the pump shaft input power with respect to flow rate at all the tested flow points greater than or equal to 60 percent of expected BEP flow to determine the pump shaft input power at the specific load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pump models for which such an approach would yield inaccurate measurements.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that for pumps with BEP at run-out, the BEP would be determined at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent of expected BEP flow instead of the seven data points described in section 40.6.5.5.1 of HI 40.6-2014 and that the constant load points for pumps with BEP at run-out shall be 100, 90, and 65 percent of BEP flow, instead of 110, 100, and 75 percent of BEP flow.
DOE requests comment on the type and accuracy of required measurement equipment, especially the equipment required for electrical power measurements for pumps sold with motors having continuous or non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to conduct all calculations and corrections to nominal speed using raw measured values and that the PER
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the default motor horsepower for rating bare pumps based on the pump shaft input power at 120 percent of BEP flow. DOE is especially interested in any pumps for which the 120 percent of BEP flow load point would not be an appropriate basis to determine the default motor horsepower (
DOE requests comment on its proposal that would specify the default, minimally compliant nominal full load motor efficiency based on the applicable minimally allowed nominal full load motor efficiency specified in DOE's energy conservation standards for NEMA Design A, NEMA Design B, and IEC Design N motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for all pumps except pumps sold with submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on the proposed default minimum full load motor efficiency values for submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on defining the proposed default minimum motor full load efficiency values for submersible motors relative to the most current minimum efficiency standards levels for regulated electric motors, through the use of “bands” as presented in Table III.6.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow the use of the default minimum submersible motor full load efficiency values presented in Table III.6 to rate: (1) VTS bare pumps, (2) pumps sold with submersible motors, and (3) pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous or non-continuous controls as an option instead of wire-to-water testing.
DOE requests comment on the development and use of the motor part load loss factor curves to describe part load performance of covered motors and submersible motors including the default motor specified in section III.D.1 for bare pumps and calculation of PER
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the part load losses of motors covered by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards at 75, 100, and 110 percent of BEP flow based on the nominal full load efficiency of the motor, as determined in accordance with DOE's electric motor test procedure, and the same default motor part load loss curve applied to the default motor in test method A.1 for the bare pump.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine the PER
DOE also requests comment on its proposal that pumps sold with motors that are not addressed by DOE's electric motors test procedure (except submersible motors) would be rated based on a wire-to-water, testing-based approach.
DOE requests comment on the proposed system curve shape to use, as well as whether the curve should go through the origin instead of the statically loaded offset.
DOE requests comment on the proposed calculation approach for determining pump shaft input power for
DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt four part load loss factor equations expressed as a function of the load on the motor (
DOE also requests comment on the accuracy of the proposed equation compared to one that accounts for multiple performance variables (speed and torque).
DOE requests comment on the proposed 5 percent scaling factor that was applied to the measured VSD efficiency data to generate the proposed coefficients of the four part load loss curves. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on whether another scaling factor or no scaling factor would be more appropriate in this context.
DOE requests comment on the variability of control horsepower ratings that might be distributed in commerce with a given pump and motor horsepower.
DOE requests comment and data from interested parties regarding the extent to which the assumed default part load loss curve would represent minimum efficiency motor and continuous control combinations.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of each individual bare pump as the basis for a certified PEI
DOE requests comment on its proposal to limit the use of calculations and algorithms in the determination of pump performance to the calculation-based methods proposed in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to determine BEP for pumps rated with a testing-based method by using the ratio of input power to the driver or continuous control, if any, over pump hydraulic output. DOE also seeks input on the degree to which this method may yield significantly different BEP points from the case where BEP is determined based on pump efficiency.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for pumps sold with motors and continuous or non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on the proposed testing-based method for determining the input power to the pump for pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls.
DOE requests comment on any other type of non-continuous control that may be sold with a pump and for which the proposed test procedure would not apply.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish calculation-based test methods as the required test method for bare pumps and testing-based methods as the required test method for pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's electric motor energy conservation standards, except for submersible motors, or for pumps sold with any motors and with non-continuous controls.
DOE also requests comment on the proposal to allow either testing-based methods or calculation-based methods to be used to rate pumps sold with continuous control-equipped motors that are either (1) regulated by DOE's electric motor standards or (2) submersible motors.
DOE requests comment on the level of burden to include with any certification requirements the reporting of the test method used by a manufacturer to certify a given pump basic model as compliant with any energy conservation standards DOE may set.
DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan for certification of commercial and industrial pump models.
DOE requests comment regarding the size of pump manufacturing entities and the number of manufacturing businesses represented by this market.
DOE requests comment on its assumption that, for most pump models, only physical testing of the underlying bare pump model is required, and subsequent ratings for that bare pump sold with a motor or motor and continuous control can be based on calculations only.
DOE requests information on the percentage of pump models for which the rating of the bare pump, pump sold with a motor, and pump sold with a motor and controls cannot be based on the same fundamental physical test of the bare pump. For example, DOE is interested in the number of pump models sold with motors that are not covered by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors or the number of pump models sold with controls that would not meet DOE's definition of continuous control.
DOE requests comment on the testing currently conducted by pump manufacturers and the magnitude of incremental changes necessary to transform current test facilities to conduct the DOE test procedure as described in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on its assumption that using a non-calibrated test motor and VFD would be the most common and least costly approach for testing bare pumps in accordance with the proposed DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on the estimates of materials and costs to build a pump testing facility as presented.
DOE requests comment on the test facility description and measurement equipment assumed in DOE's estimate of burden.
DOE requests comment and information regarding the burden associated with achieving the power quality requirements proposed in the NOPR.
DOE requests comment on the number of pump models per manufacturer that would be required to use the wire-to-water test method to certify pump performance.
DOE requests comment on the estimation of the portion of pumps that would need to be newly certified or recertified annually.
DOE requests comment on the use of annual sales as the financial indicator for this analysis and whether another financial indicator would be more representative to assess the burden upon the pump manufacturing industry.
DOE requests comment on its conclusion that the proposed rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE is particularly interested in feedback on the assumptions and estimates made in the analysis of burden associated with implementing the proposed DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on the burden estimate to comply with the proposed recordkeeping requirements.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, subchapter D of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
(a) The definitions found in §§ 430.2, 431.2, 431.62, 431.72, 431.82, 431.92, 431.102, 431.132, 431.152, 431.172, 431.192, 431.202, 431.222, 431.242, 431.262, 431.282, 431.292, 431.302, 431.322, 431.442 and 431.462 apply for purposes of this part.
(a)
(1)
(i) Any value of the constant or variable load pump energy index or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
and x
(B) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.01, where:
and x
(ii) Any measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
and x
(B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.99, where:
and x
(b) [Reserved]
(d) When considering if a pump is subject to energy conservation standards under part 431, DOE may need to determine if a pump was designed and constructed to the requirements set forth in MIL-P-17639F. In this case, DOE may request that a manufacturer provide DOE with copies of the original design and test data that were submitted to appropriate design review agencies, as required by MIL-P-17639F.
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) For pumps, DOE will use an initial sample size of not more than four units and will determine compliance based on the arithmetic mean of the sample.
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
This subpart contains definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation requirements for pumps, pursuant to Part A-1 of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317.
The following definitions are applicable to this subpart, including
(1) RSV and VTS pump models for which the bare pump differs in the number of stages must be considered a single basic model; and
(2) Pump models for which the bare pump differs in impeller diameter, or impeller trim, may be considered a single basic model.
(1) Is either an end suction pump or a single-stage, single-axis flow, rotodynamic pump; and
(2) Has a pump housing that only requires the support of the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected (without attachment to a rigid foundation) to function as designed. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature CP1, CP2, or CP3, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(1) The motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump;
(2) The pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
(3) The pump does not include a basket strainer. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH7, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(1) The bare pump has its own impeller shaft and bearings and so does not rely on the motor shaft to serve as the impeller shaft;
(2) The pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected; and
(3) The pump does not include a basket strainer. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH0 and OH1, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(1) Underwriters Laboratory (UL) listed under UL Standard 448-2007 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), “Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service”; or
(2) Factory Mutual (FM) approved under the October 2008 edition of FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(1) Liquid is discharged through a volute in a plane perpendicular to the impeller shaft; and
(2) The pump requires attachment to a rigid foundation to function as designed and cannot function as designed when supported only by the supply and discharge piping to which it is connected. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature OH3, OH4, or OH5, as described in ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(1) Liquid is discharged in a place perpendicular to the impeller shaft;
(2) Each stage (or bowl) consists of an impeller and diffuser; and
(3) No external part of such a pump is designed to be submerged in the pumped liquid. Examples include, but are not limited to, pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS8, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(1) A pump that transmits torque from the motor to the bare pump using a magnetic coupling; or
(2) A pump in which the motor shaft also serves as the impeller shaft for the bare pump, and the motor rotor is immersed in the pumped fluid.
(1) Each stage of this pump consists of an impeller and diffuser; and
(2) Liquid enters and exits each stage of the bare pump in a direction parallel to the impeller shaft. Examples include, but are not limited to, a pumps complying with ANSI/HI nomenclature VS0, as described in ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
(a)
(b)
(1) FM Class Number 1319, “Approval Standard for Centrifugal Fire Pumps (Horizontal, End Suction Type),” approved October 2008, IBR approved for § 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) ANSI/HI Standard 1.1-1.2, (“ANSI/HI 1.1-1.2-2014”), “Rotodynamic (Centrifugal) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions;” approved 2014, section 1.1, “Types and nomenclature,” and section 1.2.9, “Rotodynamic pump icons,” IBR approved for § 431.462.
(2) ANSI/HI Standard 2.1-2.2, (“ANSI/HI 2.1-2.2-2008”), “Rotodynamic (Vertical) Pumps For Nomenclature And Definitions,” approved 2008, section 2.1, “Types and nomenclature,” IBR approved for § 431.462.
(3) HI 40.6-2014, (“HI 40.6-2014”), “Methods for Rotodynamic Pump Efficiency Testing,” except section 40.6.5.3, “Test report;” section A.7, “Testing at temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F);” and appendix B, “Reporting of test results;” approved 2014, IBR approved for § 431.464, and appendix A to subpart Y of part 431.
(h)
(1) NFPA Standard 20-2013, “Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection,” approved 2013, IBR approved for § 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(i)
(1) UL Standard 448-2007, “Centrifugal Stationary Pumps for Fire-Protection Service,” approved 2007, IBR approved for § 431.462.
(2) [Reserved]
(a)
(1) The following categories of clean water pumps:
(i) End suction close-coupled (ESCC);
(ii) End suction frame mounted (ESFM);
(iii) In-line (IL);
(iv) Radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line casing diffuser (RSV); and
(v) Vertical turbine submersible (VTS) pumps.
(2) With the following characteristics:
(i) Shaft power of at least 1 hp but no greater than 200 hp at the best efficiency point (BEP) at full impeller diameter for the number of stages required for testing (see section 1.2.2 of this appendix);
(ii) Flow rate of 25 gpm or greater at BEP and full impeller diameter;
(iii) Maximum head of 459 feet at BEP and full impeller diameter;
(iv) Design temperature range from -10 to 120 °C;
(v) Designed to operate with either:
(A) A 2- or 4-pole induction motor; or
(B) A non-induction motor with a speed of rotation operating range that includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 revolutions per minute and/or 1,440 and 2,160 revolutions per minute; and
(vi) For VTS pumps, a 6-inch or smaller bowl diameter.
(3) Except for the following pumps:
(i) Fire pumps.
(ii) Self-priming pumps.
(iii) Prime-assist pumps.
(iv) Sealless pumps.
(v) Pumps designed to be used in a nuclear facility subject to 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.”
(vi) Pumps meeting the design and construction requirements set forth in Military Specification MIL-P-17639F, “Pumps, Centrifugal, Miscellaneous Service, Naval Shipboard Use” (as amended).
(b)
A.
A.1
Section III of this appendix addresses the test procedure applicable to bare pumps. This test procedure also applies to pumps sold with drivers other than motors and pumps sold with single-phase induction motors.
Section IV of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors, which is applicable to all pumps sold with electric motors, other than single-phase induction motors.
Section V of this appendix addressed the calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors, which applies to:
(1) Pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors at § 431.25, other than single-phase induction motors; and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors.
Section VI of this appendix addresses the testing-based approach for pumps sold with motors and controls, which is applicable to all pumps sold with electric motors, other than single-phase induction motors, and continuous or non-continuous controls.
Section VII of this appendix discusses the calculation-based approach for pumps sold with motors and controls, which applies to:
(1) Pumps sold with electric motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors at § 431.25, other than single-phase induction motors, and continuous controls; and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls.
B.
C.
C.1 The nominal speed of rotation shall be determined based on the range of speeds of rotation at which the pump is designed to
C.1.1 For pumps sold without motors, the nominal rating speed will be selected based on the speed for which the pump is designed. For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation including 2,880 to 4,320 revolutions per minute (rpm), the nominal speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm. For bare pumps designed for speeds of rotation including 1,440 to 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
C.1.2 For pumps sold with 4-pole induction motors, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
C.1.3 For pumps sold with 2-pole induction motors, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm.
C.1.4 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation between 2,880 and 4,320 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 3,600 rpm.
C.1.5 For pumps sold with non-induction motors where the operating range of the pump and motor includes speeds of rotation between 1,440 and 2,160 rpm, the nominal speed of rotation shall be 1,800 rpm.
C.2 For RSV and VTS pumps, testing shall be performed on the pump with three stages for RSV pumps and nine stages for VTS pumps. If the basic model of pump being tested is only available with fewer than the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the maximum number of stages with which the basic model is distributed in commerce in the United States. If the basic model of pump being tested is only available with greater than the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the lowest number of stages with which the basic model is distributed in commerce in the United States. If the basic model of pump being tested is available with both fewer and greater than the required number of stages, but not the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the number of stages closest to the required number of stages. If both the next lower and next higher number of stages are equivalently close to the required number of stages, the pump shall be tested with the next higher number of stages.
D.
D.1 Data Sampling Frequency. Data shall be collected every three seconds for all measured quantities.
D.2 Dampening Devices. Use of dampening devices, as described in section 40.6.3.2.2, shall only be permitted to integrate up to 5 seconds.
D.3 Stabilization. Data recording at any test point shall be taken under stabilized conditions, as defined in HI 40.6-2014 section 40.6.5.5.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
D.4 Calculations and Rounding. All measured data shall be normalized to the nominal speed of rotation of 3,600 or 1,800 rpm based on the nominal speed of rotation selected for the pump in section I.C.1 of this appendix, in accordance with the procedures specified in section 40.6.6.1.1 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463). Except for the “expected BEP flow rate,” all terms and quantities refer to values determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in this appendix for the rated pump. All calculations shall be performed using their raw measured values with PER
D.5 Pumps with BEP at Run Out. Pumps for which the expected maximum efficiency corresponds to the maximum flow rate at which the pump is designed to operate continuously or safely (
A. Determine the PEI of each tested pump based on the configuration in which it sold as follows:
A.1. For bare pumps and pumps sold with motors, determine the PEI
A.2 For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls or non-continuous controls, determine the PEI
B. Determine the pump energy rating for the minimally compliant reference pump (PER
B.1. Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating point as follows:
P
B.1.1. Determine the pump power input to the minimally compliant pump at each rating point i based on a ratio of the pump power output for the tested pump and the calculated efficiency of a minimally compliant pump with the same flow rate and specific speed characteristics as the tested pump:
B.1.1.1 Calculate the minimally compliant pump efficiency based on the following equation:
B.1.1.1.1 Determine the specific speed of the rated pump using the following equation:
B.1.1.2 Determine the pump power output at each rating point, i, of the tested pump using the following equation:
B.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor calculated at each rating point (y
B.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following equation:
B.1.2.1.1 Determine the motor horsepower as follows:
• For bare pumps, the motor horsepower is determined as the horsepower rating listed in Table 2 of this appendix that is either equivalent to or the next highest horsepower greater than the pump power input to the bare pump at 120 percent of the BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
• For pumps sold with motors, pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, or pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, the motor horsepower is that of the motor with which the pump is being sold.
B.1.2.1.2 Determine the default nominal full load motor efficiency as follows:
• For pumps other than VTS pumps, the default nominal full load motor efficiency is the minimum of the nominal motor full load efficiency from the appropriate table for NEMA Design B motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for open or enclosed motors, with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being rated and the motor horsepower determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
• For VTS pumps, the default nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with the number of poles relevant to the speed at which the pump is being tested and the motor horsepower determined in section II.B.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
B.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at each rating point i (y
A.
(1) Bare pumps;
(2) Pumps sold with drivers other than electric motors; and
(3) Pumps sold with only single-phase induction motors.
B.
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power supply shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent of the rated values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent throughout the test.
C.
C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where the pump efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
D.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating point as follows:
D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
D.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor calculated at each rating point (y
D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following equation:
D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as follows:
• For pumps other than VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is the minimum of the standard motor full load efficiency from the appropriate table for NEMA design B motors at 10 CFR 431.25 for open or enclosed motors, with the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being rated and the appropriate motor horsepower as specified in section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix.
• For VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being tested and the appropriate motor horsepower as specified in section III.D.1.2.1 of this appendix.
D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating point i (y
A.
B.
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power supply shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent of the rated values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent throughout the test.
C.
C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where the overall efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the driver power input.
D.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 100, and 110 percent of the BEP flow rate.
A.
(1) Pumps sold with motors subject to DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors at § 431.25 (except for single-phase induction motors); and
(2) VTS pumps sold with submersible motors. Pumps sold with any other motors cannot use this section and must apply the test method in section IV of this appendix.
B.
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power supply shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent of the rated values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent throughout the test.
C.
C.1 Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
D.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the pump power input power plus the motor load losses at each rating point as follows:
D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load points of 75, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the BEP flow rate.
D.1.2 Determine the motor part load losses at each rating point i by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor calculated at each rating point (y
D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower as shown in the following equation:
D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as follows:
• For pumps other than VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is that of the motor with which the given pump model is being rated, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure for electric motors at § 431.16.
• For VTS pumps, the nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being tested and the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being rated.
D.1.2.2 The loss factor at each rating point i (y
A.
B.
(1) Capable of measuring current, voltage, and real power up to the 40th harmonic of fundamental supply source frequency; and
(2) Have an accuracy of ±0.2 percent at the full scale at the fundamental supply source frequency.
C.
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power supply shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent of the rated values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent throughout the test.
D.
D.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
D.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of maximum overall efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where overall efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the driver power input.
E.
E.1. Determine the driver power input at 100 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation of the pump and the measured flow rate, using the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the driver power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load point of 100 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump.
E.2 Determine the driver power input at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP flow rate by measuring the driver power input at the load points defined by:
(1) Those flow rates; and
(2) The associated head points calculated according to the following reference system curve equation:
E.2.1. For pumps sold with motors and continuous controls, the specific head and flow points must be achieved within 10 percent of the calculated values and the measured driver power input must be corrected to the exact intended head and flow conditions using the following equation:
E.2.2. For pumps sold with motors and non-continuous controls, the head associated with each of the specified flow points shall be no lower than 10 percent below that defined by the reference system curve equation in section VI.E.2 of this appendix. Only the measured flow points must be achieved within 10 percent of the calculated values. Correct for flow and head as described in section VI.E.2.1, except do not correct measured head values that are higher than the reference system curve at the same flow rate; only flow rate and head values lower than the reference system curve at the same flow rate should be corrected. Instead, use the measured head points directly to calculate PEI
A.
(1) Pumps sold with motors regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors at § 431.25 (except for single-phase induction motors) and continuous controls; and
(2) Pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls. This approach does not apply to:
(i) Pumps sold with motors that are not regulated by DOE's energy conservation standards for electric motors at 10 CFR 431.25, except for VTS pumps; or
(ii) Pumps that are sold with electric motors and non-continuous controls; these pumps must apply the test method in section VI of this appendix.
B.
(1) The voltage, frequency, and voltage unbalance of the power supply shall be maintained within ±0.5 percent of the rated values of the motor; and
(2) Total harmonic distortion shall be maintained below 5 percent throughout the test.
C.
C.1. Adjust the flow by throttling the pump without changing the speed of rotation of the pump to a minimum of seven data points: 40, 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate of the pump at the nominal speed of rotation, as specified in HI 40.6-2014, except section 40.6.5.3, section A.7, and appendix B (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463).
C.2. Determine the BEP flow rate as the flow rate at the point of maximum pump efficiency on the pump efficiency curve, as determined in accordance with section 40.6.6.3 of HI 40.6-2014 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.463), where pump efficiency is the ratio of the pump power output divided by the pump power input.
D.
D.1 Determine the driver power input at each rating point as the pump power input plus the motor load losses at each rating point as follows:
D.1.1 Determine the pump power input at 100 percent of the measured BEP flow rate of the tested pump by employing a least squares regression to determine a linear relationship between the measured pump input power at the nominal speed of rotation and the measured flow rate at the following load points: 60, 75, 90, 100, 110, and 120 percent of the expected BEP flow rate. Use the linear relationship to define the pump power input at the nominal speed of rotation for the load point of 100 percent of the BEP flow rate.
D.1.1.1 Determine the pump input power at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the BEP flow rate based on the measured pump input power at 100 percent of the BEP flow rate and using with the following equation:
D.1.2 Calculate the motor and control part load losses at each rating point i by multiplying the motor full load losses by the part load loss factor calculated at each rating point (z
D.1.2.1 Determine the full load motor losses using the appropriate motor efficiency value and horsepower:
D.1.2.1.1 Determine the nominal full load motor efficiency as follows:
• For all pumps, except VTS pumps, sold with motors and continuous controls, the nominal full load motor efficiency is that of the motor with which the given pump model is being rated, as determined in accordance with the DOE test procedure for electric motors at § 431.16.
• For VTS pumps sold with submersible motors and continuous controls, the nominal full load motor efficiency is the default nominal efficiency listed in Table 2 of this appendix with the number of poles relevant to the nominal speed of rotation at which the pump is being tested and the horsepower of the motor with which the pump is being rated.
D.1.2.2 The part load loss factor at each rating point i (z
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to waive the Open Access Transmission Tariff requirements, the Open Access Same-Time Information System requirements, and the Standards of Conduct requirements, under certain conditions, for the ownership, control, or operation of Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities (ICIF). This Final Rule finds that those seeking interconnection and transmission service over ICIF that are subject to the blanket waiver adopted herein may follow procedures applicable to requests for interconnection and transmission service under sections 210, 211, and 212 of the FPA, which also allows the contractual flexibility for entities to reach mutually agreeable access solutions. This Final Rule establishes a modified rebuttable presumption for a five-year safe harbor period to reduce risks to ICIF owners eligible for the blanket waiver during the critical early years of their projects. Finally, this Final Rule modifies, as described in detail below, several elements of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the entities eligible for the OATT waiver, the date on which the safe harbor begins, the rebuttable presumption that the ICIF owner should not be required to expand its facilities during the safe harbor, and the facilities covered by the Final Rule.
This rule will become effective June 30, 2015.
1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is amending its regulations to waive the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) requirements of 18 CFR 35.28, the Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) requirements of 18 CFR 37, and the Standards of Conduct requirements 18 CFR 358, under certain conditions, for the ownership, control, or operation of Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities (ICIF).
2. We find that requiring the filing of an OATT is not necessary to prevent unjust or unreasonable rates or unduly discriminatory behavior with respect to ICIF, over which interconnection and transmission services can be ordered pursuant to sections 210, 211, and 212 of the FPA.
3. Granting an OATT waiver to ICIF owners and providing that third-party access be governed by sections 210, 211, and 212 will enable ICIF owners and third parties, where possible, to reach mutually agreeable and voluntary arrangements that provide ICIF access to third parties, while protecting a third party's right to request that the Commission order interconnection and transmission service over ICIF. We find that providing this contractual flexibility may remove barriers to an ICIF owner's willingness to enter into such an agreement with a third party.
4. We recognize that ICIF owners often construct ICIF to accommodate multiple generation project phases and intend for their subsequent generation projects to use what is initially excess capacity on the ICIF. We believe that the safe harbor period established by this Final Rule will enable these ICIF owners to focus in the early stages of development on building generation.
5. We find that the reforms adopted herein re-balance the burden on ICIF owners and encourage efficient generation and interconnection facility development, while maintaining access to available capacity for third parties where appropriate.
6. Under section 201(b) of the FPA, the Commission has jurisdiction over all facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.
7. In Order No. 888, the Commission, relying upon its authority under sections 205 and 206 of the FPA, established non-discriminatory open access to electric transmission service as the foundation necessary to develop competitive bulk power markets in the United States.
8. At the same time, the Commission issued Order No. 889,
9. In Order No. 2003, the Commission found that interconnection service plays a crucial role in bringing generation into the market to meet the growing needs of electricity customers and competitive electricity markets.
10. Article 11.1 of the LGIA provides that the “Interconnection Customer shall design, procure, construct, install, own and/or control Interconnection Customer Interconnection Facilities . . . at its sole expense.” The LGIA defines ICIF as “all facilities and equipment, as identified in Appendix A of the Standard Large Generator Interconnection Agreement, that are located between the Generating Facility and the Point of Change of Ownership, including any modification, addition, or upgrades to such facilities and equipment necessary to physically and electrically interconnect the Generating Facility to the Transmission Provider's Transmission System. Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities are sole use facilities.”
11. In general, Interconnection Facilities are constructed to enable a generation facility or multiple generation facilities to transmit power to the integrated transmission grid. Interconnection Facilities are typically radial in nature, with a single point of interconnection with the network grid, and over which power flows in one direction toward the transmission grid.
12. In a series of cases since Order No. 2003 became effective, issues have been raised regarding the extent to which, if at all, third parties should be able to have access rights for transmission on the facilities located between the generating facility and the Point of Change of Ownership at which the Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities begin,
13. In
14. At issue in these cases was whether the entity that owns and/or controls ICIF to serve its or its affiliates' generation project or projects has any priority right over third-party requesters to use the capacity on its ICIF. Where an ICIF owner has specific, pre-existing generator expansion plans with milestones for construction of generation facilities and can demonstrate that it has made material progress toward meeting those milestones, the Commission granted priority rights for excess capacity on the ICIF for those future generation
15. The Commission has also considered, on a case-by-case basis, petitions for declaratory order requesting that an ICIF owner be granted priority over third parties to use capacity on its ICIF.
A transmission owner that filed specific expansion plans with definite dates and milestones for construction, and had made material progress toward meeting its milestones, had priority over later transmission requests.
16. Notwithstanding the ability of an ICIF owner to request priority rights, where an ICIF owner has received a third-party request for service, the Commission has required that the ICIF owner file an OATT.
17. In summary, the Commission's existing policy since 2009 is that, because ICIF are facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce, those who own, control, or operate ICIF must either have an OATT on file or receive a waiver of the OATT requirement.
18. The Commission issued a NOPR in this proceeding on May 15, 2014. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to grant a blanket waiver for ICIF of all OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements in circumstances where a public utility is subject to such requirements solely because it owns, controls, or operates ICIF and sells electric energy from its generating facility. The Commission also proposed a safe harbor period of five years during which there would be a rebuttable presumption that: (1) The eligible ICIF owner has definitive plans to use its capacity without having to make a demonstration through a specific plans and milestones showing; and (2) the eligible ICIF owner should not be required to expand its facilities.
19. The Commission received 24 comments and one reply comment on the NOPR.
20. Terra-Gen states that the NOPR proposals are essential to minimize the business and regulatory risks faced by generation owners and developers.
21. Linden states that ICIF owners generally plan to use the excess capacity on their ICIF for their own purposes and that the Commission's existing policy imposes a risk of losing that capacity if another party makes a request for service.
22. MISO supports revising the Commission's ICIF policy because it argues that the existing policy: (1) Creates disincentives to develop more efficient, high-voltage ICIF by expanding the costs and responsibilities of generation owners; (2) imposes transmission owner requirements on entities that are not in the business of providing transmission service to third parties; and (3) creates concerns over the interaction of ICIF with the transmission system, and the reliable interconnection of projects to the transmission system.
23. Commenters argue that ICIF are unique and the Commission's open access requirements and
24. On the other hand, APPA, TAPS, and NCPA state that they support the Commission's goal of promoting generation development, but assert that the NOPR proposals would erode the Commission's open access transmission policies.
25. APPA and TAPS
26. APPA and TAPS contend that the NOPR would invite ICIF owners to close off access to what could well be significant highways to areas ripe for renewable resource development.
27. APPA and TAPS also state that the Commission cannot assume that open access principles need not apply to ICIF
28. APPA and TAPS contend that departure from the Commission's non-discriminatory access requirements cannot be excused by the fact that usage of ICIF has been requested infrequently thus far, arguing that ICIF access may well become more common in the future given the increasing dependence on renewable resources.
29. APPA, TAPS, and NRECA suggest alternatives to the NOPR proposals. APPA and TAPS state that the Commission could grant a blanket waiver of OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements, but require ICIF owners to submit a standardized, more limited OATT within 60 days of a third-party service request. APPA and TAPS argue that the modified OATT should not remove core elements of open access, including the obligation to expand and the development of rates for point-to-point service, but could eliminate provisions for network transmission service and ancillary services.
30. APPA and TAPS state that the Commission could address the concern that the existing policy creates too low a bar for third-party requests to trigger the requirement for an ICIF owner to file an OATT by specifying clarified and heightened thresholds for a service request to trigger the requirement to file. They add that the Commission could approve fee structures that enable an ICIF owner to insist upon reasonable deposits before the obligation to file a notice of receipt of a service request and, subsequently, an OATT is triggered.
31. NRECA suggests that the Commission could implement a procedure under which a prospective customer seeking service on ICIF must submit a request that is fully supported by specified information, followed by the necessary studies and the parties cooperating to reach an agreement for service within a specified period of time, such as 90 days.
32. NRECA argues that its proposed procedures would address the Commission's concern that the existing policy “creates too low a bar for third-party requests for service” because those seeking service would be required to provide adequate information to support their requests. NRECA also argues that its proposal would alleviate the concern that an ICIF owner may be required to file an OATT due to a service request by a requester that subsequently fails to pursue any further development, because a mere service request would no longer trigger that requirement. In addition, NRECA contends that its proposal would promote flexibility by requiring the parties to work together to attempt to reach an agreement.
33. We believe this Final Rule will relieve regulatory burdens and unnecessary risks from generation developers to encourage the development of new generation and efficient interconnection facilities and promote competition while ensuring access to transmission on a not unduly discriminatory basis.
34. Our action is supported by comments on the NOPR, the technical conference,
35. We also agree that a number of sections of the
36. Moreover, interconnecting with ICIF often involves unique circumstances that would benefit from negotiations to tailor individual access agreements. However, the existing policy limits an ICIF owner's contractual flexibility and does not allow parties to use common facility agreements or have service governed outside of an OATT.
37. In addition, it is common for an ICIF owner to initially have excess capacity on its ICIF when it plans to bring generation into commercial service in stages. The Commission has
38. Contrary to APPA and TAPS' argument that the proposed revisions will likely cost more to implement than the Commission's existing OATT requirements,
39. We find that APPA and TAPS' concerns that the NOPR would allow an ICIF owner to close off access to significant highways to areas ripe for renewable resource development overlook practical considerations of infrastructure development. The approach taken in this Final Rule recognizes that, often, an ICIF owner anticipates that it will use its excess ICIF capacity, and seeks to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. The Commission precedent with respect to priority use has given ICIF owners the opportunity to demonstrate that they had pre-existing contractual obligations or other specific plans that would prevent them from providing the requested transmission service at a future date.
40. Moreover, we agree with NRECA that it is important to promote flexibility by encouraging the ICIF owner and the third party to work together to attempt to reach an agreement. As discussed further below, this Final Rule adopts a framework that includes opportunities for the ICIF owner and third party to reach mutually agreeable solutions, either as part of a proceeding under sections 210 and 211, or in such a way that obviates the need to bring a proceeding under sections 210 and 211 to the Commission.
41. In the NOPR, the Commission defined the facilities that were subject to the rule as ICIF because that term already had a specific definition in the
42. First Wind and Invenergy recommend that the Commission not define the interconnection facilities subject to the waiver with reference to the LGIA and LGIP, but simply as those facilities located between the generating facility and the point of interconnection to the transmission provider's transmission system. This is because some interconnection agreements predate Order No. 2003 which first defined ICIF; some may be implemented under the small generator interconnection procedures under Order No. 2006; and some agreements were entered into with non-Commission jurisdictional transmission providers. They argue that the definition of ICIF and generating facility should be revised to encompass facilities that may not be installed under the Commission's LGIA/LGIP arrangements.
43. We expand our definition of what interconnection facilities are subject to the Final Rule to include ICIF as well as comparable jurisdictional interconnection facilities that are the subject of interconnection agreements other than an LGIA. For those interconnection customers that have entered into an LGIA, these facilities will be those defined as ICIF in the LGIA and LGIP. For those interconnection customers that have entered into interconnection agreements other than an LGIA, these facilities will be the comparable set of interconnection facilities as those described as ICIF in the LGIA. Therefore, the term ICIF
44. The Commission proposed to add sub-paragraph (d)(2) to 18 CFR 35.28 to grant a blanket waiver of all OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements to any public utility that is subject to such requirements solely because it owns, controls, or operates ICIF, in whole or in part, and sells electric energy from its generating facility, as those terms are defined in the LGIP and LGIA.
45. The majority of commenters support the Commission's proposal to grant a blanket waiver of all OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements to public utility ICIF owners. Commenters agree with the Commission's preliminary findings in the NOPR that a blanket waiver is justified because such facilities do not typically present the concerns about discriminatory conduct that the Commission's OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements were intended to address.
46. Commenters state that the OATT is not a good fit for the services that can be provided over ICIF, and argue that such limited service is not comparable to the integrated network, point-to-point, and ancillary services provided under the
47. Commenters state that the Commission's existing policy of requiring an ICIF owner to file an OATT or seek a waiver that would be revoked only upon a third-party request for service creates too low a bar for third-party requests for service and could lead to competitive mischief.
48. Some commenters argue that adjudicating such OATT waiver requests and OATT tariff filings on a case-by-case basis has led to confusion and uncertainty in the industry with respect to compliance with the Commission's open access requirements as applied to ICIF.
49. Southern agrees that the blanket waiver approach appears to be appropriate given that very few generator tie lines have the characteristics (
50. In contrast, APPA and TAPS state that creating and maintaining two different standards for access to transmission facilities is problematic in a dynamic grid, adding that ICIF that look like radial lines at the fringe of the system today may be a more central part of the network in a decade or two.
51. APPA and TAPS argue that the Commission has long required market-based rate sellers that own transmission to demonstrate mitigation of vertical market power by showing that they and their affiliates either have filed an OATT or received a waiver for every transmission facility that they own, operate, or control, and to offer third parties service comparable to the service the market-based rate sellers and their affiliates provide themselves. APPA and TAPS contend that the proposed blanket waiver does not clarify the manner by which ICIF owners can address concerns about vertical market power when they seek market-based rate authority, but rather that it magnifies those concerns by discarding an essential foundation for allowing the ICIF owner and its affiliates to enjoy market-based rates.
52. APPA and TAPS state that they would not oppose an initial grant of a blanket waiver of the requirement that each ICIF owner must file an individual request for waiver of OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct, provided that such waivers would be revoked upon receipt of a third-party request for service on the ICIF.
53. APPA and TAPS argue that the NOPR places no limit on the proposed blanket waiver, extending it to periods when there is no reasonable expectation that the ICIF owner is still in the project development mode.
54. NRECA states that it does not object to exempting certain ICIF owners from the mandate to file an OATT and related requirements for limited and discrete facilities, but that any such waiver should be revoked if the entity no longer meets those criteria.
55. We adopt the proposed blanket waiver with modifications as discussed below.
56. Further, the ICIF waiver would remove regulatory burdens on competitive generation developers without sacrificing the Commission's ability to require open access in appropriate circumstances. Specifically, we find that a blanket waiver will remedy the undue burden on ICIF owners under our existing policy to file an OATT or seek a waiver that would be revoked upon a third-party request for service from ICIF owners. We find that the time, effort, and cost of complying with the requirements of a public utility transmission provider in these circumstances unduly burden generation development efforts. In addition, we agree with commenters that the existing policy creates too low a bar for third-party requests for service. Specifically, an existing waiver of the OATT is revoked as soon as the ICIF owner receives a third-party request for service, even if that request meets few of the information and other requirements for transmission service under the
57. Finally, we agree with DTE and NextEra that providing a blanket waiver of the OATT for ICIF owners will clarify how they meet the OATT filing or OATT waiver requirements involved when seeking market-based rate authority.
58. As discussed further below, the blanket waiver adopted herein only applies in situations where sections 210, 211, and 212 would provide interconnection and transmission access to a customer that seeks service over the ICIF. This ensures that we are only waiving the OATT requirements in circumstances where there is an alternative for third parties to seek not unduly discriminatory access.
59. The Commission proposed to grant the blanket waiver to any public utility that is subject to the Commission's OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements solely because it owns, controls, or operates ICIF, in whole or in part, and sells electric energy from its generating facility. The Commission's proposal to limit the waiver to ICIF owners who sell electric energy was intended to ensure that any public utility with an OATT blanket waiver would be subject to an interconnection order under section 210. This requirement was seen as necessary so as not to create a gap and leave a potential customer without a means of obtaining an interconnection with ICIF once the OATT interconnection procedures were waived.
60. Section 210 of the FPA provides, in relevant part, “Upon application of any electric utility . . . the Commission may issue an order requiring (A) the physical connection of . . . the transmission facilities of any electric utility, with the facilities of such applicant.”
61. Some commenters argue that it is common for separate ICIF-only companies to be created and owned by a generation company or an affiliate, so that an entity separate from the generation company is used to own, operate, and manage the ICIF.
62. Recurrent, SEIA, and Sempra argue that ICIF-only companies often are employed when the generation project is developed in phases, and separate companies own the discrete portions of the generating facility that is the subject of a LGIA.
63. E.ON argues that an ICIF-only entity should be afforded the same opportunity to obtain a blanket waiver as entities that sell electricity because this type of entity only exists to accommodate a generator company's phased access to the grid.
64. First Wind and Invenergy argue that, if the Commission does not extend the blanket waiver to ICIF-only entities, the rule would be discriminatory because there is no basis to distinguish the two types of ICIF entities other than corporate structure, and ICIF-only entities would face the undue burdens identified in the NOPR.
65. ITC also is concerned that the Commission's proposal to limit eligibility for the waiver may have unintended consequences. For example, given the practical burdens associated with the operation and maintenance of ICIF, ICIF owners may wish to divest such facilities to transmission owners with more experience operating these types of facilities, and more resources for meeting the reliability requirements of such operation. ITC argues that failure to extend the blanket waiver in such scenarios may discourage such transactions, thereby imposing reliability and operational burdens on generator owners who may not be willing or able to carry them out.
66. Recurrent and Sempra further argue that the Commission has addressed these types of ownership arrangements in the context of “exempt wholesale generator” (EWG) status pursuant to section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA).
67. Several commenters suggest potential ways to fix the section 210 applicability issue with respect to ICIF-only entities, such that the blanket waiver and safe harbor would apply to ICIF-only companies, and section 210 would preserve the “backstop” ability of third parties to obtain a Commission order requiring the ICIF-only company to interconnect with and provide transmission services to the third party. Recurrent proposes that the Commission grant the blanket waiver to an ICIF owner that does not sell electric energy if the interconnection company files a request for waiver that includes a commitment that if the Commission issues an order requiring the interconnection company to provide transmission services to a third party pursuant to section 211 of the FPA—to which the interconnection company is subject—the interconnection company agrees to voluntarily provide interconnection to the third party.
68. Sempra states that, although ICIF-only entities may not sell the power produced by their affiliates, they are an indispensable part of the sales transaction, and are typically party to the interconnection agreement along with or as agent for the affiliated generator.
69. First Wind and Invenergy argue that the Commission's concern about entities not being able to use section 210 to request interconnection service can be addressed by the Commission creating an equivalent obligation by regulation for requesting interconnection from an ICIF entity, and then review requests under section 210 standards.
70. NextEra requests that the Commission clarify that ICIF owners that have authorization from the Commission to sell electric energy at market-based rates or that are EWGs are engaged in the sale of electric energy for purposes of determining application of the proposed waiver and application of section 210. NextEra argues that this would ensure consistency between the Commission's use of similar terms and with Commission precedent with respect to EWGs.
71. ITC argues that section 210(d) provides that the Commission may, on its own motion, issue an order requiring any action described in subsection (a)(1) if the Commission determines that such order meets the requirements of subsection (c). ITC interprets this to mean that the Commission may issue an interconnection order on its own motion, regardless of whether the ICIF owner qualifies as an electric utility by selling energy.
72. BP Wind argues that, if the Commission does not allow ICIF-only entities to forego filing an OATT, it should at a minimum not require such companies to file an OATT with the Commission until after completion of interconnection studies by the interconnecting utility and the requesting party has committed to move forward with its project.
73. The proposal to limit the waiver to ICIF owners that also sell electricity was intended to prevent the creation of a regulatory gap and ensure that potential customers are not deprived of the ability to seek interconnection with ICIF as a result of the waiver of ICIF owners' OATT obligation. We believe that the initial assessment in the NOPR that relatively few entities that own and/or operate ICIF would be excluded from the blanket waiver by the requirement that they sell electricity may be incorrect. We also believe that the value of reducing regulatory burdens, which is a goal of this Final Rule, applies equally to ICIF owners who sell electricity and to those that do not. Therefore, we conclude that we should extend the blanket waiver to ICIF owners who do not sell electricity, but, in doing so, we must ensure that no potential customers are deprived of their ability to seek interconnection with ICIF by the waiver of the ICIF owner's OATT obligation. To expand the entities eligible for the blanket OATT waiver, we adopt the following procedure to allow ICIF-only entities to be eligible for the blanket OATT waiver. Any public utility to which the blanket waiver stated in section 35.28(d)(2) of the regulations adopted herein applies, but which does not sell electric energy, will receive the blanket waiver upon filing an informational statement with the Commission, as provided for in those regulations adopted herein.
74. The purpose of this section 210 statement is to create a publically available record of ICIF-only entities that are taking advantage of the blanket OATT waiver, and of the fact that, even though these entities are not electric utilities, they are subject to an application to the Commission under section 210 for an interconnection order. Through this process, our intent is to extend the benefits of the blanket OATT waiver to ICIF-only entities, protect the rights of potential interconnection customers, and minimize the regulatory burden to accomplish these goals. If an entity submits such a statement and later objects to or fails to comply with section 210 obligations and procedures, its blanket waiver will be deemed to have been revoked.
75. Accordingly, we are revising section 35.28(d)(2) of the regulations to incorporate this extension of the blanket waiver to entities that are not electric utilities, upon the filing of the section 210 statement described above. The safe harbor protections at section 35.28(d)(2)(ii)(B) will also be available to those entities eligible for the blanket waiver, as discussed below.
76. In the NOPR, the Commission stated, “To the extent that either the third-party requester or ICIF owner does not meet applicable requirements for purposes of sections 210 and 211, but where the third-party requester would be eligible for OATT service, the ICIF waiver would not apply.”
77. AWEA, First Wind, and Invenergy argue that a public utility's eligibility for the blanket waivers should not depend on the status of any such potential third party that might seek access to ICIF. They argue that the waiver would not provide the expected benefits of reducing risks if it would not apply in the circumstance of an ineligible third-party requester. They argue that the Commission does not explain how an ICIF owner would be expected to deal with requests from such a third-party requester. These parties argue that, if the Commission is concerned about this, it should by regulation require such entities to follow procedures under sections 210 and 211.
78. We agree with commenters that making the applicability of the blanket waiver to the ICIF owner dependent on the status of a potential third-party requester would create unnecessary uncertainty for ICIF owners. Accordingly, we clarify that applicability of the blanket waiver will not depend on the status of the third-party requester. The applicability of the blanket waiver does, however, depend on the status of the ICIF owner or the ICIF owner's willingness to file a section 210 statement, as described above.
79. The Commission proposed to grant a blanket waiver of all OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct requirements to any public utility that is subject to such requirements solely because it owns, controls, or operates ICIF, in whole or in part, and sells electric energy from its generating facility.
80. APPA and TAPS state that, in the event the Commission modifies its regulations to create blanket waivers for public utility ICIF owners, the same blanket waiver and safe harbor should also apply to non-jurisdictional utilities for purposes of satisfying reciprocity obligations.
81. NCPA and SWP contend that the Final Rule should make clear that any blanket waiver adopted in this proceeding applies to eligible public utilities and non-public utilities alike, arguing that treating similarly situated utilities differently in this respect would be unduly discriminatory.
82. The blanket waiver made available to public utilities under this Final Rule is also available, as commenters suggest, to non-public utilities with a reciprocity obligation.
83. ELCON comments that many industrials own and operate combined heat and power systems or other types of generation that are primarily dedicated to their own consumption needs, and that ambiguity with the scope of the NOPR may arise because of commonly used nomenclature, because dedicated lines operated by industrials are often referred to as one type of “generator tie line.” ELCON argues that the NOPR should be revised to clarify that the regulations respecting third-party rights to interconnection facilities, even as newly constrained, do not apply to the generator tie lines operated by industrials and dedicated to their own internal consumption.
84. We decline to revise the proposed regulation as ELCON suggests. ELCON's argument that the NOPR's discussion of third-party rights to request interconnection and transmission on ICIF should not apply to electric lines from industrial-owned combined heat
85. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that the blanket waiver would apply to section 35.28 of the Commission's regulation, which relates to OATT requirements, Part 37, which relates to OASIS requirements, and Part 358, which relates to Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers.
86. Linden argues that the blanket waiver should be expanded to also apply to all of Parts 34, 35, 41, 50, 101, and 141 (except sections 141.14 and 141.15) of the Commission's regulations with respect to any provision of transmission service or interconnection service or other sharing with respect to ICIF.
87. While we recognize that waiver of the provisions mentioned by Linden have, under certain circumstances, been granted by the Commission, we decline to expand the scope of this Final Rule. The blanket waivers granted in this Final Rule are the same as those that could be requested on a case-by-case basis for good cause shown in the Commission's pre-existing regulations at 18 CFR 35.28(d). Whether to grant additional waivers on a generic basis was not something proposed to be addressed in this proceeding.
88. Linden contends that the Commission should clarify that the blanket waiver will apply regardless of whether a public utility has already granted access to its ICIF pursuant to a Commission-accepted agreement. Linden argues that the fact that an owner and/or operator of ICIF has allowed a third-party to use its ICIF pursuant to a Commission-accepted agreement does not change the nature of such ICIF, and the blanket waiver should accordingly continue to apply.
89. We affirm granting access over ICIF via an existing agreement, such as a common facilities agreement or shared use agreement, does not affect an ICIF owner's eligibility for the blanket waiver granted by this Final Rule. Further, we affirm that, if an entity has previously received a specific waiver of the OATT and related obligations pursuant to the Commission's “limited and discrete” or “small entity” standards, the blanket waiver will supersede the existing waiver.
90. The Commission proposed that the grant of a blanket waiver would have no automatic impact on an OATT already on file or on service already being taken under it, but the Commission might on a case-by-case basis consider requests to withdraw an OATT on file for ICIF if no third party is taking service under it.
91. AWEA, Terra-Gen, and NextEra assert that an ICIF owner with an OATT on file should be able to withdraw its OATT if there are no third parties taking, or currently pursuing a request for, interconnection or transmission service.
92. AWEA further contends that the blanket waivers should also automatically apply to those that already have OATTs on file. AWEA states that ICIF owners that currently have an OATT on file are in need of the proposed reforms just as much as future ICIF owners, and argues that providing blanket waivers to this group as well would provide consistency and certainty to these entities.
93. In the instance where an ICIF owner has an OATT on file and no third parties are taking service, the Commission will consider a request to withdraw an OATT on a case-by-case basis. Thus, we decline to automatically apply blanket waivers to those that already have OATTs on file. We believe this is appropriate in order to give any potential customer actively pursuing service sufficient notice before allowing a filed OATT to be withdrawn. As such, we decline to establish a separate process for cancelling existing OATTs because the Commission will consider the specific circumstances of each
94. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that the blanket waiver would not be automatically revoked by a service request, but could be revoked in a Commission order if the Commission determines that it is in the public interest to do so pursuant to a proceeding under sections 210 and 211. The Commission also proposed that the waiver would be deemed to be revoked as of the date the public utility ceases to satisfy the qualifications for such waiver (
95. The Commission also proposed that, if an OATT waiver were revoked because of such a change in circumstances, the waivers of OASIS and Standards of Conduct would also be revoked, without prejudice to the ICIF owner filing a request to continue its waivers of OASIS and Standards of Conduct pursuant to the waiver criteria then in effect.
96. NextEra, BHE, and AWEA agree that revocation of the blanket waiver should be considered on a case-by-case basis and believe that the processes set forth in sections 210 and 211 of the FPA and section 2.20 of the Commission's regulations are sufficient to evaluate potential revocation of waivers granted to ICIF owners.
97. AWEA states that acquisition of transmission facilities should not automatically trigger revocation of the blanket waiver. AWEA argues that service over such transmission facilities will be subject to applicable open access regulations but that ICIFs are distinct facilities that exist for the limited purpose of connecting generation to the grid.
98. With respect to the revocation process, AWEA recommends that the Commission provide an ICIF owner with reasonable advanced notice detailing the reasons for potential revocation, and give the ICIF owner an opportunity to dispute and to cure the reasons for such a potential revocation.
99. AWEA recommends that the Commission outline the process to reinstitute an ICIF owner's waiver if, after revocation of a waiver, it is discovered that the waiver revocation was unnecessary, such as, for example, if the requirement to file an OATT proves to be unnecessary because of the failure of the requesting third party to take transmission service.
100. AWEA supports the Commission proposals that (1) if the OATT waiver is revoked, the Commission may determine whether the OASIS and Standards of Conduct waivers should continue to be based on the criteria in effect;
101. We adopt the NOPR proposal that the blanket waiver would not be automatically revoked by a service request, but could be revoked in a Commission order if the Commission determines that it is in the public interest to do so pursuant to a proceeding under sections 210 and 211 of the FPA. We also adopt the NOPR proposal that the waiver would be deemed to be revoked as of the date the public utility ceases to satisfy the qualifications for such waiver. Additionally, if the ICIF that are covered by a blanket waiver become integrated into a transmission system such that they can no longer be considered ICIF, the blanket waiver would be deemed to have been revoked. To the extent that a dispute arises regarding whether a facility is eligible for the waiver, the Commission will address such a dispute at that time.
102. If the OATT waiver is automatically revoked because of a change in circumstances, we affirm that the waivers of OASIS and Standards of Conduct would also be revoked, without prejudice to the ICIF owner filing a request to continue its waivers of OASIS and Standards of Conduct pursuant to the waiver criteria then in effect.
103. We decline to elaborate on the specific circumstances that would lead to the revocation of the blanket waiver other than ceasing to satisfy the qualifications for such waiver, because it is not possible to anticipate every circumstance that would result in a revocation. Revocation of the blanket waiver in circumstances other than ceasing to satisfy the qualifications for such waiver will be determined by the Commission under applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. Any instance of revocation, however, would be the result of a Commission proceeding, so the ICIF owner would have notice of the revocation and full due process rights to respond. Moreover, under sections 210 and 211 the Commission may direct service to be provided under an interconnection and transmission service agreement without directing that the ICIF owner file an OATT. However, the Commission reserves the right to revoke the blanket waiver and require the filing of an OATT to ensure open access in appropriate circumstances.
104. Sections 210 and 211 of the FPA describe the process for seeking Commission-ordered interconnection and transmission services. Section 210 of the FPA provides, in relevant part, “Upon application of any electric utility . . . the Commission may issue an order requiring (A) the physical connection of . . . the transmission facilities of any electric utility, with the facilities of such applicant.”
105. An application under section 210 must show that the interconnection: (1) Is in the public interest; (2) would either encourage conservation of energy or capital, optimize efficient use of facilities and resources, or improve reliability; and (3) meets the requirements of section 212.
106. An application under section 211 requires that the third party seeking transmission service first make a good faith request for service, complying with 18 CFR 2.20, specifying details as to how much capacity is requested and for what period, at least 60 days before making an application to the Commission for an order requiring transmission service.
107. Section 212 further requires that, before issuing a final order under either section 210 or 211, the Commission must issue a proposed order setting a reasonable time for the parties to agree to terms and conditions for carrying out the order, including allocation of costs. If parties can agree to terms within that time, the Commission may issue a final order approving those terms. If parties do not agree, the Commission will weigh the positions of the parties and issue a final order establishing the terms of costs, compensation, and other terms of interconnection and transmission and directing service.
108. The Commission proposed in the NOPR that, if a third party seeks to use ICIF that qualify for the blanket waiver discussed above, an eligible entity seeking interconnection and transmission service on ICIF would need to follow the rules and regulations applicable to requests for service under sections 210 and 211 (subject to the safe harbor presumption proposed in the NOPR).
109. As discussed above, the Commission's current practice with respect to allowing an ICIF owner to have priority use of excess transmission capacity it has built is to allow the ICIF owner to demonstrate specific plans and milestones for any planned future generation development by the ICIF owner or its affiliates. Consistent with that practice, the Commission proposed in the NOPR to find that, outside of the safe harbor period and to the extent the ICIF owner can demonstrate specific plans and milestones for its and/or its affiliates' future use of the ICIF, with respect to ICIF that are eligible for the blanket waiver discussed above, it is generally in the public interest under sections 210 and 211 to allow an ICIF owner to retain priority rights to the use of excess capacity on ICIF that it plans to use to interconnect its own or its affiliates' future generation projects.
110. Any disputes as to the extent of excess capacity on ICIF or the ICIF owner's future plans to use such excess capacity would be resolved, subject to the safe harbor presumption discussed below, during the proceedings under sections 210 and 211, using an excess capacity analysis similar to that used in
111. Most commenters support the NOPR proposal that third parties seeking to use ICIF subject to the blanket waiver should do so pursuant to sections 210 and 211. AWEA, BHE, EEI, NextEra, Recurrent, and Southern argue that this approach will protect the ICIF owner from speculative requests for transmission service.
112. APPA and TAPS argue that the NOPR, as proposed, would erect an impassable barrier to accessing ICIF. APPA, TAPS, and NRECA argue that a proceeding under sections 210 and 211 is time-consuming, burdensome, and expensive.
113. We find that with respect to ICIF eligible for the blanket waiver discussed above, it is appropriate for entities seeking interconnection and transmission service on ICIF to follow the rules and regulations applicable to requests for service under sections 210 and 211 (subject to the safe harbor discussed below).
114. APPA and TAPS are correct that the Commission in Order No. 888 found section 211 to provide insufficient relief as a general method of enabling more competitive generation to obtain open access transmission service. As a result, Order No. 888 required that public utilities file an OATT to provide readily available, comparable service at known rates, terms, and conditions. In this Final Rule, the Commission finds that the filing of an OATT and compliance with certain regulations are not necessary to prevent unjust and unreasonable rates or unduly discriminatory behavior with respect to ICIF. ICIF are sole-use, limited and discrete, radial in nature, and not part of an integrated transmission network, and third-party requests to use ICIF are infrequent. Case-by-case determinations under sections 210 and 211 are not appropriate for the large number of transmission service requests on the integrated grid, but are appropriate for the few expected requests for service on ICIF, each of which would likely have different circumstances. We find that, for this set of circumstances, the framework of sections 210 and 211 provide a sufficient means for third-party access to ICIF.
115. First Wind and Invenergy ask the Commission to confirm that ICIF owners may continue to enter into shared use agreements with affiliates without requiring the affiliated party to utilize sections 210, 211 and 212 to obtain access.
116. E.ON asks the Commission to clarify that the blanket waiver should not be jeopardized if a planned phase of a generation project is owned by a non-affiliate.
117. We clarify that the availability of the process under sections 210 and 211 does not preclude the opportunity for an ICIF owner and an entity seeking service, including an affiliate, to mutually agree, outside of the process under sections 210 and 211, to an arrangement for service over the ICIF. In fact, this flexibility benefits both the ICIF owner and an entity seeking service, as it allows the parties the opportunity to craft an agreement appropriate for the circumstances and potentially expedite access to ICIF. In that case, availability of the process under sections 210 and 211 provides protection to entities seeking service by allowing them to seek service under the process under sections 210 and 211 if an agreement cannot be reached. Furthermore, we likewise clarify that this flexibility applies both to affiliates and non-affiliates of the ICIF owner, such that ICIF owners may enter into shared use agreements with affiliates or non-affiliates, without requiring a proceeding under sections 210 and 211 to obtain access. Finally, we clarify that a shared-use agreement or bilateral agreement with either an affiliate or non-affiliate will not in itself jeopardize the applicability of the blanket waiver or the continuation of the safe harbor period, discussed below. We find that this will allow flexibility and promote mutually agreeable arrangements for sharing facilities. In any case, ICIF owners that are public utilities would still be subject to the statutory requirement of sections 205 and 206 forbidding unduly discriminatory practices.
118. We agree that our use of the term “shall” in new section 35.28(d)(2)(ii) may have inadvertently given the impression that voluntary agreements without resort to sections 210 and 211 were not allowed. We did not intend that, and therefore change the word “shall” to “may” in section 35.28(d)(2)(ii). Indeed, the flexibility to enter into voluntary agreements is inherent in the process under sections 210 and 211. As Linden points out, section 212 recognizes that parties should have a reasonable time to agree to terms and conditions,
119. AWEA states that a third party requesting service on an ICIF should be required to submit an appropriate interconnection or transmission service request to the transmission provider with whom the ICIF are interconnected within 30 days of the good faith request to the owner of the ICIF and/or within a reasonable time before an application under sections 210 and 211 is made. NextEra argues for a similar requirement, stating that the third party should make a request to the transmission provider within 60 days following the completion of a feasibility study by the ICIF owner in order for a subsequent petition under sections 210 or 211 of the FPA to be considered in good faith.
120. MISO and the MISO TOs suggest that the Commission should require the new interconnection customer who requests to interconnect to the existing ICIF to enter into an agreement with the existing interconnection customer before allowing the new interconnection customer to enter the binding portion of the governing interconnection procedures.
121. While ITC does not oppose the reforms proposed in the NOPR, ITC is concerned that the Commission's proposal to rely exclusively on sections 210 and 211 of the FPA to govern third-party interconnections on ICIF fails to provide sufficient clarity on the precise contractual relationship that will exist between the ICIF owner, a third party proposing to interconnect with ICIF, the transmission provider, and the impacted transmission owner (provided these are separate entities). ITC recommends that the Commission provide additional guidance in the Final Rule on the process for establishing contractual relationships between these four types of parties, the nature of these contractual relationships, and how
122. Similarly, EPSA recommends that the Commission should encourage parties to utilize appropriate existing LGIA and LGIP provisions regarding terms, conditions and procedures in the Final Rule because the provisions of the LGIA and LGIP (
123. EEI requests that the Commission not be prescriptive with respect to a mechanism for interconnection or transmission under this rule, and states that under the framework under sections 210 and 211, the ICIF owner, the eligible entity seeking interconnection to the ICIF and the transmission provider will have flexibility on how to develop the terms and conditions of the interconnection to the ICIF and any associated transmission delivery service over the ICIF.
124. Southern asserts that the ICIF owner, the party seeking interconnection to the ICIF, and the transmission provider should have the flexibility to develop appropriate arrangements for both interconnection and transmission service that meet all parties' needs so long as the new interconnection customer is able to interconnect its generating facility and acquire transmission service on terms and conditions that are similar to other customers. Therefore, Southern contends, the Commission should not be prescriptive with respect to the mechanism to be used for interconnection or transmission service under this rule as long as all affected parties agree to jointly study and provide interconnection and transmission service for the new generator requesting interconnection, with the new generator's commitment to bear the expense of such work. Moreover, Southern notes that the Commission would retain oversight over the third-party requests for service over the ICIF because it would have an opportunity to review such arrangements under FPA sections 210, 211 and 212 and amendments to existing interconnection agreements under section 205.
125. Commenters appear to be conflating the scope of this Final Rule—access to ICIF—with requirements for access to the network/integrated grid. As such, we decline to prescribe additional requirements for access to the network/integrated transmission system by entities seeking to interconnect with ICIF or a process for how requests to interconnect with ICIF must fit into the transmission provider's study processes. We reaffirm the existing policy that third-party requesters are obligated to obtain service on the transmission facilities at or beyond the Point of Change of Ownership as well as those facilities beyond the Point of Interconnection with ICIF pursuant to the relevant existing OATT and interconnection procedures.
126. In response to AWEA's assertion that failing to require a third party seeking service on ICIF to submit an interconnection or transmission service request to the transmission provider with whom the ICIF are interconnected could lead to gaming opportunities by unaffiliated generators, we find that the process under sections 210 and 211 will limit speculative requests for transmission service from the ICIF owner and deter attempts to game the interconnection process. We are not persuaded that additional protection is needed at this time. The framework under sections 210 and 211 assures that ICIF owners have specified procedural rights as set forth in sections 210 and 211 of the FPA.
127. We conclude that the existing policy, that third-party requesters are obligated to obtain service on the transmission facilities at or beyond the Point of Change of Ownership as well as those facilities beyond the Point of Interconnection pursuant to the relevant OATT and interconnection procedures, strikes the right balance between ensuring reliability, providing flexibility, and protecting the rights of the ICIF owner. Accordingly, we decline to further prescribe how a third-party seeking service over ICIF pursuant to sections 210 and 211 also gains access to the networked transmission provider's transmission system.
128. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to add subsection 35.28(d)(2) to the Commission's regulations for the purpose of setting forth the terms of the blanket OATT waiver, and did not propose to revise other regulations.
129. E.ON argues that section 2.20 of the Commission's regulations, which
130. We see no reason to revise section 2.20 of our regulations. We do not expect the ICIF owner to study the networked transmission system, but only to study the capacity available on its ICIF. Further, we believe that section 2.20 is clear that the requesting party pays for any studies associated with a request for service over ICIF.
131. ITC requests that the Commission clarify how the proposed interconnection process interacts with the requirements of NERC Reliability Standard FAC-001-1 (Facility Connection Requirements).
132. We clarify that nothing in this Final Rule changes the requirement to comply with all Commission-approved mandatory Reliability Standards, including FAC-001-1.
133. To reduce risks to ICIF owners eligible for the blanket waiver discussed above during the critical early years of their projects, the Commission proposed a safe harbor period of five years during which there would be a rebuttable presumption that: (1) The eligible ICIF owner has definitive plans to use its capacity without having to make a demonstration through a specific plans and milestones showing; and (2) the eligible ICIF owner should not be required to expand its facilities. A third-party requester for service on ICIF during the safe harbor period could attempt to rebut these presumptions, but it would have the burden of proof to show that the owner and/or operator does not have definitive plans to use its capacity and the public interest under sections 210 and 211 is better served by granting access to the third party than by allowing the eligible ICIF owner to reserve its ICIF capacity for its own future use.
134. Many commenters
135. APPA and TAPS argue that the NOPR's proposed safe harbor cuts back on the relief otherwise available under sections 210, 211, and 212, and all but ensures absolute foreclosure of competitors from access to ICIF.
136. NRECA argues that the Commission should not implement its proposed safe harbor creating a rebuttable presumption against transmission access for five years in cases where the customer requesting service on the ICIF needs it to serve load efficiently.
137. On the other hand, AWEA and E.ON support the safe harbor concept but urge the Commission to consider removing the rebuttable presumption standard. E.ON expresses concern that the safe harbor the Commission proposes would not relieve the interconnection customer of the regulatory compliance burden, because a third party could still initiate the process under sections 210 and 211 during the safe harbor period and thus force the ICIF owner to demonstrate specific plans and milestones in order to sustain the rebuttable presumption.
138. We will adopt the safe harbor period, but we will modify it to remove the rebuttable presumption that the ICIF owner should not be required to expand its facilities. During the safe harbor period, there will be a rebuttable presumption that the eligible ICIF owner has definitive plans to use its capacity without having to make a demonstration through a specific plans and milestones showing. We believe this Final Rule will relieve regulatory burdens and unnecessary risks from generation developers to encourage the development of new generation and efficient interconnection facilities and promote competition while ensuring access to transmission on a not unduly discriminatory basis. Under this Final Rule, the ICIF owner gains a degree of protection through the reduced likelihood that a third-party requester could rebut the presumption that an ICIF owner has plans to use all of its capacity. However, by making the presumption rebuttable rather than absolute, a third-party requester with strong evidence has the opportunity to gain access to the ICIF, even during the safe harbor.
139. The proposal in the NOPR that the safe harbor period would also contain a rebuttable presumption that the ICIF owner should not have to expand its facilities was intended to provide generation developers an initial opportunity to establish their generation projects while limiting the burden and distraction of studying requests to expand its ICIF and potentially expanding those facilities to accommodate third party use. However, upon consideration of the comments, we believe such a rebuttable presumption could prevent third-party access without providing a substantial ease of burden for the ICIF owner.
140. With regard to NRECA's argument that load-serving entities' use of ICIF has minimal or positive impact on available ICIF capacity, we find that such arguments are based on an unlikely scenario that assumes away the intended function of the interconnection facilities at issue in this Final Rule. By definition, the facilities at issue are not part of the integrated transmission system, so it is a slim possibility that a load-serving entity would be in a position to make use of ICIF to serve load by counterflowing power relative to the generation associated with the ICIF. However, a load-serving entity may make arguments to support such a scenario in a proceeding under sections 210 and 211.
141. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that the safe harbor period begin on the ICIF energization date. Because the energization date is not always publicly available, the Commission proposed that any eligible ICIF owner seeking to take advantage of the safe harbor must file an informational filing with the Commission (requiring no Commission action) documenting: (1) The ICIF energization date; (2) details sufficient to identify the ICIF at issue, such as location and Point of Interconnection;
142. E.ON, AWEA, First Wind, and NRG argue that ICIF energization is not the proper starting date for the safe harbor period and that the safe harbor period should instead begin when the first generating facility using the ICIF achieves commercial operation, the commercial operation date.
143. AWEA and First Wind explain that for many wind projects the ICIF may be energized well before commercial operation of the wind project begins in order to provide backfeed power to the construction site.
144. NRG and Linden argue that the Commission should decline to adopt the requirement that owners of existing and new ICIFs submit an informational filing to get the benefit of the safe harbor provision. NRG argues that the Commission is already generally aware of the commercial operation date for interconnection facilities through market-based rate, exempt wholesale generator, and interconnection agreement filings. NRG further argues that the commercial operation date is an established and verifiable date, and interconnection facility owners are often required to provide notice of the commercial operation date to various parties under different project agreements. Additionally, third-parties that seek to interconnect can contact the ICIF owner directly and ask for the same information detailed in the informational filing, and ICIF owners can be required to provide the commercial operation date upon request. NRG argues that if there is any dispute regarding the commercial operation date, the third party can go to the Commission and seek clarification of the commercial operation date.
145. MISO supports the Commission's proposal to require interconnection customers to submit their ICIF energization date to the Commission. Currently, MISO interconnection customers submit their test dates, which are very close to the energization date, to MISO's resource integration group as part of the Generator Interconnection Agreement milestones.
146. We will modify the proposal and will use the commercial operation date instead of the energization date. We find commenters' argument convincing that the commercial operation date is the preferable starting point for the safe harbor period. The ICIF may be energized to provide needed backfeed power for construction equipment well before the first generator is ready to produce test power, thus shortening the safe harbor period and undermining the goal to give the generation project sufficient time to develop. Using the energization date would likely disadvantage certain developers who must energize their ICIF early in the construction process because of their particular circumstances, while other developers are not required to do so. Although commenters argue that the commercial operation date is frequently documented in other contexts, we are not aware of a publicly available source that would consistently provide the commercial operation date for ICIF. Commenters' suggestion that potential customers request information from the ICIF owner or seek relief from the Commission creates an unnecessary barrier to potential customers and is inconsistent with the transparency we require for other elements of transmission and interconnection service. Accordingly, we will require, consistent with the NOPR proposal, that any eligible ICIF owner seeking to take advantage of the safe harbor must file an informational filing with the Commission (requiring no Commission action) stating: (1) The ICIF commercial operation date, as we define it below; (2) details sufficient to identify the ICIF at issue, such as location and Point of Interconnection; and (3) identification of the ICIF owner seeking to take advantage of the safe harbor.
147. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed a safe harbor period of five years during which there would be a rebuttable presumption that: (1) The eligible ICIF owner has definitive plans to use its capacity without having to make a demonstration through a specific plans and milestones showing; and (2) the eligible ICIF owner should not be required to expand its facilities.
148. Several commenters argue for a seven-year safe harbor period.
149. Some commenters argue for a ten-year safe harbor period. BHE also agrees that the proposed five-year duration is impractically short given the commercial and permitting realities generation developers face and, argues the safe harbor should be for ten years from the date that the ICIF is energized.
150. As discussed above, APPA, TAPS, and NRECA argue that the Commission should not implement a safe harbor period of any duration.
151. We adopt in this Final Rule the five-year safe harbor period. It represents a balancing of interests. On the one hand, we want to relieve regulatory burdens and unnecessary risks from generation developers to encourage the development of new generation and promote competition. On the other hand, we want to ensure not unduly discriminatory access to transmission which also promotes competition. We find that using the commercial operation date as the starting point for the safe harbor period eliminates some of the concerns regarding sufficient time for safe harbor protection. As such, we decline to increase the safe harbor period from five years to either seven or ten years.
152. We disagree with APPA and TAPS that the safe harbor protection is effectively a minimum of six years instead of five. That is, the rebuttable presumption that the ICIF owner has definitive plans to use its capacity, without having to make a demonstration through a specific plans and milestones showing, ends five years after the commercial operation date. The fact that it takes time to get service under sections 210 and 211 does not change the fact that, at the end of the five year safe harbor period, if there were to be an application under sections 210 and 211, the ICIF owner would need to show it has plans to use any remaining capacity on the ICIF and is making progress to completing those plans. In any event, we note that any request for interconnection or transmission service takes time to prepare and process, whether it is addressed to an ICIF owner pursuant to sections 210 and 211 or a public utility under its OATT.
153. In the NOPR,
154. Several commenters argue that ICIF-Owning Affiliates should be eligible for the blanket waiver.
155. BP Wind, Sempra, and First Wind take issue with the Commission's stated concern in the NOPR that the generator's vertically-integrated utility affiliate, if granted the blanket waiver, may take steps to structure its development projects to limit or deny access to transmission facilities. BP Wind emphasizes that there are various reasons why a company would place ownership of generation and associated generation interconnection facilities into a separate legal entity that are not in any way for the purpose of limiting access to generator interconnection facilities.
156. Several commenters argue that there are sufficient protections already in place to deter such behavior. Sempra notes that the Commission-jurisdictional interconnection process and the Commission's Standards of Conduct provide additional protections to affiliated and unaffiliated generators alike, and that further protection is provided when the interconnection process is administered by an RTO or ISO.
157. BP Wind and AWEA argue that the Commission should at least extend eligibility of the blanket waiver to ICIF-owning Affiliates where they are geographically separate from the public utility transmission provider's footprint.
158. BP Wind points out that excluding ICIF-owning Affiliates from the blanket waiver could disadvantage jointly owned projects, as unaffiliated generator owners would effectively lose the value associated with their blanket waiver if they share ownership in a common set of ICIF with a generator that is affiliated with a public utility transmission provider.
159. Linden states that in the event that the Commission limits the applicability of the blanket waiver to non-affiliates, it requests that the Commission clarify that any such limitation would not apply to an affiliate of a merchant transmission provider.
160. Southern and BHE also argue that the Commission should extend the safe harbor protection to ICIF-owning Affiliates because such generators are similarly situated to and operate the same as other wholesale generators. Southern believes that all wholesale generators and ICIF owners would benefit from the proposed safe harbor period.
161. BHE argues that, at a minimum, eligibility for the proposed safe harbor presumption should be extended to ICIF-owning Affiliates.
162. In contrast, some commenters argue that the Commission should not extend the proposed reforms to entities that are affiliated with a public utility
163. APPA and TAPS also contend that transmission providers are already “in the business of providing transmission service” and are subject to Standards of Conduct, and thus face no significant additional burden from the requirements the Commission proposes to waive. NRECA adds that such entities should not be granted privileges that are intended for generators that are completely independent of transmission providers. They argue that if extended to affiliates of transmission providers, the proposed reforms would incent transmission providers to structure generation and ICIF development to avoid open access and transmission planning obligations.
164. APPA and TAPS contend that any ICIF policy changes should exclude affiliates of transmission providers from eligibility for the blanket waiver or safe harbor status at least within the transmission provider's planning region.
165. We conclude that the blanket waiver and safe harbor should apply to a public utility transmission provider's affiliates whose ownership/operation of transmission facilities is limited to ICIF, regardless of geographic location. An ICIF-Owning Affiliate, as we use the term here, is a corporate entity that is separate from, and functions independently from, an affiliated public utility transmission provider that owns, controls, or operates non-ICIF transmission facilities. As such, the ICIF-Owning Affiliate is comparable to other independent generation companies that own ICIF within the public utility transmission provider's footprint. Like other independent generation companies, an ICIF-Owning Affiliate faces the risk and potential burden of having to file an OATT if it receives a third-party request for service. The undue discrimination provisions of section 205 and section 206 and the Commission's existing Standards of Conduct rules should prevent undue discrimination and ensure that the transmission provider's open access and transmission planning obligations are not circumvented. However, we decline to extend the blanket waiver to ICIF that are controlled or operated by the generation units of vertically-integrated public utilities (Generation Functions), as requested by BHE.
166. We disagree with APPA and TAPS that extending the reforms adopted herein to ICIF-Owning Affiliates would constitute a departure from the Commission's requirements that transmission service be not unduly discriminatory. Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA continue to govern the behavior of the ICIF-Owning Affiliates and public utility transmission providers after the reforms adopted herein become effective. Therefore, ICIF-Owning Affiliates and public utility transmission providers are prohibited from engaging in unduly preferential or unduly discriminatory behavior. In addition, the independent functioning and transparency requirements of the Standards of Conduct under Part 358 of the Commission's regulations impose specific requirements governing the relationship between the ICIF-Owning Affiliates and the transmission provider.
167. We disagree with APPA and TAPS' claim that granting the waiver to ICIF-Owning Affiliates would be inconsistent and contrary to the Commission's market-based rate policies by failing to consider the ICIF-Owning Affiliates in defining eligibility for market-based rates. The Commission considers the ICIF-Owning Affiliates when granting market-based rate authority. The market-based rate requirement under section 35.37(d) requires a seller that owns, operates, or controls transmission facilities, or whose affiliates own, operate, or control transmission facilities, to have on file with the Commission an OATT as described in section 35.28. However, the Commission allows sellers to rely on Commission-granted OATT waivers to satisfy the vertical market power part of
168. Moreover, we note that entities may file a complaint under section 206 with the Commission if they believe discrimination is occurring. Also, in determining whether a third party has rebutted the presumption under this Final Rule that an ICIF owner has definitive plans to use excess capacity on the ICIF during the safe harbor period, the affiliate relationship between the ICIF owner and a public utility transmission provider may be a factor in that determination. Finally, as a backstop, we note that the Commission possesses ample statutory remedies to address violations of the applicable regulations and statutes. As noted by Sempra, if the Commission became aware that a public utility transmission provider and an ICIF-Owning Affiliate structured their transmission, generation, and interconnection facilities development in such a way that inappropriately limits access to those facilities, the Commission could, among other things, revoke the blanket waiver and safe harbor treatment for the ICIF-Owning Affiliate. Accordingly, the Commission's existing rules, in concert with other tools available to hold entities accountable, are sufficient to ensure comparable treatment of affiliates and non-affiliates, and enforce the Commission's requirements prohibiting undue discrimination without the provisions waived through this Final Rule.
169. We find that it is not appropriate to grant the blanket waiver to Generation Functions. The public utility transmission provider has certain rights and obligations, one of which is to administer the transmission grid pursuant to its existing OATT. Where a Generation Function of the public utility transmission provider is an ICIF owner, we find it appropriate, in the event of a third-party request, for the request to be processed pursuant to its affiliated public utility transmission provider's OATT.
170. NRG requests that the Commission explicitly state that all transmission line losses associated with a third party gaining access to an incumbent owner's interconnection facility be borne solely by the third party. NRG argues that as more capacity is transmitted on these interconnection facilities and the excess capacity on these facilities diminishes, line losses will continue to increase to the detriment of the incumbent interconnection facility owner.
171. We find the NRG's argument to be beyond the scope of the proceeding. Treatment of line losses on ICIF should be negotiated between the parties using the ICIF.
172. First Wind and Invenergy ask the Commission to confirm that its
173. We decline to address the Commission's filing requirements as they are beyond the scope of the proceeding.
174. BHE states that third-party access to an ICIF should only be allowed at a point past the high side (transmission side) of a collector bus, and not on the low side (generator side) of the collector bus. It argues that such access to the generator side of the collector introduces technical system protection and control complexities that would be impractical to accommodate, requiring an inordinate amount of coordination between interconnecting generation projects and may even compromise the reliability of the interconnecting facilities.
175. We find BHE's argument to be beyond the scope of the proceeding. Disputes regarding technical requirements of the reliable interconnection of third-party generators should be addressed in particular proceedings under sections 210 and 211.
176. For those entities that satisfy the eligibility requirements set forth in this Final Rule, the blanket waiver will be effective as of the effective date of this Final Rule. For those entities that must file a statement of compliance with section 210 of the FPA in order to achieve eligibility, the blanket waiver will be effective as of the latter of the effective date of this Final Rule or the date the statement of compliance is filed. If an entity has a case-specific request for waiver of OATT requirements pending as of the date that the entity becomes eligible for the blanket waiver, the blanket waiver will apply as of that date, and the entity should file to withdraw the waiver request to the extent it has been rendered moot by the blanket waiver. As discussed in section IV.B.7 above, an entity that has already been issued a waiver of the same requirements waived by the blanket waiver and is eligible for
177. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval of certain information collection and data retention requirements imposed by agency rules.
178. The Commission is submitting the proposed modifications to its information collections to OMB for review and approval in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
179. The Commission did not receive any comments specifically addressing the burden estimates provided in the NOPR. However, the Commission has made changes to its proposal that are adopted in this Final Rule.
180. First, the regulations adopted in the Final Rule give a blanket waiver of OATT, OASIS, and Standards of Conduct filing requirements, to all ICIF owners, including those that do not sell electric energy. Under the Final Rule, an ICIF owner that does not sell electric energy is required to make an informational filing stating that it commits to comply with and be bound by the obligations and procedures applicable to electric utilities under section 210 of the FPA in order to receive the blanket waiver. We have increased the burden estimate in the table below to reflect this filing.
181. Second, the Commission revised the beginning of the safe harbor period from the ICIF energization date to the ICIF commercial operation date. The Commission recognizes that most ICIF owners will likely make a brief notification filing documenting: (1) The ICIF commercial operation date; (2) details sufficient to identify the ICIF at issue, such as location and Point of Interconnection; and (3) identification of the ICIF owner. However, because the filing is similar to that proposed in the NOPR, we are not modifying the estimated public reporting burdens for this proposed reporting requirement in the table below. The Commission believes that the revised burden estimates below are representatives of the average burden on respondents.
Total Annual Hours for Collection in initial year (120 hours) @$94.66 an hour = $11,359.
Total Annual Hours for Collection in subsequent years (27 hours) @$94.66 an hour = $2,556.
Total Annual Hours for Reduced Collection per year (290 hours) @$94.66 an hour = $27,452.
182. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
183. Comments on the requirements of this Final Rule can be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
184. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
185. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
186. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
187. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
These regulations are effective June 30, 2015. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. The Commission will submit this Final Rule to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office.
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 35, Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(d)
(2) The requirements of this section, 18 CFR parts 37 (Open Access Same-Time Information System) and 358 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers) are waived for any public utility that is or becomes subject to such requirements solely because it owns, controls, or operates Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities, in whole or in part, as that term is defined in the standard generator interconnection procedures and
(i) The waivers referenced in this paragraph (d)(2) shall be deemed to be revoked as of the date the public utility ceases to satisfy the qualifications of this paragraph (d)(2), and may be revoked by the Commission if the Commission determines that it is in the public interest to do so. After revocation of its waivers, the public utility must comply with the requirements that had been waived within 60 days of revocation.
(ii) Any eligible entity that seeks interconnection or transmission services with respect to the interconnection facilities for which a waiver is in effect pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2) may follow the procedures in sections 210, 211, and 212 of the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 2.20, and 18 CFR part 36. In any proceeding pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2)(ii):
(A) The Commission will consider it to be in the public interest to grant priority rights to the owner and/or operator of interconnection facilities specified in this paragraph (d)(2) to use capacity thereon when such owner and/or operator can demonstrate that it has specific plans with milestones to use such capacity to interconnect its or its affiliate's future generation projects.
(B) For the first five years after the commercial operation date of the interconnection facilities specified in this paragraph (d)(2), the Commission will apply the rebuttable presumption that the owner and/or operator of such facilities has definitive plans to use the capacity thereon, and it is thus in the public interest to grant priority rights to the owner and/or operator of such facilities to use capacity thereon.
Appendix A will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |