| Page Range | 18305-18514 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 18513 - National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 18511 - National Donate Life Month, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 18507 - National Cancer Control Month, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 18357 - Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18506 - Funding Availability Under Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program | |
| 80 FR 18441 - Government in The Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 18471 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify NASDAQ Rule 7001(c) | |
| 80 FR 18442 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18433 - Mortgagee Review Board: Administrative Actions | |
| 80 FR 18430 - Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) | |
| 80 FR 18405 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances-Relocation Income Tax (RIT) Allowance Tables | |
| 80 FR 18445 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 18374 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18438 - Alaska, Outer Continental Shelf, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193; MMAA 104000 | |
| 80 FR 18310 - Special Local Regulation; San Salvador Launch and Procession; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA | |
| 80 FR 18492 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Dane County, Wisconsin | |
| 80 FR 18502 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Renewed Approval of Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 18443 - Zion Solutions, LLC, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, License Termination Plan | |
| 80 FR 18492 - RTCA Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 18447 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Share Member-Designated Risk Settings in the Trading System With Clearing Members | |
| 80 FR 18431 - Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Unmanned Aircraft System Demonstration for Support of Coast Guard Missions in the Arctic | |
| 80 FR 18324 - Anchorage Grounds; South Timbalier Anchorages; South of Port Fourchon, LA; Gulf of Mexico | |
| 80 FR 18313 - Safety Zone; Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH | |
| 80 FR 18490 - Determination and Certification Under Section 490(b)(1)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act Relating to the Largest Exporting and Importing Countries of Certain Precursor Chemicals | |
| 80 FR 18357 - Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 18343 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's Whale as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 80 FR 18369 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations | |
| 80 FR 18323 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Amendment | |
| 80 FR 18347 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Initial Finding on a Petition to Identify and Delist a Saint John River Distinct Population Segment of Shortnose Sturgeon Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 80 FR 18383 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, in Part | |
| 80 FR 18376 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Canada, the People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 80 FR 18354 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 18327 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 80 FR 18375 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review | |
| 80 FR 18373 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 80 FR 18497 - Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 Innovative Safety, Resiliency, and All-Hazard Emergency; Response and Recovery Program Project Selections; Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Program Project Selections; Fiscal Year 2012 Bus Efficiency Enhancements Research and Demonstrations Program Project Selections | |
| 80 FR 18401 - Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18442 - Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting and Agenda | |
| 80 FR 18441 - Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science | |
| 80 FR 18407 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Comparative Price Information in Direct-to-Consumer and Professional Prescription Drug Advertisements | |
| 80 FR 18410 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Survey of Health Care Practitioners for Device Labeling Format and Content | |
| 80 FR 18412 - Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18307 - Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Urethral Insert With Pump for Bladder Drainage | |
| 80 FR 18427 - International Labour Office (ILO) Reference Radiographs | |
| 80 FR 18446 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments | |
| 80 FR 18496 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects | |
| 80 FR 18493 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Recreation Vehicle Industry Association Application for Exemption | |
| 80 FR 18413 - Society of Clinical Research Associates-Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trial Requirements, Regulations, Compliance and Good Clinical Practice | |
| 80 FR 18414 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; JUXTAPID | |
| 80 FR 18495 - Agency Information Collection Activities; New Emergency Information Collection Request: Report by State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) on the Annual Number of Entry-Level Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Applicants and Related Data | |
| 80 FR 18431 - Notice of Public Meeting on the Proposed Revised Guidelines for Implementing Floodplain Management, as Revised Through the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard | |
| 80 FR 18437 - Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for Proposed Idaho Statewide Supplementary Rules | |
| 80 FR 18436 - Call for Nominations for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 18393 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs | |
| 80 FR 18402 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Regarding the National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (3064-0167) | |
| 80 FR 18391 - Minneapolis Leased Housing Associates IV Limited Partnership; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission | |
| 80 FR 18392 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 80 FR 18397 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Staff Protest to Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity | |
| 80 FR 18400 - Available Transfer Capability Standards for Wholesale Electric Transmission Services; Supplemental Notice of Workshop-New Date | |
| 80 FR 18386 - Office of Economic Adjustment; Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity | |
| 80 FR 18404 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 18404 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 80 FR 18356 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC); Public Hearings | |
| 80 FR 18307 - Advisory Committee; Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 18502 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Chicago, Cook County, Ill. | |
| 80 FR 18443 - Comment Request: Research Performance Progress Report | |
| 80 FR 18414 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; National Indian Health Outreach and Education II | |
| 80 FR 18424 - Solicitation of Written Comments on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee's Draft Report and Draft Recommendations for Consideration for Addressing the State of Vaccine Confidence in the United States | |
| 80 FR 18405 - Solicitation of Written Comments on the Human Papillomavirus Working Group's Draft Report and Draft Recommendations for Improving Vaccination Rates in Adolescents for Consideration by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 18392 - Notice of Application: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Empire Pipeline, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 18394 - Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Union Meter Station Upgrade Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 80 FR 18397 - Merced Irrigation District, Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Merced River and Merced Falls Hydroelectric Projects | |
| 80 FR 18396 - Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 18399 - South Carolina Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 80 FR 18397 - Notice of Attendance at PJM Interconnection, LLC Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18391 - Southwest Gas Storage Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 80 FR 18442 - All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers United States City Average | |
| 80 FR 18327 - State of Washington Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Revision Approval | |
| 80 FR 18319 - State of Washington Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Revision Approval | |
| 80 FR 18442 - All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers; United States City Average | |
| 80 FR 18470 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18449 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18472 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18452 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Proposed Rule Change To Amend and Restate Certain Rules That Govern the NASDAQ OMX PSX | |
| 80 FR 18473 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX Inc.; Notice of Proposed Rule Change To Amend and Restate Certain Rules That Govern the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market | |
| 80 FR 18450 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to NASDAQ Options Market Fees and Rebates | |
| 80 FR 18316 - State of Tennessee Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program; Primacy Approval | |
| 80 FR 18326 - State of Tennessee Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program; Primacy Approval | |
| 80 FR 18429 - Meeting of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health | |
| 80 FR 18429 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18405 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18411 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18411 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18407 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18353 - Information Collection; Civil Rights Compliance Review Record-Federally Assisted Programs | |
| 80 FR 18440 - Public Land Order No. 7833; Withdrawal of Public Lands, Browns Canyon Corridor, Colorado | |
| 80 FR 18359 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Seabird Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 18400 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Program Adequacy Determination: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) and Non-Municipal, Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Hazardous Waste (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 18491 - Approval of Noise Compatibility Program Update, Key West International Airport, Key West, Florida | |
| 80 FR 18313 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, IL | |
| 80 FR 18385 - Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training | |
| 80 FR 18446 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 18426 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18443 - Advisory Committee for International and Integrative Activities; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18437 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 18305 - Special Conditions: Cessna Aircraft Company Model 680A Airplane, Pilot-Compartment View Through Hydrophobic Windshield Coatings in Lieu of Windshield Wipers | |
| 80 FR 18439 - Endangered Species; Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 18445 - New Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 18352 - Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee; and the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees for Trade; Renewal and Nominations | |
| 80 FR 18330 - Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials; TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements | |
| 80 FR 18342 - 911 Governance and Accountability; Improving 911 Reliability | |
| 80 FR 18402 - Notice of Meeting of the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee |
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Labor Statistics Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions, request for comment.
These special conditions are issued for the Cessna Model 680A airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is hydrophobic windshield coatings in lieu of windshield wipers. 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.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0177 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Bob Hettman, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2683; facsimile (425) 227-1149.
On January 25, 2012, Cessna Aircraft Company applied for an amended type certificate for a new Model 680A airplane.
The Model 680A, a derivative of the Cessna Model 680 airplane currently approved under type-certificate number T00012WI, is intended to be a nine-passenger executive airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of 30,300 pounds and a maximum operating altitude of 45,000 feet. The Model 680A airplane uses a hydrophobic windshield coating, in lieu of windshield wipers, for an unobstructed outside view from the pilot compartment.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Cessna Aircraft Company must show that the Model 680A airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type-certificate no. T00012WI, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type-certification basis.”
The certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
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, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 680A airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Cessna Model 680A airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
The airplane flight-deck design incorporates a hydrophobic windshield coating that, during precipitation, provides an adequate outside view from the pilot compartment. Sole reliance on such a coating, without windshield wipers, constitutes a novel or unusual design feature for which the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards. Therefore, special conditions are required to provide a level of safety equivalent to that established by the regulations.
Section 25.773(b)(1) requires a means to maintain a clear portion of the windshield for both pilots of a transport-category airplane to have a sufficiently extensive view along the flight path during precipitation conditions. The regulations require this means to maintain such an area clear vision during heavy-rain precipitation at airplane speeds up to 1.5 V
This requirement has existed in principle since 1953 in part 4b of the “Civil Air Regulations” (CAR). Section 4b.351(b)(1) of CAR 4b required that “Means shall be provided for maintaining a sufficient portion of the windshield clear so that both pilots are afforded a sufficiently extensive view along the flight path in all normal flight attitudes of the airplane. Such means shall be designed to function under the following conditions without continuous attention on the part of the crew: (i) In heavy rain at speeds up to 1.6 VS1, flaps retracted.”
Effective December 26, 2002, Amendment 25-108 changed the speed for effectiveness of the means to maintain an area of clear vision from up to 1.6 V
The requirement that the means to maintain a clear area of forward vision must function at high speeds and high precipitation rates is based on the use of windshield wipers as the means to maintain an adequate area of clear vision in precipitation conditions. The requirement in 14 CFR 121.313(b) and 125.213(b) to provide “a windshield wiper or equivalent for each pilot station” has remained unchanged since at least 1953.
The effectiveness of windshield wipers to maintain an area of clear vision normally degrades as airspeed and precipitation rates increase. It is assumed that because high speeds and high precipitation rates represent limiting conditions for windshield wipers, they will also be effective at lower speeds and precipitation levels. Accordingly, § 25.773(b)(1)(i) does not require maintenance of a clear area of forward vision at lower speeds or lower precipitation rates.
A forced airflow blown directly over the windshield has also been used to maintain an area of clear vision in precipitation. The limiting conditions for this technology are comparable to those for windshield wipers. Accordingly, introduction of this technology did not present a need for special conditions to maintain the level of safety embodied in the existing regulations.
Hydrophobic windshield coatings may depend to some degree on airflow to maintain a clear-vision area. The heavy rain and high speed conditions specified in the current rule do not necessarily represent the limiting condition for this new technology. For example, airflow over the windshield, which may be necessary to remove moisture from the windshield, may not be adequate to maintain a sufficiently clear-vision area of the windshield in low-speed flight or during surface operations. Alternatively, airflow over the windshield may be disturbed during such critical times as the approach to land, where the airplane is at a higher-than-normal pitch attitude. In these cases, areas of airflow disturbance or separation on the windshield could cause failure to maintain a clear-vision area on the windshield.
In addition to potentially depending on airflow to function effectively, hydrophobic coatings may also be dependent on water-droplet size for effective precipitation removal. For example, precipitation in the form of a light mist may not be sufficient for the coating's properties to result in maintaining a clear area of vision.
The current regulations identify speed and precipitation rate requirements that represent limiting conditions for windshield wipers and blowers, but not for hydrophobic coatings. Likewise, it is necessary to issue special conditions to maintain the level of safety represented by the current regulations.
These special conditions provide an appropriate safety standard for the hydrophobic coating technology as the means to maintain a clear area of vision by requiring the coating to be effective at low speeds and low precipitation rates, as well as at the higher speeds and precipitation rates identified in the current regulation. These are the only new or changed requirements relative to those in § 25.773(b)(1) at Amendment 25-108.
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.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna Model 680A airplane. Should Cessna 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 Cessna Model 680A airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances 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, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
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 Cessna Model 680A airplanes.
The airplane must have a means to maintain a clear portion of the windshield, during precipitation conditions, enough for both pilots to have a sufficiently extensive view along
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the standing advisory committees' regulations to change the name of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee. This action is being taken to change the name of this committee on the Agency's list of standing advisory committees.
This rule is effective April 6, 2015. The name change became applicable March 4, 2015.
Michael Ortwerth, Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, FAX: 301-847-8640, or
The Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee) was established on October 7, 1980 (45 FR 79025). The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of infectious diseases and disorders.
The Committee name has been changed to the following: Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee. The Agency changed the name to better reflect the products and issues that will be brought to the committee. The change became effective March 4, 2015.
Therefore, the Agency is amending 21 CFR 14.100(c) as set forth in the regulatory text of this document.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40(d) and (e), the Agency finds good cause to dispense with notice and public comment procedures and to proceed to an immediate effective date on this rule. Notice and public comment and a delayed effective date are unnecessary and are not in the public interest as this final rule merely removes the name of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee from the list of standing advisory committees in 21 CFR 14.100 and replaces it with the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 14 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. 2; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461; 21 U.S.C. 41-50, 141-149, 321-394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264; Pub. L. 107-109; Pub. L. 108-155; Pub. L. 113-54.
(c) * * *
(2)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the urethral insert with pump for bladder drainage into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the urethral insert with pump for bladder drainage's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective April 6, 2015. The classification was applicable on October 14, 2014.
John Baxley, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G210, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6549.
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.
On October 25, 2013, Vesiflo, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the inFlow
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on October 14, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 876.5140.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a urethral insert with pump for bladder drainage will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name urethral insert with pump for bladder drainage, and it is identified as a catheter-like device with internal pump mechanism that is placed in the urethra. Under patient control the internal pump draws urine out of the bladder when voiding is desired, and blocks urine flow when continence is desired. The device is intended for use by women who cannot empty their bladder due to impaired detrusor contractility.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:
• The elements of the device that may contact the urinary tract must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
• Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device components that contact the urinary tract.
• Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating continued sterility of the device (or the sterile components), package integrity, and device functionality over the requested shelf life.
• Non-clinical testing data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
○ Urine flow rate testing.
○ Valve integrity testing.
○ Bladder neck retention force testing.
○ Pump/valve endurance testing.
○ Encrustation testing.
○ Remote control reliability, mechanical integrity, and battery life testing.
• Clinical testing must demonstrate safe and effective use, document the device acceptance rate and the adverse event profile associated with clinical use, and demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.
• Labeling must include:
○ Specific instructions, contraindications, warnings, cautions, limitations, and the clinical training needed for the safe use of the device.
○ Statement of the maximum insert indwelling period.
○ Information on the patient education and support program prior to and during initial device use.
○ Information on the patient population for which the device has been demonstrated to be safe and effective.
○ Information on how the device operates and the recommended treatment regimen.
○ A detailed summary of the device- and procedure-related complications or adverse events pertinent to use of the device.
○ An expiration date/shelf life.
• Patient labeling must be provided and must include:
○ Relevant contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse events/complications.
○ Information on how the device operates and the recommended treatment regimen.
○ Information on the patient education and support program prior to and during initial device use.
○ Information on the patient population for which there is clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness.
○ The potential risks and benefits associated with the use of the device.
○ Post-insertion care instructions.
○ Alternative treatments.
Urethral inserts with pump for bladder drainage are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see section 520(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(e)) and 21 CFR 801.109 (
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the urethral inserts with pump for bladder drainage they intend to market.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other 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, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 876 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) The elements of the device that may contact the urinary tract must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(2) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device components that contact the urinary tract.
(3) Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating continued sterility of the device (or the sterile components), package integrity, and device functionality over the requested shelf life.
(4) Non-clinical testing data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
(i) Urine flow rate testing.
(ii) Valve integrity testing.
(iii) Bladder neck retention force testing.
(iv) Pump/valve endurance testing.
(v) Encrustation testing.
(vi) Remote control reliability, mechanical integrity, and battery life testing.
(5) Clinical testing must demonstrate safe and effective use, document the device acceptance rate and the adverse event profile associated with clinical use, and demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use.
(6) Labeling must include:
(i) Specific instructions, contraindications, warnings, cautions, limitations, and the clinical training needed for the safe use of the device.
(ii) Statement of the maximum insert indwelling period.
(iii) Information on the patient education and support program prior to and during initial device use.
(iv) Information on the patient population for which the device has been demonstrated to be safe and effective.
(v) Information on how the device operates and the recommended treatment regimen.
(vi) A detailed summary of the device- and procedure-related complications or adverse events pertinent to use of the device.
(vii) An expiration date/shelf life.
(7) Patient labeling must be provided and must include:
(i) Relevant contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse events/complications.
(ii) Information on how the device operates and the recommended treatment regimen.
(iii) Information on the patient education and support program prior to and during initial device use.
(iv) Information on the patient population for which there is clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness.
(v) The potential risks and benefits associated with the use of the device.
(vi) Post-insertion care instructions.
(vii) Alternative treatments.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing a marine event special local regulation for the launch of the historic vessel San Salvador located in the Captain of the Port San Diego Zone on San Diego Bay. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. This special local regulation will establish restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a portion of San Diego Bay during the initial launch and subsequent procession of the San Salvador around a portion of San Diego Bay. Unauthorized persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard requests public comments on the temporary special local regulation.
This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on April 19, 2015. Public comments must be received by April 15, 2015.
Submit comments using
•
•
•
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0138]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on this temporary final rule. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-0138 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8
Documents mentioned in this notice and all public comments, are in our online docket at
The San Salvador Launch and Procession is a onetime marine event with no regulatory history. The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the participants and the
Even though the normal comment process was shortened for this rule, we are providing an opportunity for public comment and, should public comment show the need for modifications to the regulated area during the event, we may make those modifications during the event and will provide actual notice of those modifications to the affected public.
The legal basis the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to issue regulations to promote the safety of life on navigable waters during regattas or marine parades: 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The Coast Guard was notified by the San Diego Maritime Museum that the vessel San Salvador, a recreation of the original Spanish exploration sailing vessel used by the explorer, Juan Rodriquez Cabrillo, will be launched and towed to its final mooring space at the San Diego Maritime Museum on April 19, 2015. The launch and procession will require the immediate area adjacent to the downtown San Diego Embarcadero between Broadway and B Street Piers to be clear of all vessel traffic during the crane barge lift of the vessel, launch and subsequent parade. The parade route during the one-hour procession will go from the planned launch site at Broadway Pier south along the Embarcadero and returning north to the Maritime Museum, roughly a two mile transit. This rule establishes a fifty-yard wide exclusion area for the safe transit of the vessel San Salvador.
If an alternate emergency launch site is required along the Embarcadero other than the Broadway Pier, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port will adjust the marine event special local regulations to ensure the safety of all participants, safety vessels and spectators during the launch and adjustment of the procession length. During the enforcement of the event, the Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF Channel 16 to notify the public of any course changes.
The Captain of the Port of San Diego has determined that establishing a temporary marine event special local regulation on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay will ensure public safety for the launch and procession. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, sponsor safety vessel, and other users of the waterway.
The Coast Guard is establishing marine event special local regulations that will be enforced from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on April 19, 2015. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, event participants and spectators of the event and to protect other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The special local regulation will encompass a portion of the navigable waters of San Diego Bay within twenty-five yards on either side of a predetermined course starting from the Broadway Pier, heading southeast past the Embarcadero, crossing the federal channel before buoy 24 at position (North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984) 32°41.55 N, 117°09.54 W, heading northwest past Coronado Landing, crossing the federal channel again before buoy 22 at position (North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984) 32°42.31 N, 117°10.43, then heading north and culminating at the Maritime Museum Pier. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
If an alternate emergency launch site is required along the Embarcadero other than the Broadway Pier, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port will adjust the marine event special local regulations to ensure the safety of all participants, safety vessels and spectators during the launch and adjustment of the procession length.
Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM). During the enforcement of the event, the Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location and limited duration of the regulated area. The special local regulation is designed in a way to limit impacts on vessel traffic while permitting vessels to navigate in other portions of the waterways not designated as a regulated area.
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 affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the San Diego
This regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the regulated area adjacent to the Embarcadero and the procession regatta. The Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via VHF Channel 16 before the special local regulation is enforced.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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 may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraphs 35(b) and 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Commercial vessels operating solely within the San Diego Bay federal channel will have right-of-way over event participants. Vessels participating in the procession will stop for oncoming commercial deep draft traffic and will resume after the vessel has completed its passage through the regulated area.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with instructions from the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) or his designated representative. The COTP San Diego or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 619-278-7033.
(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies in patrol and notification of the regulation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to allow the Bandits Race to Home 5K Marathon to cross the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for two hours.
This deviation is effective from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., April 11, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0150] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a two hour period from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., April 11, 2015, while the Bandits Race to Home 5K Marathon is held between the cities of Davenport, IA and Rock Island, IL.
The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.
There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.
The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the
This rule will be effective from 7:45 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. on April 11, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0186]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9343, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.
Between 7:45 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. on April 11, 2015, a fireworks display will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor in Cleveland, OH, in the vicinity of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such a launch proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum fireworks display. This zone will be effective and enforced from 7:45 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. on April 11, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH within a 210-foot radius of position 41°30′37.40″ N. and 081°41′50.07″ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Cleveland Harbor on the evening of April 11, 2015.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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 may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve the State of Tennessee Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for primacy to implement and enforce state regulations for all UIC injection wells located within the state, except for Class VI and all wells on Indian lands, as required by rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Agency determined that the state's UIC Program is consistent with the provisions of the SDWA and is as stringent as all applicable federal regulations to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water.
This rule is effective on July 6, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 6, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0520, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
• Mail: State of Tennessee; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Primacy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Marilyn Ginsberg, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-3881; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address:
EPA published this rule without a prior proposed rule because the Agency views this action as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
If EPA receives adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding
EPA approves the State of Tennessee's UIC Program primacy application for Class I, II, III, IV, and V injection wells located within the state, as required by rule under the SDWA, to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water. Accordingly, the Agency codifies the state's program in the
The Agency's approval is based on a legal and technical review of the state's primacy application as directed at 40 CFR part 145 and the requirements for state permitting and compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority and information sharing at 40 CFR parts 124 and 144, to determine that the state's program is as stringent as all applicable federal regulations. EPA oversees the state's administration of the UIC program; part of the Agency's oversight responsibility requires quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the State of Tennessee, signed by the Regional Administrator on October 20, 2004, provides the Agency with the opportunity to review and comment on all permits. The Agency continues to administer the UIC program for Class VI injection wells in the state and all wells on Indian lands (if any such lands exist in the state in the future).
As part of the primacy application requirements, the state held three public hearings on the state's intent to apply for primacy. The hearings were held on July 9, 17, and 24, 2001, in the cities of Jackson, Murfreesboro and Knoxville, respectively. The comments received at the hearings were supportive of the state pursuing primacy for the UIC program and expressed concerns related to allowing Class I injection wells throughout the state. Because of these concerns, the state has restricted the use of Class I injection wells to only certain parts of the state. The state also placed a ban on the construction and operation of Class I hazardous waste injection wells in the state. Currently the State of Tennessee has no Class I injection wells.
On May 3, 2012, the Agency published a document of the state's application in the
This direct final rule amends 40 CFR part 147 and incorporates by reference EPA-approved state statutes and regulations. The provisions of the State of Tennessee's Code that contain standards, requirements and procedures applicable to owners or operators of UIC well classes I, II, III, IV, and V are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 147. Any provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, will be enforceable by EPA pursuant to the SDWA, section 1423 and 40 CFR 147.1(e).
In order to better serve the public, the Agency is reformatting the codification of the EPA-approved state statutes and regulations for Well Classes I, II, III, IV, and V. Instead of codifying the Tennessee Statutes and Regulations as separate paragraphs, the Agency is now codifying a binder that contains the EPA-approved Tennessee Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, II, III, IV, and V. This binder will be incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 147 and available at regulations.gov in the docket for this rule. The Agency will also codify a table listing the EPA-approved Tennessee Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, II, III, IV, and V in 40 CFR part 147.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. EPA determined that there is no need for an Information Collection Request under the Paperwork Reduction Act because this direct final rule does not impose any new federal reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Reporting or recordkeeping requirements are based on the State of Tennessee UIC Regulations, and the state is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR parts 144-148) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action does not impose any new requirements on any regulated entities. It simply codifies the State of Tennessee's UIC Program regulations, which are at least as stringent as the federal regulations. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1521-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 as explained in section V.C. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state action as explained in section V.C.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because the rule does not affect or change the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300h
The UIC program for Class I, II, III, IV, and V wells in the State of Tennessee, except for those on any Indian lands, is the program administered by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, approved by EPA pursuant to section 1422 of the SDWA. Notice of this approval was published in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve the State of Washington Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program revisions as required by rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Agency determined that the state's program revisions are consistent with the
This rule is effective on July 6, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 6, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0186, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lisa McWhirter, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2317; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address:
EPA published this rule without a prior proposed rule because the Agency views this action as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
If EPA receives adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding
EPA approves the State of Washington Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program revisions, as required by rule under the SDWA, to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water. The state revised its UIC Class V Program regulations and transferred oversight authority from the Department of Ecology to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to issue UIC permits at energy facilities. Accordingly, the Agency codifies the state regulations in the
The Agency's approval is based on a legal and technical review of the state's program revision application as directed at 40 CFR part 145 and the requirements for state permitting and compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority and information sharing at 40 CFR parts 124 and 144, to determine that the state's revisions are as stringent as all applicable federal regulations. EPA oversees the state's administration of the UIC program; part of the Agency's oversight responsibility requires quarterly reports of non-compliance and annual UIC performance reports pursuant to 40 CFR 144.8. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the state, signed by the Regional Administrator on February 15, 2011, provides the Agency with the opportunity to review and comment on all permits. EPA continues to administer the UIC Class V Program on Indian lands located within the state.
On March 8, 2013, EPA published notice of Washington's Underground Injection Control Program Revision application in the
This direct final rule amends 40 CFR part 147 and incorporates by reference EPA-approved state statutes and regulations. The provisions of the State of Washington's Code that contain standards, requirements and procedures applicable to owners or operators of UIC well classes I, II, III, IV, and V are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 147. Any provisions incorporated by reference, as well as all permit conditions or permit denials issued pursuant to such provisions, are enforceable by EPA pursuant to section 1423 of the SDWA and 40 CFR 147.1(e).
In order to better serve the public, the Agency reformatted the codification of EPA-approved Washington SDWA section 1422 UIC Program Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, II, III, IV, and V. Instead of codifying the Washington Statutes and Regulations as separate paragraphs, the Agency now codifies a binder that contains EPA-approved Washington Statutes and Regulations for Well Classes I, II, III, IV, and V. This binder is incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 147 and available at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. EPA determined that there is no need for an Information Collection Request under the Paperwork Reduction Act because this direct final rule does not impose any new federal reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Reporting or recordkeeping requirements are based on the State of Washington UIC Regulations, and the state is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR parts 144-148) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action does not impose any new requirements on any regulated entities. It simply codifies the State of Washington's Class V regulations, which are at least as stringent as the federal regulations. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1521-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 as explained in section V.C. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the Agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state action as explained in section V.C.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because the rule does not affect or change the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300h
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(c)(1) The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region X and the Washington Department of Ecology, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on February 15, 2011.
(5) Memorandum of Agreement between the Washington Department of Ecology and the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Related to the Underground Injection Control Program for the State of Washington, signed March 19, 2009.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial changes.
Effective April 6, 2015.
Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6088; facsimile 571-372-6094.
This final rule amends the DFARS at 216.401-70 to delete the reference to PGI 216.401-70, which has been removed.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 216 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is considering establishing two new anchorage grounds in the Gulf of Mexico for the port of Port Fourchon, LA. These actions are being considered to help accommodate increased vessel volume and future increases and improve navigation safety for vessels transiting the Port Fourchon area, providing for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. The Coast Guard is seeking comments and information about what form the proposed regulations should take and the actual need for them.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 5, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2014-1009. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) Fax: (202) 493-2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Christopher Tuckey, Waterways Management, Eighth Coast Guard District; telephone (504) 671-2112, 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
We have not scheduled a public meeting at this time. Once a public meeting is scheduled, we will publish a notice in the
As reflected in title 33 Code of Federal Regulation section 109.05 (33 CFR 109.05), the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard has delegated the authority to establish anchorage grounds to U.S. Coast Guard District Commanders. The Coast Guard establishes Anchorage Grounds under authority of the authority in section 7 of the act of March 4, 1915, as amended (38 Stat. 1053; 33 U.S.C. 471) and places these regulations in Title 33 CFR part 110.1, subpart B. [CGFR 67-46, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by CGD 86-082, 52 FR 33811, Sept. 8, 1987; USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 5526, June 30, 1998]. The Coast Guard is now considering a proposed rulemaking to establish two new offshore anchorage grounds. The two new anchorages are referenced in this document as South Timbalier Anchorage West and South Timbalier Anchorage East.
The legal basis and authorities for this advance notice of proposed rulemaking are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236; 33 CFR 1.05-1, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorages. The Coast Guard is now considering a proposed rulemaking establishing two offshore anchorage grounds; South Timbalier Anchorage West and South Timbalier Anchorage East.
The Coast Guard received a request from the Greater Lafourche Port Commission and its users to consider the establishment of a suitable anchorage or anchorage areas offshore in the vicinity of Port Fourchon, LA to alleviate and provide relief to vessel traffic and congestion in the port of Port Fourchon, LA. The volume of vessel traffic through Port Fourchon has increased over 30 percent since 2009. We expect continued growth within the Port in the coming years. Additionally, vessels to service the deepwater oil and gas industry continue to grow larger in size. For these reasons, the Coast Guard is considering the request to establish new offshore anchorages. This request was presented and discussed at a Greater Lafourche Port Commission Committee meeting on September 24, 2014, and with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources on November 13, 2014.
The purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit input and comments on potential proposed rulemakings to help accommodate increased vessel volume and future increases and improve navigation safety for vessels transiting the Port Fourchon area, providing for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. This objective would be to establish offshore anchorages intended to increase the safety of life and property on navigable waters, improve the safety of vessels operating, transiting, or anchored and moored in the vicinity of the port of Port Fourchon and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce in the area.
The Coast Guard is considering establishing two new offshore anchorages supporting the vessel traffic in and around the Port of Port Fourchon, LA area. Preliminary details describing and an image depicting these anchorages are provided below.
The intended users of the proposed anchorages are Offshore Supply Vessels (OSV) and other vessels using or providing services within Port Fourchon, LA and on the outer-continental shelf.
As described by the Executive Director of the Greater Lafourche Parish Port Commission (GLPC), the volume of vessel traffic through Port Fourchon has increased over 30 percent since 2009. The GLPC estimates significant, continued growth in the near future. Due to congestion, Port Fourchon tenant companies and users either direct vessels dynamically position within a berth, Belle Pass, Bayou Lafourche, or Flotation Canal or depart the port entirely until a berth is available. Vessels servicing the deepwater oil and gas industry in and around Port Fourchon continue to grow in length and tonnage. The largest OSV's are 300 feet and over 4,500 Gross Tons. OSV's within Port Fourchon are often moored three or four abreast, requiring constant shifting and repositioning of vessels, crewmembers, and dockworkers, greatly increasing the risks of collisions, groundings, or harm to personnel.
The approximate depths of the proposed anchorages range from 36 feet to 60 feet, which will accommodate a variety of vessel types and configurations. The nearest safety fairways are the Belle Pass Safety Fairway approximately 3 nautical miles to the east and the Southwest Pass to Gulf Safety Fairway approximately 50 nautical miles to the south.
Based on National Automatic Identification System data, establishing an anchorage in the proposed location will have negligible effects on customary shipping lanes.
We are considering proposing that the South Timbalier Anchorage West would cover an area 7 nautical miles long by 5 nautical miles wide. Also, we are contemplating the following boundaries for the anchorage:
• The western boundary would match the western boundary of South Timbalier blocks 16 and 33;
• The eastern boundary would match eastern boundary of South Timbalier blocks 18 and 31;
• The northern boundary would match the northern boundary of South Timbalier blocks 16, 17, and 18; and
• The southern boundary would match the southern boundary of South Timbalier blocks 31, 32, and 33.
The anchorage we are contemplating may also be represented by drawing rhumb lines joining points at:
We are considering proposing that the South Timbalier Anchorage East would cover an area 5 nautical miles wide by 5 nautical miles deep. The following are the contemplated proposed boundaries for the anchorage.
The western boundary would match the western boundary of South Timbalier blocks 20 and 29.
The eastern boundary would match the eastern boundary of South Timbalier blocks 21 and 28.
The northern boundary would match the northern boundary of South Timbalier blocks 20 and 21.
The southern boundary would match the southern boundary of South Timbalier blocks 29 and 28.
The South Timbalier Anchorage East anchorage we are contemplating may also be represented may by drawing rhumb lines joining points at:
We have also placed illustrations of the currently contemplated offshore anchorage grounds in the docket (
In a letter to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard will request that the Office of Coast Survey ensure the suitability and safety of the contemplated anchorage grounds. Additionally, the Coast Guard is coordinating with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the State of Louisiana's Department of Natural Resources to verify the location of existing pipeline corridors.
The contemplated anchorage area is larger than the envisioned final anchorage. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to prompt discussion and gather input from the affected marine industries to determine the most appropriate anchorage within the contemplated area.
Public participation is requested to assist in determining the best way forward in developing a proposed rulemaking to establish these offshore anchorages. To aid us in developing a proposed rule, we seek any comments, whether positive or negative, including but not limited to the impacts anchorage areas may have on navigation safety and current vessel traffic in this area.
Please submit any comments or concerns you may have in accordance with the “submitting comments” section above.
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552; 33 CFR 1.05-1, and 1.05-30.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State of Tennessee Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for primacy to implement and enforce state regulations for all UIC injection wells located within the state, except for Class VI wells and all wells on Indian lands, as required by rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Agency determined that the state's program is consistent with the provisions of the SDWA and is as stringent as all applicable federal regulations to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water. EPA requests public comment on this proposed rule and supporting documentation. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received by May 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0520, by one of the following methods, by mail to Water Docket, State of Tennessee, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Primacy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Marilyn Ginsberg, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-3881; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address:
EPA proposes to approve the State of Tennessee's UIC Program primacy application for Class I, II, III, IV, and V injection wells located within the state (except all wells on Indian lands), as required by rule under the SDWA, to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water. Accordingly, the Agency proposes to codify the state's program in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State of Washington Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program revisions as required by rule under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Agency determined that the state's revisions are consistent with the provisions of the SDWA and are as stringent as all applicable federal regulations to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water. The state revised its UIC Class V Program regulations and transferred oversight authority from the Department of Ecology to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to issue UIC permits at energy facilities. EPA requests public comment on this proposed rule and supporting documentation. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received by May 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0186, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lisa McWhirter, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2317; fax number: (202) 564-3754; email address:
EPA proposes to approve by rule the state's UIC Class V Program revisions and the transfer of oversight authority from the Department of Ecology to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to issue UIC permits at energy facilities, as required under the SDWA to prevent underground injection activities that endanger underground sources of drinking water. Accordingly, the Agency proposes to codify the state's program revisions in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain chemical substances when they are manufactured or processed at the nanoscale as described in this rule. Specifically, EPA proposes to require persons that manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process, or intend to manufacture or process these chemical substances to electronically report to EPA certain information, which includes the specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and existing data concerning environmental and health effects. This proposal involves one-time reporting for existing nanoscale materials and one-time reporting for new discrete nanoscale materials before they are manufactured or processed. This information would facilitate EPA's evaluation of the materials and a determination of whether further action, including additional information collection, is needed. Consistent with the President's memorandum for Executive Agencies regarding Principles for Regulation and Oversight of Emerging Technologies, this proposed rule would facilitate assessment of risks and risk management, examination of the benefits and costs of further measures, and making future decisions based on available scientific evidence.
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0572, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture or process or intend to manufacture or process nanoscale forms of certain chemical substances. However, persons that manufacture or process, or intend to manufacture or process these chemical substances as part of articles, as impurities, or in small quantities solely for research and development would not be subject to this action. In addition, the discussion in Unit III.A. describes in more detail which chemical substances would and would not be subject to reporting under the proposed rule. You may also consult 40 CFR 704.3 and 704.5, as well as the proposed regulatory text in this document, for further information on the applicability of these and other exemptions to this proposed rule.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document may apply to them:
• Chemical Manufacturing or Processing (NAICS codes 325).
• Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing (NAICS code 325130).
• Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325180).
• Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing (NAICS code 331221).
• Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (NAICS code 334413).
• Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 335991).
• Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423220).
• Roofing, Sliding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423330).
• Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 423510).
• Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) (NAICS code 541712).
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
EPA is proposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for persons that manufacture (including import) or process certain chemical substances as described in Unit III.A. Persons who currently manufacture or process these chemical substances as discrete nanoscale materials would be required to notify EPA of certain information described in Unit III.C., including specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, use, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data. EPA is also proposing that any persons who intend to begin to manufacture or process chemical substances as discrete nanoscale materials after the effective date of this rule notify EPA of the same information at least 135 days before the intended date of commencement of manufacture or processing. The TSCA section 8(a) rule proposed here involves one-time reporting for existing discrete nanoscale forms of certain chemical substances and one-time reporting for new discrete nanoscale forms of certain chemical substances before they are manufactured or processed. A chemical substance as defined under TSCA section 3(2) does not include any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, medical device, pesticide or other excluded materials. Such materials are not be subject to this rule.
Included in this proposal are electronic reporting requirements similar to those established in 2013 for other kinds of information: EPA is proposing to require submitters to use EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), the Agency's electronic reporting portal, for all reporting under this rule. In the
This proposed rule and the discussion of the potential risks do not conclude and are not intended to conclude that nanoscale materials as a class, or specific uses of nanoscale materials, necessarily give rise to or are likely to cause harm to people or the environment. Rather, EPA would use information gathered through this reporting rule to determine if any further action under TSCA, including additional information collection, is needed. EPA intends to make conclusions on the basis of specific scientific evidence. As with current new chemical review of nanomaterials, each chemical substance manufactured at the nanoscale will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not with the presumption of either harm or safety, but rather its evaluation will be based on the specific nanoscale chemical substance's own properties. If adequate data are not available for the properties of the nanoscale chemical substance, EPA will use data on structural analogues. Being nanoscale is not itself an indication of, or criterion for, hazard or exposure potential. Any potential future restrictions on chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale would be tailored to protect against the specific harms identified for individual substances or categories. EPA would focus any toxicity concerns or data requirements based on available exposure or hazard data for specific nanoscale chemical substances. If the information provided indicates low risk, EPA would not need to consider further review or regulation of that nanoscale chemical substance unless subsequent information raises risk concerns. For example during review of new chemical substances that are nanoscale materials, EPA typically does not request inhalation toxicity data for chemical substances that are manufactured in forms or handled by processes where no inhalation exposure occurs.
EPA is not proposing to publish an inventory of chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale based on the information that would be collected pursuant to these proposed TSCA section 8(a) reporting requirements. EPA will make non-confidential information reported under the proposed rule available in ChemView (see
These reporting and recordkeeping requirements would assist EPA in its continuing evaluation of chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale, informed by available scientific, technical and economic evidence. This proposed rule is not intended to indicate restrictions or conclusions about the risks of chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale in general. Rather, the requirements would facilitate EPA's
Consistent with the June 9, 2011 memorandum on the Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials, this proposal is not making any finding about the potential risks of nanoscale materials in general or any specific nanoscale materials (Ref. 2). These generally applicable principles are relevant to promoting a balanced, science-based approach to regulating chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale and other applications of nanotechnology in a manner that protects human health, safety, and the environment without prejudging new technologies or creating unnecessary barriers to trade or hampering innovation. These principles build on the foundation provided by current regulatory statutes and do not supersede existing legal authorities. In this proposal, EPA's approach seeks to support the policy principle to “[s]eek and develop adequate information with respect to the potential effects of nanomaterials on human health and the environment and take into account new knowledge when it becomes available” (Ref. 2). As with current new chemical reviews of chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale, each nanoscale material would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not with the presumption of either harm or safety. Any evaluation will be based on the specific nanoscale material's own properties and those of any structural analogs.
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements for potential manufacturers and processors. This analysis (Ref. 3), which is available in the docket, is briefly summarized here.
Under the proposed rule, industry is conservatively estimated to incur a burden of approximately 206,098 hours in the first year and 22,755 hours in subsequent years, with costs of approximately $13.9 million and $1.5 million, respectively (see Chapter 3 in Ref. 3), while the Agency is expected to use approximately 6,539 hours in the first year and 723 hours in subsequent years, with costs of approximately $0.51 million and $0.06 million respectively (see Chapter 4 in Ref. 3). Discounted over a 10-year period at three and seven percent, total annualized costs are estimated to be approximately $2.80 million and $3.08 million, respectively. (Ref. 3.)
1.
2.
Small manufacturers and processors, as defined by EPA, are exempt from TSCA section 8(a) reporting requirements, unless the manufacture or processing is subject to a rule proposed or promulgated under TSCA sections 4, 5(b)(4), or 6, or an order under section 5(e). Under TSCA section 8(a)(3)(B), after consultation with the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA), EPA may prescribe standards for determining which manufacturers and processors qualify as small for purposes of reporting under a TSCA section 8(a) rule.
General provisions for TSCA section 8(a) rules appear in 40 CFR part 704 Subpart A. These provisions describe definitions, exemptions (including for articles and research and development), confidential business information claims, and recordkeeping that apply to TSCA section 8(a) rules. For example in 40 CFR 704.3 the definition of
In addition, the definitions in TSCA section 3 apply to this rulemaking.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence showing the differences that exist between chemical substances and chemical substances manufactured in nanoscale forms (Ref. 5). Chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale may have different or enhanced properties—for example, electrical, chemical, magnetic, mechanical, thermal, or optical properties—or features, such as improved hardness or strength, that are highly desirable for applications in commercial, medical, military, and environmental sectors (Ref. 6). These properties are a direct consequence of decreasing size, where surface area per unit of volume increases exponentially and quantum effects may appear in the low tens of nanometers and below. Small size itself can also be a desirable property of nanoscale materials. The small size can be exploited for miniaturization of applications/processes and/or stabilization or delivery of payloads to diverse environments or incorporation into diverse products.
Nanoscale materials have a range of potentially beneficial public and commercial applications, including medicine and public health, clean energy, pollution reduction and
Government, academic, and private sector scientists in multiple countries are performing research into the environmental and human health effects of diverse nanoscale materials, resulting in a substantial and rapidly growing body of scientific evidence. This research also indicates that, in biological systems or in the environment, not all materials in the nanoscale size range behave differently from larger sized materials of the same substance (Ref. 7). Recently, a governmental organization and an independent scientific committee have reviewed and summarized this evidence and offered views about the implications of this evidence for environmental and human health and safety.
In 2009, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a report (Ref. 8) that summarized the available scientific information about nanoscale materials and identified the following potential health and safety properties:
• “Nanomaterials have the greatest potential to enter the body through the respiratory system if they are airborne and in the form of respirable-sized particles (nanoparticles). They may also come into contact with the skin or be ingested.”
• “Based on results from human and animal studies, airborne nanoparticles can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract; and based on animal studies, nanoparticles can enter the blood stream, and translocate to other organs.”
• “Experimental studies in rats have shown that equivalent mass doses of insoluble incidental nanoparticles are more potent than large particles of similar composition in causing pulmonary inflammation and lung tumors. Results from in vitro cell culture studies with similar materials are generally supportive of the biological responses observed in animals.”
• “Experimental studies in animals, cell cultures, and cell-free systems have shown that changes in the chemical composition, crystal structure, and size of particles can influence their oxidant generation properties and cytotoxicity.”
• “Studies in workers exposed to aerosols of some manufactured or incidental microscopic (fine) and nanoscale (ultrafine) particles have reported adverse lung effects including lung function decrements and obstructive and fibrotic lung diseases. The implications of these studies to engineered nanoparticles, which may have different particle properties, are uncertain.”
• “Some nanomaterials may initiate catalytic reactions depending on their composition and structure that would not otherwise be anticipated based on their chemical composition.”
Earlier the same year, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), an independent scientific committee advising the European Commission's Health and Consumer Directorate, issued a report (Ref. 9) that identified properties similar to those identified in the NIOSH report:
• “Some specific hazards, discussed in the context of risk for human health, have been identified. These include the possibility of some nanoparticles to induce protein fibrillation, the possible pathological effects caused by specific types of carbon nanotubes, the induction of genotoxicity, and size effects in terms of biodistribution.”
• “For some nanomaterials, toxic effects on environmental organisms have been demonstrated, as well as the potential to transfer across environmental species, indicating a potential for bioaccumulation in species at the end of that part of the food chain.”
In another survey of scientific research on nanoscale materials (Ref. 10), the authors reported:
Many studies have examined the pro-inflammatory effects of manufactured nanoparticles, on the basis that their ability to cause inflammation is a major predictor of potential hazard in such particles. The first important finding was that nanoparticles have a more pronounced effect on inflammation, cell damage and cell stimulation than an equal mass of particles of the same material of greater size. This appears to hold true for materials as varied as carbon black, titanium dioxide, various metals and polystyrene. Surface area is the metric driving the pro-inflammatory effects and this is evident both
A report in the scientific literature has indicated that nanoscale polystyrene beads may cross the placental barrier (in an ex-vivo human placental perfusion model (Ref. 11). Another study found that nanoparticles could translocate to diverse organs following oral exposure in rodents. Once in these diverse sites and organs, the large surface area of nanoscale materials may facilitate increased reactivity and/or an inflammatory response, resulting in toxic effects (Ref. 12).
Two literature surveys describe a broad range of effects in non-mammalian species following exposure to nanoscale materials (Ref. 13 and 14). These include, for example, increased ventilation rates, mucus production, and pathologies, and related alteration of enzyme activities and indicators of oxidative stress in rainbow trout,
Published reports of human and ecological exposure to nanomaterials are also limited. For example, in its “Current Intelligence Bulletin 65: Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers” (Ref. 21), NIOSH summarized and evaluated the available published information on worker exposures to carbon nanotubes (CNT) and nanofibers (CNF). NIOSH determined that, although the potential for worker exposure to CNT and CNF can occur throughout the life cycle of CNT- and CNF-product use (processing, use, disposal, recycling), the extent to which workers are exposed has not been completely characterized. “Comprehensive workplace exposure evaluations are needed to characterize and quantify worker exposure to CNT and CNF at various job tasks and operations, and to determine what control measures are the most effective in reducing worker exposures.” “Data are particularly needed on workplace exposures to CNT and CNF, as well as information on whether in-place exposure control measures (
There are many scientific questions about the impacts of chemical
Some of the same special properties that make nanoscale materials useful are also properties that may cause some nanoscale materials to pose risks to humans and the environment, under specific conditions.
As described in the 2008 TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances—General Approach, many nanoscale materials are considered chemical substances as defined under TSCA section 3(2) (Ref. 23). Nanoscale forms of chemical substances that are not on the TSCA Inventory in any form are considered new chemical substances that require reporting under TSCA section 5. EPA has assessed over 170 of these nanoscale materials as new chemical substances and taken action to control exposures to prevent any potential unreasonable risks to human health or the environment pending development of information which will allow EPA to more fully assess those risks. Nanoscale materials based on chemical substances already on the TSCA Inventory are considered existing chemical substances. These nanoscale materials do not require reporting as new chemical substances because they are nanoscale forms of chemical substances already in commerce.
EPA developed a voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP or “the program”) to complement and support its regulatory activities on chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale. EPA conducted the program from January 2008 to December 2009. Thirty one companies or associations submitted information to EPA for 132 chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale with available information on how those nanoscale materials were manufactured, processed or used. For more details on the NMSP, see the program's interim report, a copy of which is in the docket (Ref. 24). EPA solicited existing data and information, on a voluntary basis, from manufacturers, processors, and users of chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale to expeditiously develop knowledge about commercially available nanoscale materials. In addition, the program was designed to identify and encourage use of risk management practices in developing and commercializing chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale. EPA also participated in a series of National Nanotechnology Initiative public workshops, including co-Chairing a public Risk Management Methods workshop. This workshop was also useful in further identifying additional considerations in risk management practices towards developing and commercializing chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale of interest to EPA. In the NMSP interim report, which was based on the information EPA received prior to January 2009, EPA identified data needs for existing nanoscale material production, uses, and exposures. For example, in the report EPA estimated that companies provided information on only about 10 percent of the chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale that may be commercially available in 2009.
To address some of the data needs identified in the NMSP interim report, EPA is proposing reporting requirements under TSCA section 8(a) for persons who are manufacturing, or processing chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale or intend to manufacture or process these nanoscale materials for commercial purposes. This information would facilitate EPA's evaluation of the materials and determination if any further action under TSCA, including additional information collection, is needed. By gathering data regarding the characteristics, uses, and exposure pertaining to chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale, EPA will create a more robust database that will expand the Agency's understanding of commercially available nanoscale substances including available environmental health and safety data and risk management practices.
EPA is proposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers and processors of certain chemical substances pursuant to TSCA section 8(a).
EPA is proposing the combination of these three factors rather than simply size to distinguish between different chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale so that unintended variation in size range between production batches would not trigger TSCA section 8(a) reporting. Also, EPA is proposing not to rely solely on process changes because there may be process changes that are not intended to change the material produced but rather intended to improve the efficiency of the process or to use a cheaper reactant. EPA is focusing on the properties of
For the purposes of this proposed rule, specific surface area is the ratio of the surface area of the nanoscale material to its mass or the area of the surface of the nanoscale material divided by volume. This is an important factor because chemical reactions take place at the surface of the material. Thus, the higher the surface area, the greater the chemical reactivity, which is an important consideration for human health toxicity and environmental toxicity assessments. Specific surface area is the ratio of the area of the surface of a nanoscale material divided by the mass (m
Dispersion stability is the ability of a dispersion to resist changes in properties over time and can be defined in terms of the change in one or more physical properties over a given time period. See ISO/TR 13097:2013 “Guidelines for characterization of dispersion stability” (Ref. 26) as an example.
Surface reactivity is the degree to which the nanoscale material will react with biological systems. The surface reactivity of the form of a chemical substance is dependent upon factors such as redox potential which is a measure of the tendency of an entity to lose or acquire electrons, and photocatalytic activity, including the potential to generate free radicals. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and free radicals are important in considering toxicity for these materials.
A nanoscale form of a particular chemical substance with a different morphology or shape would also qualify as a discrete form. Examples include spheres, rods, ellipsoids, cylinders, needles, wires, fibers, cages, hollow shells, trees, flowers, rings, tori, cones, and sheets. Nanoscale forms of a particular chemical substance that are coated with different chemical substances would be considered discrete forms for each chemical coating.
EPA is proposing to exclude chemical substances which dissociate completely in water to form ions that are less than 1 nanometer. This exclusion would not apply to chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale materials that release ions but do not dissociate in water to form those ions. EPA believes that the chemical substances that would be excluded do not exhibit new properties when their size falls in the range of 1-100 nanometers and manufacture or processing such substances at the nanoscale should therefore not be subject to the reporting requirements of the proposed rule. EPA is seeking comment to identify other water soluble compounds that should be excluded from reporting and the reasons for excluding them.
EPA is proposing to exclude from the requirements of this rule nanoclays, zinc oxide and chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale as part of a film on a surface. The Agency believes that information collected on these materials would be of limited value because either they have been well-characterized or they present little exposure potential. EPA requests comment on these proposed exclusions and whether other chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale should be excluded. EPA requests that commenters explain why they believe the chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale should be excluded.
EPA is proposing an alternate exemption for the existing small manufacturer exemption. Under other TSCA section 8(a) rules, a company qualifies as a small manufacturer in 40 CFR 704.3 by meeting either of the following two standards. The first is that sales of the company are less than $40 million per year and the company does not manufacture more than 100,000 pounds annually of an individual substance at any individual site owned or controlled by the company. The second is that sales are less than $4 million regardless of the quantity manufactured.
EPA is proposing a different exemption for purposes of this rule by eliminating the first standard and defining a small manufacturer or processor as any company with sales of less than $4 million. The 100,000-pound threshold in the existing exemption did not contemplate typical production volumes for chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale. EPA has reviewed over 200 chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale in the NMSP and the new chemicals program under TSCA. At least 170 of those
EPA proposes that persons who manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance at any time during the three years prior to the final effective date of the rule would report to EPA six months after the final effective date of the rule. EPA also proposes a continuing requirement that persons who intend to manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance on or after the effective date of the rule would report to EPA at least 135 days before commencement of manufacture or processing.
The 135-day period is based on EPA's experience with PMN submissions. TSCA section 8(a) applies to a person “who manufactures or processes or proposes to manufacture or process a chemical substance”. A company proposes to manufacture or process a chemical substance by forming the intent to do so. Based on EPA's experience, persons form the intent to manufacture or process chemical substances at least 135 days ahead of time. This belief is based on EPA's experience with Premanufacture Notice (PMN) submissions and subsequent notices of commencement (NOCs). Pursuant to section 5(a)(1) of TSCA and 40 CFR 720.22, PMNs are submitted by a person who intends to manufacture a chemical substance, at least 90 days before commencing manufacture. Under 40 CFR 720.102, a company that has submitted a PMN for which the statutory 90-day review period has expired and which has commenced manufacture of that substance must submit an NOC to EPA within 30 days following commencement. For fiscal years 2009-2011, EPA received 1,723 PMNs. Based on EPA's review of NOC receipt date information, EPA determined that NOCs were received within 45 days of completion of the 90-day PMN review for only 16% of these submitted PMNs. Thus, for 84% of the submitted PMNs, the intent to manufacture was formed at least 135 days (
This TSCA section 8(a) rule proposes one-time reporting of certain information, including specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, use, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data.
EPA developed an information reporting form for the NMSP (Ref. 27) which has been slightly modified for purposes of this proposed rule. The same information that was requested in the NMSP would be required by this proposed rule, including information on specific chemical identity, material characterization, physical chemical properties, production volume, use, methods of manufacturing and processing, exposure and release information, and existing data concerning the environmental and health effects. The information would be reported on a form similar to that used in the NMSP (Ref. 27). Any person required to report under this proposed rule would supply the information identified in the form to the extent it is known to or reasonably ascertainable by them. A draft of the proposed reporting form (EPA Form No. 7710-[tbd]) is available in the docket for public review (Ref. 28).
EPA is requesting comment on whether any information proposed to be collected requested in this proposed rule is duplicative of information collected under other federal statutes and, thus should be excluded. Please identify the statute and the information that you believe is duplicative.
EPA is proposing electronic reporting similar to the requirements established in 2013 for submitting other information under TSCA (see proposed 704.20(e)). EPA is proposing to require submitters to use EPA's CDX, the Agency's electronic reporting portal, for all reporting under this rule. In 2013 (Ref. 1), EPA finalized a rule to require electronic reporting of certain information submitted to the Agency under TSCA sections 4, 5, 8(a) and 8(d). The final rule follows two previous rules requiring similar electronic reporting of information submitted to EPA for TSCA Chemical Data Reporting and for Pre-Manufacture Notifications. In proposing to require similar electronic reporting under this rule, EPA intends to save time, improve data quality and increase efficiencies for both the submitters and the Agency.
EPA developed the Chemical Information Submission System (CISS) for use in submitting data for TSCA sections 4, 8(a), and 8(d) electronically to the Agency. The tool is available for use with Windows, Macs, Linux, and UNIX based computers, using “Extensible Markup Language” (XML) specifications for efficient data transmission across the Internet. CISS, a web-based reporting tool, provides user-friendly navigation, works with CDX to secure online communication, creates a completed Portable Document Format (PDF) for review prior to submission, and enables data, reports, and other information to be submitted easily as PDF attachments, or by other electronic standards, such as XML.
EPA is proposing to require submitters to follow the same submission procedures used for other TSCA submissions,
Users who have previously registered with CDX for other TSCA submissions, Chemical Data Reporting, or the Toxic Release Inventory TRI-ME web reporting flow, would be able to add the “Submission for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Program (CSPP)” CDX flow to their current registration, and use the CISS web-based reporting tool.
All submitters would be required to use CISS to prepare their submissions. CISS guides users through a “hands-on” process of creating an electronic submission. Once a user completes the relevant data fields, attaches appropriate PDF files, or other file types, such as XML files, and completes metadata information, the web-based tool validates the submission by performing a basic error check and makes sure all the required fields and attachments are provided and complete. Further instructions on submitting voluntary submissions, such as under MOUs, are available, and instructions for uploading PDF attachments or other file types, such as XML, and completing metadata information would be available through CISS reporting guidance.
CISS, a web-based reporting tool, also allows the user to choose “Print,” “Save,” or “Transmit through CDX.” When “Transmission through CDX” is selected, the user is asked to provide the user name and password that was created during the CDX registration process. CISS then encrypts the file and submits it via CDX. The user will login to the application and check the status of their submissions. Upon successful receipt of the submission by EPA, the status of the submissions will be flagged as “Completed.” The CDX inbox is currently used to notify the users of any correspondence related to user registration. Information on accessing the CDX user inbox is provided in the guidance document for CDX at
EPA believes that electronic reporting reduces the reporting burden for submitters by reducing the cost and time required to review, edit, and transmit data to the Agency. It also allows submitters to share a draft submission within their organization, and more easily save a copy for their records or future use. The resource and time requirements to review and process data by the Agency will also be reduced and document storage and retrieval will require fewer resources. EPA expects to benefit from receiving electronic submissions and communicating back electronically with submitters.
Any person submitting a reporting form could claim any part or all of the form as CBI. Any information which is claimed as confidential will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent and by the means of the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
A TSCA section 8(a) rule may require persons subject to the rule to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them, but may not require persons to develop test data for submission to the Agency. However, in view of the lack of information regarding chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale, EPA would encourage respondents to this proposed rule to provide the Agency with any relevant data on chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale they decide to develop.
Persons choosing to develop test data should provide data that conform to the Good Laboratory Practice Standards, which are codified at 40 CFR part 792. There are also standard test methods available for properties and information identified in the proposed rule from a number of sources. Some of these sources include but are not limited to ASTM International, the International Organization for Standardization, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. EPA encourages persons who intend to conduct testing to consult with the Agency before selecting a protocol for testing a chemical substance manufactured at the nanoscale. EPA would also encourage persons that would be required to submit TSCA section 8(a) data under this proposed rule to provide information on the potential benefits regarding the reportable chemical substance.
EPA is seeking public comment on all aspects of this proposed rule. In addition to specific requests for comment included throughout this document, EPA is interested in comments pertaining to the specific issues discussed in this unit. EPA also anticipates conducting a public meeting during the comment period to further discuss these and any other issues concerning the proposed rule.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these references and other information considered by EPA. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical contact listed under
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this proposed rule as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted this proposed rulemaking to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB comments have been documented in the public docket for this rulemaking as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of Executive Order 12866.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an information collection request subject to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements in 40 CFR part 704 related to TSCA section 8(a) reporting rules have already been approved by OMB under the PRA. That information collection request (ICR) has been assigned EPA ICR No. 1198.10 and OMB Control No. 2070-0067. Because this proposed rule would involve revised information collection activities that require additional OMB approval, EPA has prepared an addendum to the currently approved ICR. The addendum, identified under EPA ICR No. 2517.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-NEW (Ref. 29), is available in the docket and is briefly summarized here.
If an entity were to submit a report to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 137 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). As presented in the economic analyses and the ICR addenda, EPA estimates that the proposed TSCA section 8(a) rule would create an industry burden of approximately 206,098 hours in the first year and 22,755 hours in subsequent years.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a docket for this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0572. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 6, 2015, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 6, 2015. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
Under the RFA, small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business, as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
A small business exemption exists under TSCA section 8(a) reporting rules, at 40 CFR 704.5(f). For this action, EPA is proposing to modify the exemption. EPA analyzed potential small business impacts from this proposed rule using both the SBA employee size standards and the TSCA sales-based definition of small business. EPA estimates that up to 174 small businesses may be impacted by the proposed TSCA section 8(a) reporting rule and evaluated the number that may incur costs at below 1%, between 1% and 3%, and above 3% of sales. EPA estimates that all 174 small businesses identified would incur costs below 1% of sales.
EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities that are not exempt from reporting and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing rules under TSCA section 8(a), State, local and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local or Tribal government would be impacted by this rulemaking. In addition, this action will not result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments, and that the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, do not apply to this action.
This action does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action does not have tribal implications because it will not have any effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of Executive Order 13045 has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Nevertheless, the information obtained by the reporting required by this proposed rule will be used to inform the Agency's decision-making process regarding chemical substances to which children may be disproportionately exposed. This information will also assist the Agency and others in determining whether the chemical substances addressed in this proposed rule present potential risks, allowing the Agency and others to take appropriate action to investigate and mitigate those risks.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use.
Since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. However, the Agency believes that the information collected under this proposed rule, if finalized, will assist EPA and others in determining the potential hazards and risks associated with various chemicals manufactured processed, and used at the nanoscale. Although not directly impacting environmental justice-related concerns, this information will enable the Agency to better protect human health and the environment, including in low-income and minority communities.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous materials, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is proposed to be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2607(a).
An
An
A
(1) The change in the reportable chemical substance is due to all of the following:
(i) There is a change in process to affect a change in size and/or a change in one or more of the properties of the reportable chemical substances identified in (iii);
(ii) There is a size variation in the mean particle size that is greater than 7 times the standard deviation of the mean particle size (+/− 7 times the standard deviation); and
(iii) There is a measured change in at least one of the following properties,
(2) The reportable chemical substance has a different morphology. Examples of morphologies include but are not limited to sphere, rod, ellipsoid, cylinder, needle, wire, fiber, cage, hollow shell, tree, flower, ring, torus, cone, and sheet; or
(3) A reportable chemical substance that is coated with another chemical substance or mixture at the end of manufacturing or processing has a coating that consists of a different chemical substance or mixture.
The
A
A
(1) Manufacturers and processors of a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance during the three years prior to the final effective date of the rule must report except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Persons who propose to manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance after the final effective date of the rule which was not reported under paragraph (b)(1) must report except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c)
(1) The following chemical substances are not subject to reporting under this section:
(i) Zinc oxide
(ii) Nanoclays
(iii) Chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale as part of a film on a surface
(iv) DNA
(v) RNA
(vi) Proteins
(vii) Chemical substances which dissociate completely in water to form ions that are smaller than 1 nanometer.
(2) Persons who submitted a TSCA chemical notice under 40 CFR part 720, 721, or 723 for a reportable chemical substance on or after January 1, 2005 are not required to submit a report for the reportable chemical substance submitted except where the person manufactured or processed a discrete form of the reportable chemical substance.
(3) Section 704.5 (a) through (e) apply to reporting under this section. Small manufacturers and processors as defined in paragraph (a) of this section are exempt from reporting under this section.
(4) Persons who submitted some or all of the required information for a reportable chemical substance as part of the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program are not required to report the information previously submitted except where the person manufactures or processes a discrete form of the reportable chemical substance.
(1) The common or trade name, the specific chemical identity including the correct Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name and available Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number, and the molecular structure of each chemical substance or mixture. Information must be reported as specified in § 720.45.
(2) Material characteristics including particle size, morphology, and surface modifications.
(3) Physical/chemical properties.
(4) The maximum weight percentage of impurities and byproducts resulting from the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of each chemical substance.
(5)(i) Persons described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must report the annual production volume for the previous three years before the effective date of the final rule and an estimate of the maximum production volume for any consecutive 12-month period during the next two years of production after the final effective date of this rule.
(ii) Persons described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must report the estimated maximum 12 month production volume and the estimated maximum production volume for any consecutive 12 month period during the first three years of production.
(iii) Estimates for paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section must be on 100% chemical basis of the discrete form of the solid nanoscale material.
(6) Use information describing the category of each use by function and application, estimates of the amount manufactured or processed for each category of use, and estimates of the percentage in the formulation for each use.
(7) Detailed methods of manufacturing or processing.
(8) Exposure information with estimates of the number of individuals exposed in their places of employment, descriptions and duration of the occupational tasks that cause such
(9) Release information with estimates of the amounts released, descriptions and duration of the activities that cause such releases, and whether releases are directly to the environment or to control technology.
(10) Risk management practices describing protective equipment for individuals, engineering controls, control technologies used, any hazard warning statement, label, safety data sheet, customer training, or other information which is provided to any person who is reasonably likely to be exposed to this substance regarding protective equipment or practices for the safe handing, transport, use, or disposal of the substance.
(11) Existing data concerning the environmental and health effects.
(1)
(2)
(i) To access the CDX portal, go to
(ii) The CISS tool is accessible in CDX.
(1) Persons specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must report the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section within six months after the final effective date of the rule.
(2) Persons specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must report the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section at least 135 days before commencing manufacture or processing of the chemical substance.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment and reply comment deadlines.
In this document, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) extends the deadline for filing comments and reply comments on its 911 Governance and Accountability Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (911 Governance NPRM), which sought comment on mechanisms to ensure, in cooperation with state and local partners, that the nation's 911 governance structure keeps pace with evolving technology so that all entities providing 911 service capabilities remain accountable for reliable 911 call completion and accurate situational awareness.
The comment period for the proposed rule published January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3191) is reopened. Comments were due on or before March 23, 2015, and reply comments are due on or before April 21, 2015.
You may submit comments to the 911 Governance NPRM, identified by PS Docket Nos. 14-193 and 13-75, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Eric Schmidt, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1214,
This is a summary of the Bureau's Order in PS Docket Nos. 14-193 and 13-75, DA 15-299, adopted and released on March 6, 2015, and pertaining to the proposed rule published January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3191). The complete text of this document is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at
The Bureau released an Order on March 6, 2015, which extends the comment and reply comment filing deadlines for the 911 Governance NPRM, 80 FR 3191, January 22, 2015. The Order responded to a joint petition by the Association for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS); the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO); the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies (iCERT); the National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA); the National Emergency Number Association (NENA); and the United States Telecom Association (USTA) seeking an extension of the comment period. Pursuant to sections 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and pursuant to the authority delegated in 47 CFR 0.191, 0.392, and 1.46, the Bureau extended the deadline for filing comments until March 23, 2015, and extends the deadline for reply comments until April 21, 2015.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
90-day petition finding, request for information.
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by June 5, 2015.
You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0157, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Jason Rueter, NMFS Southeast Region, 727-824-5350; or Ron Salz, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8171.
On September 18, 2014, we received a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to list the Gulf of Mexico population of Bryde's whale (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA a listing determination addresses a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy”; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form
Court decisions clarify the appropriate scope and limitations of the NMFS' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in making a determination whether a petitioned action “may be warranted.” As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a “strong likelihood” or a “high probability” that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.
We evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition, including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
We have determined, based on the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files, that substantial information is presented in the petition indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The petition contains a recommended administrative measure, provides the scientific and common name, contains a detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, provides information on the status of the species, and includes supporting documentation. Below is a synopsis of our analysis of the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files.
The Bryde's whale (
Like other rorquals, the Bryde's whale has twin blowholes behind a protruding ridge and two rows of baleen plates instead of teeth. Good descriptions of the Bryde's whale can be found in Olsen (1913) and Best (1977). These reports note that the Bryde's whale is dark smoky-gray dorsally and usually white ventrally. It is elongated, with a small, curved dorsal fin, and slender, pointed flippers. These flippers are bluish-black dorsally, grey ventrally and can reach approximately 10 percent of the total length of the animal. The throat area is dark bluish-grey, with 42-54 ventral grooves or furrows that extend back at least to the umbilicus. It has around 280 (ranging between 255 and 365) relatively stiff baleen plates of up to 0.5 m in length on each side of the mouth. Each plate has very coarse bristles forming a “bush” at the top. A median groove extending from the umbilicus to the genital aperture is typically present.
Bryde's whales are generally found in a range of habitats and water depths. Their distribution in the Gulf of Mexico appears highly limited to a relatively small area off the Florida Panhandle along the shelf edge in DeSoto Canyon at depths between 100 and 1,000 m (
The petitioner presented information on the status of the population of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale, and additional information was also available in our files. There have been four point estimates of population size made since 1991 for the northern Gulf of Mexico (
The petition requests that we designate Bryde's whales in the Gulf of Mexico as an endangered DPS and presents arguments that Bryde's whales in the Gulf of Mexico meet NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (together, the Services) requirements for identifying a DPS eligible for listing. Our DPS policy identifies two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs. A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors—quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance will then be considered in light of Congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1stSession) that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In carrying out this examination, the Services will consider available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
The petitioner asserts that genetic and morphological information is evidence the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale population qualifies as a distinct population segment under the ESA. The petition cites Rosel and Wilcox (2014) as evidence the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale population is as evolutionarily distinct as other recognized subspecies within the Bryde's whale complex. The petition also includes information indicating those whales in the Gulf of Mexico are residents and may be geographically isolated from other Bryde's whales. Analyzing DNA sequence data from three mitochondrial DNA and nine nuclear genes, and examining 42 nuclear microsatellite loci for 21 Bryde's whale samples, Rosel and Wilcox (2014) found that “Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale haplotypes are evolutionarily distinct from other members of the Bryde's whale complex.” Further, Rosel and Wilcox (2014) found that Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whales are as divergent as the two already recognized subspecies of Bryde's whales. Rosel and Wilcox (2014) also stated that the divergence is as great as two species generally are from one another, thus we find that the petition presents substantial evidence that the DPS policy's criteria for discreteness may be met for the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale.
The petitioner also argues that the Bryde's whale in the Gulf of Mexico is significant because of its unique genetic characteristics, its behavior and morphology, and because it is the only resident baleen whale population in the Gulf of Mexico. The petitioners cite the findings of Rosel and Wilcox (2014) and state the genetic differentiation shown by the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale makes it evolutionarily significant. The petitioners also argue that the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale is behaviorally and morphologically different from other Bryde's whales. Behaviorally, the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whales use a call that differs in frequency and repetitive structure from variants used in other Bryde's whale populations (Širović
The petitioner states the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale is threatened by three (out of five) ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors: present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The petition cites the following threats as contributing to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale: (1) Ship strikes, (2) acoustic impacts, (3) oil spills, (4) other toxic chemicals, (5) ocean acidification, (6) entanglement in fishing gear, and (7) trophic impacts due to overfishing. We believe that three of these threats (numbers 1, 6, and 7) should be categorized under the Section 4(a)(1) category “other natural or manmade factors.”
Ship strikes are a recognized source of whale mortality (Laist
The petition cites numerous sources detailing negative effects of acoustic impacts on marine mammals, including hearing loss, masking of biologically significant sounds, and disruption in foraging and other vital behaviors (NRC, 2003; Weilgart, 2007; CBD, 2012). The petition cites Azzara
The petition also cites seismic exploration using airguns as a threat that would degrade Bryde's whale communication, based on the frequency overlap between Bryde's whale calls and the peak energy release of the airguns. Based on reports from other baleen whale species (
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2), we find substantial information was presented on the “present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range” (
Because we have found that substantial information was presented to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted, we will commence a status review of the species. During our status review, we will fully address all five of the factors set out in Section 4(a)(1). At the conclusion of the status review, we will determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. As previously noted, a “may be warranted” finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we are to commence a review of the status of the species and make a determination within 12 months of receiving the petition as to whether the petitioned action is warranted. We intend that any final action resulting from this review be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we open a 60-day public comment period to solicit information from the public, government agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties on the delineation of, threats to, and status of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale including: (1) Historical and current distribution, abundance, and population trends; (2) life history and biological information including adaptations to ecological settings, genetic analyses to assess paternal contribution and population connectivity, and movement patterns to determine population mixing; (3) management measures and regulatory mechanisms designed to protect the species; (4) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; and (5) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and habitat. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(b)) require that a listing determination be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data, without consideration of possible economic or other impacts of the determination. During the 60-day public comment period we are seeking information related only to the status of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale.
A complete list of references is available upon request from the Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resource Division (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Initial petition finding; request for information.
We (NMFS) announce an initial finding on a petition to identify the Saint John River population of shortnose sturgeon (
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by June 5, 2015.
You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2015-0040, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
A copy of the petition and related materials are available upon request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at:
Lisa Manning, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8466.
On September 24, 2014, we received a petition from Dr. Michael J. Dadswell, Dr. Matthew K. Litvak, and Mr. Jonathan Barry regarding the population of shortnose sturgeon (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint policy issued by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) clarifies the interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment,” or DPS for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (“DPS Policy,” 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The DPS Policy identifies two criteria for determining whether a population is a DPS: (1) The population must be “discrete” in relation to the remainder of the taxon (species or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the population must be “significant” to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs. Congress has instructed the Secretary to exercise authority to recognize DPS's “ * * * sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates that such action is warranted.” (Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st
A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1); 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species shall be removed from the list if the Secretary of Commerce determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the species' status, that the species is no longer threatened or endangered because of one or a combination of the section 4(a)(1) factors. The regulations provide that a species listed under the ESA may be delisted only if such data substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons:
(1)
(2)
(3)
A determination whether to revise a species-level listing to recognize one or more DPSs in place of a species-level listing involves a judgment as to which approach for managing the species best furthers the purposes of the ESA. We will make that determination prior to making a final finding on the petition.
At the initial finding stage on a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, the statute requires that we determine whether the petition has presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
At the initial finding stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition, including references provided, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files which indicates that the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the initial finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating that the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive initial finding.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by other organizations, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for making an initial finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (
The shortnose sturgeon is a bony fish (Class Osteichthyes) that retains many primitive physical characteristics that reflect its ancient lineage. Distinctive features include a protective armor of bony plates called “scutes” that extend longitudinally from the base of the skull to the caudal peduncle; a subterminal, protractile tube-like mouth; and chemosensory barbels. The general body shape is cylindrical, tapering at the head and caudal peduncle, and the upper lobe of the tail is longer than lower lobe. Shortnose sturgeon vary in color but are generally dark brown to olive or black on the dorsal surface, lighter along the row of lateral scutes, and nearly white on the ventral surface. Adults have no teeth but possess bony plates in the
Shortnose sturgeon occur along the East Coast of North America in rivers, estuaries, and marine waters. The current species' range is thought to extend from the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, south to the St. Johns River, Florida (NMFS 1998). Shortnose sturgeon are “anadromous,” meaning they are born in freshwater, migrate to the ocean, then migrate back into freshwater as adults to spawn. However, some shortnose sturgeon populations rarely leave their natal river or associated estuary.
Shortnose sturgeon are relatively long-lived and slow to mature. Female sturgeon can live up to 67 years, but males seldom exceed 30 years of age. Males and females mature at about the same length, around 1.5-1.8 feet (45-55 cm), throughout their range. However, age at maturity varies across the range due the clinal variation in growth rates. Shortnose sturgeon also exhibit sexually dimorphic growth patterns across latitude: males mature at 2-3 years in Georgia and at 10-11 years in the Saint John River; females mature at 4-5 years in Georgia and at 12-18 years in the Saint John River (NMFS 2010). In general, males are thought to spawn every other year, but may spawn annually in some rivers (Kieffer and Kynard 1996; NMFS 1998). Females appear to spawn less frequently—approximately every three years to five years (Dadswell 1979).
The petition requests that we identify the Saint John River shortnose sturgeon (SJRSS) as a DPS and make a finding that this DPS does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA. In effect, the petition requests the delisting of the SJRSS, which is currently part of the range-wide listing of shortnose sturgeon at the taxonomic level of species. The administrative actions requested in the petition are clear, and the petition is supported by a detailed narrative justification and appropriate references. The petition provides information regarding the status of, and threats to, the SJRSS. The petition does not request any DPS delineations or change in ESA status for the remainder of the species, and does not provide a discussion of the abundance, distribution, status or threats to shortnose sturgeon within the U.S. portion of the species' range. The Petitioners state that while they understand their petition may “trigger a range-wide status review of shortnose sturgeon,” they “respectfully request that the designation of the SJRSS population be treated independently and published on its own merits and schedule.”
As stated previously, to be considered a DPS, a population must be both discrete from other populations of the species and significant to the species as a whole (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Under the DPS Policy, a population may be considered “discrete” if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
The petition states that the SJRSS is markedly separated from other populations as a result of “geography, range, and physical constraints.” The petition does not specify, nor are we aware of, any “physical constraints” that preclude mixing of the Saint John River (SJR) population with other populations. However, the petition and references in our files suggest that there is no, or only limited, spatial overlap in the range of shortnose sturgeon from the SJR and rivers just to the south in Maine (
The petition also asserts that the SJRSS can be considered “discrete,” because it is delimited by the U.S.-Canada border, on either side of which the species experiences significant differences in the control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. In support of this assertion, the petition points to the differing conservation status that shortnose sturgeon has under the ESA in the United States and the SARA in Canada. The shortnose sturgeon is listed as “endangered” under the ESA, and the SJRSS is listed as “special concern” under the SARA. Resulting differences include that under the ESA, all “take” of endangered species such as the
Under the DPS Policy, if a population segment is found to be discrete, then its biological and ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; and (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996).
The petition states that the SJRSS meets the “significance” criterion of the DPS Policy on the basis of all four of the considerations listed in the policy. First, the petition asserts that the SJRSS persists in a unique ecological setting, because it occurs at the northern extreme of the species' range. Second, the petition states that loss of this population would result in a significant gap in the range of the species, and, third, that the SJRSS is the “only known surviving natural occurrence of this DPS taxon in its historic range.” Lastly, the petition states that the SJRSS differs markedly from other populations of shortnose sturgeon in its genetic characteristics.
We agree that the SJRSS may have markedly different genetic characteristics from other shortnose sturgeon populations, because it has some morphological, behavioral, and genetic differences from other populations. We do not, however, find sufficient information in the petition or cited references to suggest that the riverine, estuarine, or marine habitats of the SJRSS represent a unique ecological setting for the taxon. Supporting information provided in the petition pertained to the life history and habitat use patterns of Atlantic salmon and the Gulf of Maine region; this information is not particularly relevant or explanatory with respect to the uniqueness of SJRSS habitat or shortnose sturgeon. We also find relatively limited support in the petition and references provided to suggest that the loss of this particular population, which occurs at the northernmost portion of the species' range, would result in a significant gap in the species' range. The species is broadly distributed along the East Coast of North America and highly mobile; furthermore, estimated rates of migration are higher among rivers within the northeast region versus the mid-Atlantic region (King
Overall, we conclude that the information presented in the petition and supporting references suggests that the SJRSS may meet the “discreteness” and the “significance” criteria of the DPS Policy and thus may qualify as a DPS. Therefore, we proceeded to review the petition and information readily available in our files to evaluate whether this potential DPS should continue to be protected under the ESA.
The status of the SJRSS was most recently reviewed in 2005 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which is the official scientific body established under SARA responsible for assessing extinction risk of wildlife species in Canada. This most recent assessment concluded that the status of the SJRSS had not changed, and that the population still warranted a status of “special concern (SC),” which is defined under SARA as “a wildlife species that may become a threatened or endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats” (S.C. 2002, c. 29). The 2005 COSEWIC assessment also indicated that the SJRSS met the criterion for “threatened” under SARA based on criterion D2 (
The 2005 COSEWIC assessment states that incidental bycatch in fisheries, poaching, and habitat loss and degradation are threats to the SJRSS. The petition provides no data or references with which to evaluate the level or trends in bycatch or poaching.
The only comprehensive population estimate available for consideration in connection with this finding for the SJRSS population comes from Dadswell's (1979) mark-recapture study in 1973-1977. Dadswell (1979) calculated a Jolly-Seber population estimate of 18,000 (± 30%) adults. Thus, the overall population trend is “unknown” (COSEWIC 2005). However, some evidence suggests the population has remained fairly stable since the 1970's. Size distributions and growth rates for sturgeon sampled in the SJR during 1998-2000 are similar to those measured and estimated for sturgeon sampled in 1973-1977 (COSEWIC 2005). Both time periods indicate a broad range of size and age-classes. A possible indicator of the stability of the SJRSS mentioned in the petition is the stable catch of adult shortnose sturgeon in a 26-year old annual fishing derby on the Kennebecasis River, a tributary of the Saint John. Catch records or some assessment of the catch records from this tournament were not provided in the petition or supporting references, so this statement is difficult to verify at this time. More recent studies conducted in overwintering areas have produced partial adult population estimates of 4,836 ± 69 in 2005 and 3,852-5,222 in 2009 and 2011, indicating persistence at the overwintering sites over this time period and suggesting stable abundance (Li
In summary, we find that the shortnose sturgeon within the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada, may meet the “discreteness” and “significance” criteria of the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) and thus may qualify as a DPS. We also find that, given the available information regarding the seemingly stable and thus potentially sufficiently high abundance of the shortnose sturgeon in the SJR, the SJRSS, if considered on its own, may not meet the criteria for listing under the ESA. Revisions to the current species-level listing for shortnose sturgeon therefore may be warranted, if we determine it would best further the purposes of the ESA. While there is substantial uncertainty regarding the current population size, trends, and threats, we conclude that the petition and references provide sufficient indication that the petitioned action may be warranted.
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted for the SJRSS. We hereby announce the initiation of a status review to determine whether the petitioned population meets the DPS criteria and whether the current species-level listing should be revised.
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to the petitioned actions. Specifically, we are soliciting data and information, including unpublished data and information, in the following areas: (1) Recent genetic analyses of populations of shortnose sturgeon; (2) current distribution and abundance of shortnose sturgeon range-wide; (3) movements, migratory patterns and habitat use of shortnose sturgeon along the northeast coast of the United States and in Canadian waters; (4) historical and current population trends for shortnose sturgeon within the Saint John River; (6) past, current and future threats, including bycatch rates and any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the SJRSS; (7) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the SJRSS and their habitat; and (8) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice and request for nominations.
Pursuant to Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C 2155(c)(1)) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary), in coordination with the United States Trade Representative (USTR), intends to renew the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) for Trade and the six Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees (ATACs) for Trade. In addition, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is requesting nominations for persons to serve on these seven committees for a term of 4 years. The APAC provides advice on the operation of various existing U.S. trade agreements and on negotiating objectives for new trade agreements, as well as other matters arising from the administration of U.S. trade policy. The ATACs provide advice and information regarding trade issues that affect both domestic and foreign production in the commodities of the respective sector, drawing upon the technical competence and experience of the members.
Written nominations for this round of appointments must be received no later than April 30, 2015. Any applications received after April 30, 2015 will be considered for future appointments (
All nomination materials should be mailed (
Inquiries may be directed to JonAnn Flemings or Steffon Brown by telephone at (202) 720-4934; by fax to (202) 720-6103; or by Email to
The APAC and the ATACs are authorized by sections 135(c)(1) and (2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-618, 19 U.S.C. 2155). The purpose of these committees is to advise the Secretary and the USTR concerning agricultural trade issues and policy. The committees are intended to ensure that representative elements of the private sector have an opportunity to express their views to the U.S. Government.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II), FAS gives notice that the Secretary and USTR intend to renew the APAC and the following six ATACs:
• Animals and Animal Products;
• Fruits and Vegetables;
• Grains, Feed, Oilseeds and Planting Seeds;
• Processed Foods;
• Sweeteners and Sweetener Products; and,
• Tobacco, Cotton and Peanuts.
In 1974, Congress established a private sector advisory committee system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests. The private sector advisory committee system currently consists of three tiers:Show citation box
• The President's Advisory Committee on Trade and Policy Negotiations;
• Five general policy advisory committees, including the APAC; and,
• Twenty-two technical advisory committees, including the ATACs.
The establishment and renewal of such committees is in the public interest in connection with the duties of the USDA imposed by the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
1974, Congress established a private sector advisory committee system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests.
As provided for in the law and the USDA charter, the APAC has the following responsibilities: (A) The Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and USTR concerning the trade policy of the United States and the matters arising in the administration of such policy; (B) The Committee will provide information and advice regarding the following: negotiating objectives and bargaining positions of the United States before the United States enters into trade agreements, the operation of any trade agreement once entered into, and matters arising in connection with the administration of the trade policy of the United States. It will keep abreast of the ongoing work of the technical-level committees (ATACs); (C) The Committee will furnish such other advisory opinions and reports as the Secretary and USTR deem necessary.
As provided for in the law and the USDA charters, the ATACs have the following responsibilities: (A) The Committees will advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and USTR on matters that are of mutual concern to the United States and to its consumers, producers, processors, and traders of commodities of their respective sectors in connection with the trade policy activities undertaken by the United States. (B) The Committees will provide advice and information regarding trade issues that affect both domestic and foreign production and trade concerning commodities in their respective sectors. The Committees will furnish advisory opinions and reports regarding trade policy as requested by the Secretary and USTR, or their designees.
Each committee has a chairperson, who is elected from the membership of that committee. Committees meet as needed, and all committee meetings are typically held in Washington, DC or by telephone conference. Committee meetings may be closed if USTR determines that a committee will be
All committee members are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of the Secretary and the USTR. Committee appointments are typically for a period of approximately 4 years, but the Secretary and USTR may renew an appointment for an additional term or appoint a member to fill out the remainder of someone's term. All committee members must be a U.S. citizen and must represent a U.S. entity with an interest in agricultural trade, and must not be registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. To attend most meetings, committee members must have a current security clearance. New members will be guided in how to apply for a security clearance and their appointment will be contingent on successful completion of the investigation. Committee members serve without compensation and are not reimbursed for their travel expenses. No person may serve on more than one USDA advisory committee at the same time unless a specific exception is granted by the USDA Committee Management Officer. No entity may have more than one representative on any single trade advisory committee.
Nominations for APAC and ATAC membership are open to individuals representing U.S. entities with an interest in agricultural trade without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunity practices in accordance with the U.S. Government policies will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Members should have expertise and knowledge of agricultural trade as it relates to policy and commodity specific issues. Members will normally come from an entity with an interest in agriculture, and will serve as a Representative, presenting the views and interests of a particular U.S. entity that has an interest in the subject matter of the committee.
However, should a member be appointed primarily for his or her expertise, and not as a representative of an interest group, he or she shall be designated as a Special Government Employee (SGE). SGEs are subject to specific provisions of the ethics laws if they are appointed because of their personal knowledge, background, or expertise. USDA will assist SGEs in disclosing their financial interest and will provide ethics training on an annual basis. Appointments are made of individuals only and are not transferrable. No person, company, producer, farm organization, trade association, or other entity has a right to membership on a committee. In making appointments, every effort will be made to maintain balanced representation on the committees with representation from producers, farm and commodity organizations, processors, traders, and consumers. Geographical diversity on each committee will also be sought.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of the information collection, Civil Rights Compliance Review Record—Federally Assisted Programs.
With this renewal, the Agency has changed the name of the information collections from Equal Opportunity Compliance Review Record to Civil Rights Compliance Review Record—Federally Assisted Programs.
Comments must be received in writing on or before June 5, 2015 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to USDA Forest Service Washington Office, Office of Civil Rights, Mail Stop 1142, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1142.
Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 703-605-5174 or by email to
The public may inspect comments received at USDA Forest Service Washington Office, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to facilitate entry to the building.
Pat Jackman, Civil Rights, by phone at 202-205-0989, or via email at
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
• Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972;
• The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended;
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; and
• Executive orders prohibiting discrimination in the delivery of all programs and services to the public.
Federal agencies and entities receiving Federal financial assistance are prohibited from discriminating. Federal financial assistance is defined as, “Federal monies given by grants, cooperative agreements, commercial special use permits, training, loan/temporary assignment of Federal personnel, or loan/use of Federal property at below market value.”
The equal opportunity laws require agencies to conduct compliance reviews to ensure that entities receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the government are adhering to the non-discrimination statutes. The statutes require that prior to awarding support or issuing permits, the Federal government shall conduct pre-award reviews to ensure that potential recipients understand their responsibilities to provide services equitable pursuant to the law. Thereafter, during the partnership with the Agency, on-going monitoring will take place to ensure the public is being served without any barriers or discrimination. The compliance review tool consists of three forms, used consecutively during the same review.
Forest Service employees will use form FS-1700-0006A, Civil Rights Compliance Review Record—Federally Assisted Programs, to collect information regarding actions taken by recipients of Federal financial assistance to ensure the public receives services without discrimination or barriers to access, and that recipients' employees understand their role in ensuring equal access to services. Collection will occur during face-to-face meetings or telephone interviews conducted by Forest Service employees as part of the pre-award and Post-award process. The pre-award interview will take place prior to the award of a grant, signing of a cooperative agreement, letting of commercial special use permit, or similar activity. The post award interview will take place once every five years, or upon report/discovery of discrimination.
Forest Service employees will use form FS-1700-0006B, Civil Rights Compliance Review Record—Federally Assisted Programs, (Post-Award Review Interview of an Employee of the Recipient) to collect information from an employee of the recipient's program to assess their awareness of Civil Rights responsibilities to ensure the public receives services without discrimination or barriers to access. This aids in determining if recipients' have advised and trained employees of their customer service and Civil Rights compliance role. Collection will occur during face-to-face meetings or interviews conducted by Forest Service employees as part of the post award process. The Post-award interview will take place once every five years, or upon report/discovery of discrimination.
Forest Service employees will use form FS-1700-0006C, Civil Rights Compliance Review Record—Federally Assisted Programs, (Post-Award Review Interview of a Participant) to collect information from the public or customers of the recipients of Federal financial assistance to determine if the public is receiving services without discrimination or barriers to access. Collection will occur during face-to-face interviews conducted by Forest Service employees as part of the post award process. The Post-award interview will take place once every five years, or upon report/discovery of discrimination.
The information collected will only be shared with other Federal agencies who share in the financial assistance activities with the Forest Service. Monitoring reviews have been a responsibility of the Federal government since 1964. Without the ability to monitor recipients of Federal financial assistance, the Forest Service would not be able to ensure compliance with laws and statutes. The Agency would not be aware of potential violations, thereby resulting in potential discriminatory practices.
Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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 the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3870.
The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. The full written description of the subject merchandise is available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014.
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Unless extended by the Department, interested parties must submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of circular welded carbon
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of public hearings pertaining to Amendment 36 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic. The amendment addresses the establishment of Spawning Special Management Zones (SMZs) to protect important spawning habitat for species in the snapper grouper management unit. The public is asked to provide input on areas for consideration as well as other actions in the amendment.
The public hearings will be held via webinar April 20, 2015 through April 23, 2015. A public hearing for Snapper Grouper Amendment 36 will also be held in Key West, FL in conjunction with the SAFMC meeting on June 10, 2015 beginning at 5:30 p.m. With the exception of the public hearing in Key West, FL, all public hearings will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council's Web site at
See
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
1. April 20, 2015—Local Comment Stations: SC Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research Institute Auditorium, 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29422-2559; telephone: (843) 953-9300 and Holiday Inn Express, 722 Highway 17, Little River, SC 29566; phone: (843) 281-9400.
2. April 21, 2015—Local Comment Station: NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC 28557; telephone: (252) 726-7021.
3. April 22, 2015—Local Comment Station: Coastal Resources Division, GA Department of Natural Resources, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA 31528-8687; telephone: (912) 264-7218 and Richmond Hill Fish Hatchery, 110 Hatercry Drive, Richmond Hill, GA 31324; telephone: (912) 756-3691.
4. April 23, 2015—Local Comment Station: Hampton Inn Daytona Speedway, 1715 W. International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, FL 32114; telephone: (386) 257-4030.
5. June 10, 2015—A public hearing will be held in conjunction with the SAFMC meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m.; Doubletree Grand Key Resort, 3990 S. Roosevelt Blvd., Key West, FL 33040; telephone: (305) 293-1818.
This amendment includes an approach to identify and protect important spawning habitat for snapper grouper species through the designation of Spawning Special Management Zones (SMZs). The amendment would modify the current procedure for establishing SMZs to include protection of natural bottom important for spawning, allowing for the designation of
Written comments may be directed to Bob Mahood, Executive Director, SAFMC (see
During the webinars, Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to record their comments for consideration by the Council. Area Council representatives will be present at the local comment stations.
These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined under
The meeting will be held April 28-30, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Andaz San Diego Hotel, 600 F Street, San Diego, CA 92101; 619-849-1234.
Jennifer Lukens, MAFAC Executive Director; (301) 427-8004; email:
As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete charter and summaries of prior meetings are located online at
This meeting time and agenda are subject to change.
The meeting is convened to hear presentations and discuss policies and guidance on the following topics: Climate impacts on the Pacific coast, the NOAA Fisheries Draft Climate Science Strategy, improving recovery of protected resources, cooperative research and management, marine recreational information program, implementation of the recreational fisheries policy, and proposed revisions to National Standard 1. The meeting will include discussion of various MAFAC administrative and organizational matters and may include meetings of the standing subcommittees.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jennifer Lukens, MAFAC Executive Director; 301-427-8004 by April 17, 2015.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from Petitioners,
Effective April 6, 2015.
George McMahon, 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) 482-1167.
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is brass sheet and strip, other than leaded brass and tin brass sheet and strip, from Germany, which is currently classified under subheading 7409.21.00.50, 7409.21.00.75, 7409.21.00.90, 7409.29.00.50, 7409.29.00.75, and 7409.29.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
In accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we relied on facts available with an adverse inference with respect to Messingwerk, the sole company selected for individual examination in this review. Thus, we preliminarily assign a rate of 55.60 percent as the dumping margin for Messingwerk. In making these findings, we relied on facts available because Messingwerk failed to respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, and thus withheld requested information, failed to provide requested information by the established deadlines, and significantly impeded this proceeding.
Additionally, as indicated in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section below, we preliminarily determine that a margin of 22.61 percent applies to the six firms not selected for individual review. We preliminarily determined to base the dumping margin for the six companies not selected for individual examination in this review on an average of the range of certain dumping margins contained in the underlying Petition.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland, we preliminarily determine that Schwermetall, ThyssenKrupp, and Wieland had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR. For a full discussion of this determination,
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins on brass sheet and strip from Germany exist for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014 at the following rates:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the preliminary results are unchanged for the final results we will instruct CBP to apply an
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of brass sheet and strip from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 7.30 percent.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from Glacier Bay National Park (Glacier Bay NP) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting seabird research from May through September, 2015. The proposed dates for this action are May 15, 2015, through September 30, 2015. Per the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we are requesting comments on our proposal to issue an Authorization to the Glacier Bay NP to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal during the specified activity.
NMFS must receive comments and information on or before May 6, 2015.
Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public record and NMFS will post them to
To obtain an electronic copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document, write to the previously mentioned address, telephone the contact listed here (see
Information in Glacier Bay NP's application, NMFS' 2014 Environmental Assessment titled,
Jeannine Cody, NMFS, 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
An Authorization shall be granted 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 set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat; 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.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On January 15, 2015, NMFS received an application from Glacier Bay NP requesting that we issue an Authorization for the take of marine mammals, incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucus-winged gulls (
Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct ground-based and vessel-based surveys to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting gulls within five study sites in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP proposes to complete up to five visits per study site, from May through September, 2015.
The proposed activities are within the vicinity of pinniped haulout sites and the following aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; noise generated by researchers while conducting ground surveys; and human presence during the monitoring and research activities. NMFS anticipates that take by Level B harassment only, of individuals of harbor seals (
Glacier Bay NP proposes to identify the onset of gull nesting; conduct mid-season surveys of adult gulls, and locate and document gull nest sites within the following study areas: Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Each of these study sites contains harbor seal haulout sites and Glacier Bay NP proposes to visit each study site up to five times during the research season.
Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull monitoring studies to meet the requirements of a 2010 Record of Decision for a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (NPS, 2010) which states that Glacier Bay NP must initiate a monitoring program for the gulls to inform future native egg harvests by the Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting sites to assess population trends over time (
Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct the proposed activities from the period of May 15 through September 30, 2015. Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct a maximum of three ground-based surveys per each study site and a maximum of two vessel-based surveys per each study site.
Thus, the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective from May 15, 2015 through September 30, 2015. NMFS refers the reader to the Detailed Description of Activities section later in this notice for more information on the scope of the proposed activities.
The proposed study sites would occur in the vicinity of the following locations: Boulder (58°33′18.08″ N; 136°1′13.36″ W), Lone (58°43′17.67″ N; 136°17′41.32″ W), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19″ N; 135°58′50.78″ W) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75″ N; 136°18′39.06″ W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Glacier Bay NP will also conduct studies at Tlingit Point Islet located at 58°45′16.86″ N; 136°10′41.74″ W; however, there are no reported pinniped haulout sites at that location.
Glacier Bay NP proposes to conduct: (1) Ground-based surveys at a maximum frequency of three visits per site; and (2) vessel-based surveys at a maximum frequency of two visits per site from the period of May 15 through September 30, 2015.
The observers would access each island using a kayak, a 32.8 to 39.4-foot (ft) (10 to 12 meter (m)) motorboat, or a 12 ft (4 m) inflatable rowing dinghy. The landing craft's transit speed would not exceed 4 knots (4.6 miles per hour (mph). Ground surveys generally last from 30 minutes to up to two hours depending on the size of the island and the number of nesting gulls. Glacier Bay NP will discontinue ground surveys after they detect the first hatchling to minimize disturbance to the gull colonies.
Table 1 in this notice provides the following information: All marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed survey areas on land; information on those species' regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS refers the public to the Glacier Bay NP's application and the 2014 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report available online at:
Northern sea otters (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (
The appearance of Glacier Bay researchers has the potential to cause Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled out on Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Disturbance may result in reactions ranging from an animal simply becoming alert to the presence of the surveyors (
Reactions to human presence, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Disturbances resulting from human activity can impact short- and long-term pinniped haul out behavior (Renouf
In cases where vessels actively approached marine mammals (
In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (2007) evaluated the efficacy of buffer zones for watercraft around harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow Island, Washington. The authors estimated the minimum distance between the vessels and the haul-out sites; categorized the vessel types; and evaluated seal responses to the disturbances. During the course of the seven-weekend study, the authors recorded 14 human-related disturbances which were associated with stopped powerboats and kayaks. During these events, hauled out seals became noticeably active and moved into the water. The flushing occurred when stopped kayaks and powerboats were at distances as far as 453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m) respectively. The authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even those approaching as close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly indicating that the animals had become tolerant of the brief presence of the vessels and ignored them. The authors reported that on average, the seals quickly recovered from the disturbances and returned to the haulout site in less than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal numbers did not return to pre-disturbance levels within 180 minutes of the disturbance less than one quarter of the time observed. The study concluded that the return of seal numbers to pre-disturbance levels and the relatively regular seasonal cycle in abundance throughout the area counter the idea that disturbances from powerboats may result in site abandonment (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007). As a general statement from the available information, pinnipeds exposed to intense (approximately 110 to 120 decibels re: 20 μPa) non-pulse sounds often leave haulout areas and seek refuge temporarily (minutes to a few hours) in the water (Southall
There are three ways in which disturbance, as described previously, could result in more than Level B harassment of marine mammals. All three are most likely to be consequences of stampeding, a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus. The three situations are: (1) Falling when entering the water at high-relief locations; (2) extended separation of mothers and pups; and (3) crushing of pups by large males during a stampede. However, NMFS does not expect any of these scenarios to occur at the proposed survey site.
Because hauled-out animals may move towards the water when disturbed, there is the risk of injury if animals stampede towards shorelines with precipitous relief (
The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (
We do not anticipate that the proposed operations would result in any temporary or permanent effects on the habitats used by the marine mammals in the proposed area, including the food sources they use (
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 on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). Applications for incidental take authorizations must include the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stock and their habitat 50 CFR 216.104(a)(11).
The Glacier Bay NP has reviewed the following source documents and has incorporated a suite of proposed mitigation measures into their project description.
(1) Recommended best practices in Womble
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
• Perform pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site;
• Avoid accessing a site based on a pre-determined threshold number of animals present; sites used by pinnipeds for pupping; or sites used by Steller sea lions;
• Perform controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent a stampede and select a pathway of approach to minimize the number of marine mammals harassed;
• Monitor for offshore predators at study sites. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (
• Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of pinnipeds.
NMFS has carefully evaluated Glacier Bay NP'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. Our 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 expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• 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 motorboat operations or visual presence 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 exposed to motorboat operations or visual presence 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 motorboat operations or visual presence 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 Glacier Bay NP's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily 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.
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS 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 Authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that we expect to be present in the proposed action area. Glacier Bay NP submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their Authorization application.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, (
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible,
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
As part of its Authorization application, Glacier Bay NP proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the MMPA.
The Glacier Bay NP researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the proposed research areas. The monitoring notes would provide dates and location of the researcher's activities and the number and type of species present. The researchers would document the behavioral state of animals present, and any apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof.
Glacier Bay NP can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the proposed action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up.
If at any time injury, serious injury, or mortality of the species for which take is authorized should occur, or if take of any kind of any other marine mammal occurs, and such action may be a result of the proposed land survey, Glacier Bay NP would suspend research and monitoring activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.
Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting haul out locations to assess trends over time (
Glacier Bay NP will submit a draft monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after the expiration of the Incidental Harassment Authorization, if we issue it. The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the proposed project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:
1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.
2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities.
3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities.
4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with Glacier Bay to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. NMFS expects that the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes. NMFS considers the potential for take by injury, serious injury, or mortality as remote. NMFS expects that the presence of Glacier Bay NP personnel could disturb animals hauled out and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the researchers.
As discussed earlier, NMFS considers an animal to have been harassed if it moved greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in response to the surveyors' presence or if the animal was already moving and changed direction and/or speed, or if the animal flushed into the water. NMFS does not consider animals that became alert without such movements as harassed.
Based on pinniped survey counts conducted by Glacier Bay NP (
Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers (on average, less than 50 animals) at most sites with the exception of Flapjack Island (Womble, Pers. Comm.). Animals on Flapjack Boulder Islands generally haul out on the south side of the Islands and are not located near the research sites located on the northern side of the Islands. Aerial survey maximum counts show that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four locations (see Table 2 in Glacier Bays NP's application), and sometimes individuals and mother/pup pairs occupy different terrestrial locations than the main haulout (J. Womble, personal observation).
Considering the conservation status for the Western stock of the Steller sea lion, the Glacier Bay NP researchers would not conduct ground-based or vessel-based surveys if they observe Steller sea lions before accessing Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock. Thus, NMFS expects no takes to occur for this species during the proposed activities.
NMFS does not propose to authorize any injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expect all potential takes to fall under the category of Level B harassment only.
Negligible impact' is “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 (
Although Glacier Bay NP's survey activities may disturb harbor seals hauled out at the survey sites, NMFS expects those impacts to occur to a small, localized group of animals for a limited duration (
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, Glacier Bay NP's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, injury, serious injury, or death. These reasons include:
1. The effects of the research activities would be limited to short-term responses and temporary behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities. Minor and brief responses are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
2. The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid the resultant disturbances from the research operations. Anecdotal reports from previous Glacier Bay NP activities have shown that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haul-out sites after Glacier Bay NP conducted their research activities.
3. There is no potential for large-scale movements leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality because the researchers would delay ingress into the landing areas only after the pinnipeds have slowly entered the water.
4. Glacier Bay NP will limit access to Boulder, Lone, and Flapjack Islands, and Geikie Rock when there are high numbers (more than 25) harbor seals hauled out (with or without young pups present), any time pups are present, or any time that Steller sea lions are present, the researchers will not approach the island and will not conduct gull monitoring research.
NMFS does not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities would occur as a result of Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities with the mitigation and related monitoring, and NMFS does not propose to authorize injury, serious injury, or mortality at this time. In addition, the research activities would not take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or calving and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.
Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and described (see “Potential Effects on Marine Mammals” section in this notice), we do not expect the activity to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock.
In summary, NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out harbor seals during Glacier Bay NP's research activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Glacier Bay NP's activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this estimate is small (9.9 percent) relative to the population size and we have provided the percentage of the harbor seal's regional population estimate that the activities may take by Level B harassment in Table 2 in this notice.
Based on the analysis contained in this notice 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 preliminarily finds that Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities would take small numbers of marine mammals relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Glacier Bay National Park prohibits subsistence harvest of harbor seals within the Park (Catton, 1995).
NMFS does not expect that Glacier Bay NP's proposed research activities (which includes mitigation measures to avoid harassment of Steller sea lions) would affect any species listed under the ESA. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
In 2014, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the potential effects to the human environment from NMFS' issuance of a Authorization to Glacier Bay NP for their seabird research activities.
In September 2014, NMFS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the issuance of an Authorization for Point Blue's research activities in accordance with section 6.01 of the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999). Glacier Bay NP's proposed activities and impacts for 2015 are within the scope of the 2014 EA and FONSI. NMFS provided relevant environmental information to the public through a previous notice for the proposed Authorization (79 FR 32226, June 4, 2014) and considered public comments received in response prior to finalizing the 2014 EA and deciding whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
NMFS has reviewed the 2014 EA and determined that there are no new direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the human and natural environment associated with the Authorization requiring evaluation in a supplemental EA and NMFS, therefore, proposes to reaffirm the 2014 FONSI. NMFS' EA and FONSI for this activity are available upon request (see
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes issuing an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Glacier Bay National Park for conducting seabird research May through September, 2015, provided they incorporate the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
This section contains the draft text for the proposed Authorization. NMFS proposes to include this language in the Authorization if issued.
Glacier Bay National Park, P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, Alaska 99826 and/or its designees (holders of the Authorization) are hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucus-winged gulls (
1. This Authorization is valid from May 15 through September 30, 2015.
2. This Authorization is valid only for research activities that occur in the following specified geographic areas: Boulder (58°33′18.08″ N; 136°1′13.36″ W); Lone (58°43′17.67″ N; 136°17′41.32″ W), and Flapjack (58°35′10.19″ N; 135°58′50.78″ W) Islands, and Geikie Rock (58°41′39.75″ N; 136°18′39.06″ W); and Tlingit Point Islet (58°45′16.86″ N; 136°10′41.74″ W) in Glacier Bay, Alaska.
a. The taking, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species: 500 Pacific harbor seals (
b. The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.
c. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401.
A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of Glacier Bay National Park, its designees, and field crew personnel (including research collaborators) operating under the authority of this Authorization at all times.
The Holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
a. Conduct pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site. Prior to deciding to land onshore of Boulder, Lone, or Flapjack Island or Geikie Rock, the Holder of this Authorization will use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars before approaching at distances of greater than 500 m (1,640 ft) to determine and document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals.. The vessels will maintain a distance of 328 to 1,640 ft (100 to 500 m) from the shoreline.
i. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that there are 25 or more harbor seals (with or without young pups present) hauled out on the shoreline, the holder will not access the island and will not conduct the study at that time.
ii. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that any Steller sea lions (
iii. If the Holder of the Authorization determines that there are any pups hauled out on the shoreline and vulnerable to being separated from their mothers, the Holder will not access the island and will not conduct the study at that time.
b. Minimize the potential for disturbance by: (1) Performing controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent a stampede; and (2) selecting a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.
c. Monitor for offshore predators at the study sites and avoid research activities when predators area present. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (
d. Maintain a quiet working atmosphere, avoid loud noises, and use hushed voices in the presence of hauled out pinnipeds.
Glacier Bay NP is required to record the following:
a. BLM and/or its designees shall record the following:
i. Species counts (with numbers of adults/juveniles); and:
ii. Numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity including: (1) Head orientation in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, or changing from a lying to a sitting position and/or slight movement of less than 1 meter; “alert”; (2) Movements in response to or away from disturbance, typically over short distances (1-3 meters) and including dramatic changes in direction or speed of locomotion for animals already in motion; “movement”; and (3) All flushes to the water as well as lengthier retreats (>3 meters); “flight”.
iii. Information on the weather, including the tidal state and horizontal visibility.
b. If applicable, the observer shall note observations of marked or tag-bearing pinnipeds or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammal.
c. If applicable, the observer shall note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time, number, and species).
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
a. Draft Report: Submit a draft monitoring report to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service within 90 days after the Authorization expires. NMFS will review the Draft Report which is subject to review and comment by NMFS. Glacier Bay NP must address any recommendations made by NMFS in the Final Report prior to submission to NMFS. If NMFS decides that the draft final report needs no comments, NMFS will consider the draft report as the Final Report.
b. Final Report: Glacier Bay shall prepare and submit a Final Report to NMFS within 30 days following resolution of any comments on the draft report from NMFS.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Glacier Bay
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the marine mammal observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (
NMFS invites comments on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed Authorization for Glacier Bay NP's activities. Please include any supporting data or literature citations with your comments to help inform our final decision on Glacier Bay NP's request for an Authorization.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective April 6, 2015.
Yasmin Nair at (202) 482-3813 or Ilissa Shefferman at (202) 482-4684, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On March 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), India, and the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) filed in proper form on behalf of DAK Americas, LLC; M&G Chemicals; and Nan Ya Plastic Corporation, America (collectively, Petitioners). The CVD petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions also concerning imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman.
On March 13, 2015, the Department requested information and clarification for certain areas of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that the Government of the PRC (GOC), the Government of India (GOI), and the Government of the Sultanate of Oman (GSO) are providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of certain PET resin from the PRC, India and Oman, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that Petitioners are requesting.
The period of investigation for the PRC, India and Oman is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
The product covered by these investigations is PET resin from the
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of the PRC, India, and Oman CVD investigations, as well as the concurrent Canada, PRC, India, and Oman AD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC, GOI, and GSO of the receipt of the Petitions. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOC, GOI, and GSO the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that PET resin constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. Petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2014.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental submission, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.
Because India, Oman, and the PRC are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India, Oman, and the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold of three percent provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declining U.S. shipment and production trends and low capacity utilization rates; decline in production-related workers; and decline in financial performance.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting the allegations.
Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of PET resin in the PRC, India, and Oman benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the governments of these countries, respectively. The Department examined the Petitions and finds that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of PET resin from the PRC, India, and Oman receive countervailable subsidies from the governments of these countries, respectively.
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 19 of the 21 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the 24 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all of the seven alleged programs. For a full discussion of the
A public version of the initiation checklist for each investigation is available on ACCESS and at
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Petitioners named 35 companies as producers/exporters of PET resin from the PRC, 13 companies as producers/exporters of PET resin from India, and one company as a producer/exporter of PET resin from Oman.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at
Regarding Oman, although the Department normally relies on import data from CBP to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in CVD investigations, if appropriate, these Petitions name only one company as a producer/exporter of PET resin from Oman: Octal Petrochemical, LLC FZC.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOC, GOI, and GSO
We notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PET resin from the PRC, India, and/or Oman are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by these investigations is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing predominantly virgin PET resin content, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process.
Although the merchandise covered by these investigations is not defined by its end use, it is typically used in the production of plastic bottles, in packaging for beverage, food, and manufactured products, in containers for household and automotive products, and in industrial strapping, among other applications.
The merchandise subject to these investigations is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 14, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
Cindy Robinson or Eric B. Greynolds, 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) 482-3797 and (202) 482-6071, respectively.
On September 28, 2006, the Department published in the
On May 14, 2014, Kokuyo requested that the Department conduct a CCR to determine whether it is the successor-in-interest to Riddhi, for purposes of determining antidumping duties due as a result of the
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in the post-preliminary and rebuttal comments, or in case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
For the
Accordingly, the Department determines that Kokuyo is the successor-in-interest to Riddhi for the purpose of determining antidumping duty liability.
As a result of this determination, we find that Kokuyo should receive the cash deposit rate previously assigned to Riddhi in the most recently completed review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from India. Consequently, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated antidumping duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Kokuyo and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216(e).
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The American Community Survey collects detailed socioeconomic data from about 3.5 million households in the United States and 36,000 in Puerto Rico each year. The ACS also collects detailed socioeconomic data from about 195,000 residents living in Group Quarter (GQ) facilities. An ongoing data collection effort with an annual sample of this magnitude requires that the ACS continue research, testing and evaluations aimed at improving data quality, achieving survey cost efficiencies, and improving ACS questionnaire content and related data collection materials. The ACS Methods Panel is a research program that is designed to address and respond to issues and survey needs. One of those issues relates to respondent concerns about the tone of the mandatory message on the ACS mail materials.
The outside of the envelopes that contain the instructions to respond online and the paper ACS questionnaire display the bold message, “YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.” The prominent references to the mandatory participation in the ACS are concerning to many respondents. The Census Bureau developed the current presentation of the mandatory nature of participation based on previous research that identified a significant positive impact of these messages in encouraging high self-response rates and reducing the need for follow-up by phone or personal visits by Census Bureau interviewers. In order to be responsive to respondent concern with the prominence of the mandatory message on the envelopes, we are conducting the Envelope Mandatory Messaging Test.
This test will measure the impact of removing the phrase “YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW” from the envelopes (Attachment C) used to mail the initial package (second mailing) as well as the replacement package (fourth mailing). This phrase
We have divided the monthly production sample of 295,000 addresses in 24 nationally representative groups of approximately 12,000 addresses each. For this test, planned for the May 2015 ACS panel, we will use two randomly assigned groups for the experimental treatment group. The total sample size for the experimental treatment group is approximately 24,000 addresses. The remaining cases in the May 2015 panel will comprise the control and receive all standard ACS mailings (envelopes with the mandatory language still included). As we are using production cases for the test, the test will run through the complete three-month data collection period.
Our primary evaluation measure for this test is the self-response rate. Comparing the self-response rates between the two treatments allows us to detect at least a 1.0 percentage point difference with 80% power and α=0.1; this calculation assumes a 50% self-response rate. Additional metrics of interest include total response rate, cost analysis and the impact on ACS estimates.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 16 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request for a new shipper review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea. The Department has determined that the request meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation.
Eric Greynolds, 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) 482-6071.
The countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea published in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Hyundai 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), Hyundai 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.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(2), in countervailing duty proceedings, the period of review (POR) for new shipper reviews initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month will be the most recently completed calendar year. Therefore, the POR is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that the request from Hyundai meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea produced and exported by Hyundai.
The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation and final results of the review no later than 90 days after the date the preliminary results are issued.
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 Hyundai in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Hyundai certified that it produced and exported
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in the new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective April 6, 2015.
Karine Gziryan or James Martinelli at (202) 482-4081 and (202) 482-2923, respectively (Canada), Tyler Weinhold at (202) 482-1121 (the People's Republic of China (PRC)); Fred Baker at (202) 482-2924 (India); or Magd Zalok at (202) 482-4162 (the Sultanate of Oman (Oman)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On March 10, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Canada, India, the PRC, and Oman filed in proper form on behalf of DAK Americas, LLC, M&G Chemicals, and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (Petitioners).
On March 13, 2015, and March 19, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are requesting.
Because the Petitions were filed on March 10, 2015, the periods of investigation (POI) are, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows: January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, for Canada, India, and Oman, and July 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, for the PRC.
The product covered by these investigations is PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The period for scope comments is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of PET resin to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe PET resin, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 20, 2015, which is 21 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 27, 2015. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman less-than-fair-value investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that PET resin constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. Petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2014.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, supplemental submission, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.
Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
For India, Petitioners based EP on the average unit value (AUV) of imports from India under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3907.60.0030 (which covers the subject merchandise), using import statistics obtained from the ITC's Dataweb for the period of January-December 2014 (
For the PRC, Petitioners based EP on sales/offers for sale to U.S. customers from producers/exporters in the PRC. Petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses and un-rebated Value Added Tax, consistent with the delivery terms. Petitioners also deducted from U.S. price trading company/reseller selling expenses estimated using the financial statements of a U.S. distributor of chemical and plastic products.
For Canada and Oman, Petitioners calculated constructed export price (CEP) based on offers for sales of PET resin from producers of subject merchandise produced in, and exported from, the subject country. Petitioners contend that these price quotes should be considered CEP sales based on information that indicates the producers in these subject countries likely conducted the sales through their respective sales offices located in the United States. Petitioners made deductions for movement and other expenses consistent with the sales and delivery terms of the applicable price. Petitioners also deducted U.S. selling expenses estimated using the financial statements of a U.S. distributor of chemical and plastic products.
For Canada, Petitioners alleged that sales of PET resin in Canada were made at prices substantially below the cost of production (COP).
Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PET resin in the Canadian market and certain third-country sales made by Indian and Omani producers were made at prices below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation of PET resin imports from Canada, India, and Oman.
With respect to sales-below-cost allegations in the context of investigations, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers.
Finally, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains the requirement that the Department have “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation.”
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses; and packing expenses.
For Canada, Petitioners calculated COM (except for depreciation) based on the weighted-average of the U.S. producers' experience adjusted for known differences between the United States and Canada, during the proposed POI. Petitioners multiplied the weighted-average of their respective usage by publicly-available data to value all of the significant inputs used to manufacture PET resin in Canada.
For India, Petitioners calculated COM (except for manufacturing overhead) based on the weighted-average of the U.S. producers' experience adjusted for known differences between the United States and India, during the proposed POI. Petitioners multiplied the weighted-average of their respective usage by publicly-available data to value all of the significant inputs used to manufacture PET resin in India.
For Oman, Petitioners calculated COM (except for manufacturing overhead) based on the weighted-average of the U.S. producers' experience adjusted for known differences between the United States and Oman, during the proposed POI. Petitioners multiplied the weighted-average of their respective usage by publicly-available data to value all of the significant inputs used to manufacture PET resin in Oman.
Petitioners obtained a price for a home market sale/offer for sale of PET resin by the only known producer of PET resin in Canada.
For Canada and India, Petitioners made deductions for domestic inland freight and packing for purposes of comparing the respective prices to COP. For Oman, Petitioners made adjustments for Oman inland freight, ocean freight, insurance, and packing to calculate net third-country price for purposes of comparing the price to COP.
Based upon a comparison of the ex-factory price of the foreign like product in the respective comparison markets to the COP of the product for Canada, India and Oman, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the respective comparison markets were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(I) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating country-wide cost investigations relating to sales of PET resin in Canada and in Oman's and India's third-country markets (
For Canada, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). Petitioners calculated CV using the same average
For India, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners calculated NV based on CV. Petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial, and packing expenses used to calculate COP. Petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as a basis for manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rate.
For Oman, because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners calculated NV based on CV. Petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial, and packing expenses used to calculate COP. Petitioners relied on the same financial statements used as a basis for manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and financial expenses to calculate the profit rate.
With respect to the PRC, Petitioners assert that the Department has long treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME) country.
Petitioners state that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of identical merchandise, and the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe it is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate-country selection and will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on the petitioning U.S. producers' consumption rates for producing certain PET resin as they did not have access to the consumption rates of PRC producers of PET resin.
For the PRC producer's costs of direct materials Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) and Mono-Ethyline Glycol (MEG), the major input raw materials used to produce the subject merchandise, Petitioners relied upon South African import statistics for Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 2917.36 and HTS 2905.31, respectively, for the period July through December 2014, published by GTA. These values were reported on a FOB basis at the port of exit of South Africa's trading partners.
Petitioners used public information, as compiled by Eskom (a South African electricity public utiliy), to value electricity.
Petitioners calculated labor for PET resin using industry-specific wage rates for South Africa from LABORSTA, a labor database compiled by the International Labor Organization. Petitioners adjusted this value for
Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (
Petitioners used the average petitioning U.S. producers' unit consumption of export packing materials reported and valued those materials using surrogate values for packing.
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP or CEP to NV in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for PET resin from: (1) Canada range from 96.30 to 102.99 percent;
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for PET resin from the PRC range from 193.48 to 206.42 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Petitioners named one company from Canada, 35 companies from the PRC, 13 companies from India, and one company from Oman, as producers/exporters of PET resin.
We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Parties wishing to comment must do so within five days of the publication of this notice in the
However, for India, because Petitioners identified 13 companies as potential respondents, we intend to follow our standard practice in AD investigations involving market-economy countries, and select respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports of PET resin under HTSUS subheading 3907.60.0030. We also intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five-business days of publication of this
With respect to the PRC, in accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity-and-value (Q&V) questionnaires to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at
Exporters/producers of PET resin from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC exporters/producers no later than April 13, 2015, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Canada, the PRC, India, and Oman
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PET resin from Canada, the PRC, India, and/or Oman are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by these investigations is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.70, but not more than 0.88, deciliters per gram. The scope includes blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET resin containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, provided such blends meet the intrinsic viscosity requirements above. The scope includes all PET resin meeting the above specifications regardless of additives introduced in the manufacturing process.
The merchandise subject to these investigations is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 6, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its
Thomas Martin or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On January 4, 2005, the Department published the
Because no party submitted comments opposing the Department's
Also excluded from the scope are certain shoe cabinets 31.5-33.5 inches wide by 15.5-17.5 inches deep by 34.5-36.5 inches high. They are designed strictly to store shoes, which are intended to be aligned in rows perpendicular to the wall along which the cabinet is positioned. Shoe cabinets do not have drawers, rods, or other indicia for the storage of clothing other than shoes. The cabinets are not designed, manufactured, or offered for sale in coordinated groups or sets and are made substantially of wood, have two to four shelves inside them, and are covered by doors. The doors often have blinds that are designed to allow air circulation and release of bad odors. The doors themselves may be made of wood or glass. The depth of the shelves does not exceed 14 inches. Each shoe cabinet has doors, adjustable shelving, and ventilation holes.
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;
Also excluded from the scope are certain shoe cabinets 31.5-33.5 inches wide by 15.5-17.5 inches deep by 34.5-36.5 inches high. They are designed strictly to store shoes, which are intended to be aligned in rows perpendicular to the wall along which the cabinet is positioned. Shoe cabinets do not have drawers, rods, or other indicia for the storage of clothing other than shoes. The cabinets are not designed, manufactured, or offered for sale in coordinated groups or sets and are made substantially of wood, have two to four shelves inside them, and are covered by doors. The doors often have blinds that are designed to allow air circulation and release of bad odors. The doors themselves may be made of wood or glass. The depth of the shelves does not exceed 14 inches. Each shoe cabinet has doors, adjustable shelving, and ventilation holes.
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, or 9403.90.8041. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” The order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of
Because we determine that there are changed circumstances that warrant the revocation of the
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and revocation, in part, and notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), and 19 CFR 351.222.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500-1508), Presidential E. O. 12114, Department of the Navy Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775), and United States (U.S.) Marine Corps NEPA implementing regulations (Marine Corps Order P5090.2A), the U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific (MARFORPAC) has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). The Draft EIS/OEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the establishment of a series of live-fire ranges, training courses and maneuver areas in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to reduce existing joint service training deficiencies and meet U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) Service Components' unfilled unit and combined level training requirements in the Western Pacific. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Air Force; and U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Insular Affairs are cooperating agencies for this Draft EIS/OEIS. MARFORPAC has also developed a Memorandum of Understanding with the PACOM Service Components regarding their support and engagement in the development of the EIS/OEIS.
With the filing of the Draft EIS/OEIS, the Department of Defense (DoD) is initiating a 60-day public comment period and has scheduled three public comment meetings to receive oral and written comments on the Draft EIS/OEIS. Federal, state and local agencies and interested parties are encouraged to provide comments in person at any of the public comment meetings, or in writing anytime during the public comment period. This Notice announces the dates and locations of the public meetings and provides supplementary information about the environmental planning effort.
Three public meetings will be held, each including an informational open house followed by a public hearing. Each meeting will begin with a two-hour open house session where the public can learn more about the proposed action and potential environmental impacts from project team members and subject matter experts. A public hearing will follow the open house. The public is encouraged to attend the meetings, which will be held on the following dates, times, and locations:
• Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 5:00p.m.-8:00p.m., Saipan Southern High School, Saipan
• Thursday, April 30, 2015, 5:00p.m.-8:00p.m., Tinian Junior Senior High School, Tinian
• Friday, May 1, 2015, 5:00p.m.-8:00p.m., Garapan Elementary School, Saipan
Informational posters will be displayed and project team members and subject matter experts will be available during the open house portion of the meetings to discuss the proposed action, answer questions, and to accept written comments from the public. A Chamorro and Carolinian interpreter will be available. Oral comments will be recorded by a court reporter during the public hearing portion of the meetings. In the interest of available time, speakers at the public hearing will be limited to three (3) minutes to ensure all who wish to speak have an opportunity to do so. If a long statement is to be presented, it should be summarized at the public hearing and the full text submitted in writing. Full and equal consideration will be given to oral and written statements. Concurrent with the NEPA process, the DoD is conducting National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) section 106 consultation regarding potential effects of the proposed action on historic properties. During each of the above meetings, the DoD will hold NHPA section 106 information sessions in a separate area where subject matter experts will explain the NHPA section 106 process and solicit public input on the effects of the proposed action on historic properties.
The Draft EIS/OEIS was distributed to federal and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations. The Draft EIS/OEIS is available for public review
1. Joeten Kiyu Public Library, Saipan.
2. Northern Marianas College Olympio T. Borja Memorial Library, Saipan.
3. Tinian Public Library, Tinian.
4. Antonio C. Atalig Memorial Rota Public Library, Rota.
The U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific issued its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS/OEIS in March 2013 in the
The Draft EIS/OEIS provides information on the affected environment and impacts of the proposed actions for 16 distinct resource areas. Resources evaluated include geology and soils, water resources, air quality, noise, airspace, land and submerged land use, recreation, terrestrial biology, marine biology, cultural resources, visual resources, transportation, utilities, socioeconomics and environmental justice, hazardous materials and waste, and public health and safety. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the DoD is consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential impacts of training activities on federally listed species. In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the DoD is consulting with NMFS on federally managed species and their essential fish habitat.
Please visit the project Web site (
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement.
This notice announces the opportunity to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), a Department of Defense (DoD) Field Activity, to undertake a research project to assess and evaluate the design and effect of OEA's Defense Industry Adjustment (DIA) program and the assistance that its Grantees provide to affected communities, workers, and businesses. This notice includes proposal submission requirements and instructions, eligibility requirements, and selection criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals from eligible respondents.
30 days.
OEA is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2391 to conclude cooperative agreements with a State or local government or any private entity to conduct research and provide technical assistance in support of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program, and to assist communities, businesses and workers responding to Defense changes under 10 U.S.C. 2391 and Executive Order 12788, as amended. OEA is DoD's primary source for assisting communities that are adversely impacted by Defense program changes. Founded in 1961, OEA has helped communities in all 50 States and major United States territories develop comprehensive strategies to adjust to defense industry cutbacks, base closures, force structure realignments, base expansions, and incompatibilities between military operations and local development. Awards provided under this announcement support the Defense Economic Adjustment Program by providing: (1) Analysis and dissemination of information; and (2) support to innovative approaches.
The objective of OEA's DIA Program is to assist States and local governments to plan and carry out community adjustments and economic diversification activities in response to reductions in defense industry employment. Unlike base closures, where surplus property can be reused as part of a broader program to replace lost jobs and expand the local tax base, OEA's support for communities affected by factory closures and laid-off employees focuses on developing community adjustments and diversification strategies concentrating on workforce skills, opportunities for manufacturing investment/expansion, and adaptability of local plant and capital.
These strategies usually focus on regional job creation through business development, attraction, and expansion; workforce development; and community economic diversification. Additionally, during the planning process, OEA also coordinates with and provides information on other relevant federal assistance programs that can support coordinated economic development efforts.
On June 17, 2013, OEA released a Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcing the availability of funding under its DIA program to support local adjustment activities in response to reduced DoD procurement (
OEA now seeks proposals to develop, test, and carry out quantitative and qualitative methodologies to help its DIA Grantees more effectively assess, evaluate, and report the full effect of their projects. Research findings will primarily help current Grantees adjust their projects to achieve better outcomes and secondarily inform the design of OEA's program of financial and technical assistance. Proposals will be evaluated against the eligibility criteria provided in section II.c. of this notice, and the selection criteria provided in section II.e. of this notice, by OEA, as well as other Federal agency staff as invited by OEA. OEA will notify the respondent within thirty (30) days of receipt of a proposal whether the proposal was successful. The successful respondent will then be invited to submit an application through OEA's eGrants system for a cooperative agreement. Additional details about the review and selection process is provided in section II.e. of the FFO.
The final amount of the cooperative agreement will be determined by OEA based upon a review of the final grant application and will be subject to availability of funds.
More information about the DIA program is available on the following Web site:
OEA intends to award one cooperative agreement under this FFO. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 6305, a cooperative agreement is a legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State, local government, or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government, and substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the State, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated
The project period is for one year. OEA reserves the right to continue this effort with the selected respondent for up to 3 additional years without further competition, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, OEA policy, and satisfactory performance under the award.
Eligible respondents include any State, tribal, or local governments, Institutions of Higher Education, non-profit entities, or for-profit organizations.
Not applicable.
Eligible activities include research and technical assistance in support of Defense Economic Adjustment Program activities under 10 U.S.C. 2391 and Executive Order 12788, as amended, to assist communities, businesses, and workers adversely affected by defense program changes. Proposals that do not address the Expected Proposal Elements (see section II, part d (iii)) will not be considered.
Proposals can be submitted electronically to: Director, OEA, using the following electronic address:
Proposals may also be mailed or hand-delivered to: Director, Office of Economic Adjustment, 2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 520, Arlington, VA 22202-3711.
OEA will review all proposals for which receipt has been confirmed prior to the submission deadline.
Proposals must include the following information:
1. Point of Contact: Name, phone number, email address, and organization address of the respondent's primary point of contact;
2. Project Description: A description of all elements of the proposed project, including how the project will assist OEA and DIA Grantees at the State/local level;
3. Project Parties: A description of the evaluation experience of the respondent and associated partner organizations/agencies, as well as their roles and responsibilities, which will execute the proposed project;
4. Work Breakdown Structure and Project Schedule: A sufficiently detailed project schedule, including milestones, over the course of the project;
5. Budget: Detailed proposed budget for the one-year project period. This section should also include narrative sufficient to explain each budget line item;
6. Funds Management: Evidence of the respondent's ability and authority to manage Federal funds;
7. Submitting Official: Documentation that the Submitting Official is authorized by the respondent to submit a proposal and subsequently apply for funding.
Proposals should be submitted in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF and emailed to the account stated in section II.d. OEA reserves the right to ask any respondent to supplement the information in its proposal, but expects proposals to be complete upon submission. To the extent practicable, OEA encourages respondents to provide data and evidence of all project merits in a form that is publicly available and verifiable.
OEA will invite the successful respondent to submit a full application to enter into a cooperative agreement under this announcement following the review and selection process (for more details, see section II, part e, Proposal Review Information).
OEA solicits competitive applications from organizations or consortia that will design, pilot, and carry out program evaluation methodologies to capture and share the effect of planning and economic adjustment activities by OEA's DIA Grantees and assess the responsiveness of OEA's program of assistance for Fiscal Years (FY) 2014 and 2015. Competitive proposals from qualified researchers will address the following project tasks at a minimum:
OEA currently provides technical and financial assistance to over 30 States, local governments, and instrumentalities of local government through the Defense Industry Adjustment program. Additional DIA grantees are anticipated in FY 2015. DIA Grantees report performance and financial data on a periodic basis for the term of their grant. Performance reports contain information on the following:
a. A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period;
b. Reasons for slippage if established objectives were not met;
c. Additional pertinent information when appropriate;
d. A comparison of actual and projected quarterly expenditures in the grant; and
e. Amount of Federal cash on hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period.
The final performance report contains a summary of activities for the entire grant period.
This evaluation project will likely require additional sources of information. Respondents should discuss how they will supplement what OEA currently collects to understand the range of supported grant activities across the DIA portfolio and the evaluation needs of each Grantee (
OEA will work closely with the successful respondent to share existing performance information and project points of contact.
DIA Grantees include States, local governments and instrumentalities of State and local government. Grants have ranged from $245,000 to $8 million. Some Grantees are planning in anticipation of announced defense acquisition cuts, while others are responding to actual reductions. Respondents should describe how they anticipate addressing the diversity of Grantee types and activities as they design the methodology for the program evaluation. OEA will work closely with the successful respondent to design the project. The successful respondent will be expected to meet with OEA at least quarterly as the methodology is being refined and tested.
The successful respondent will be expected to prepare and present one report during the project period using the project design developed in paragraph (2). This report will cover findings for FY 2014-15. It will summarize the evaluation methodology, assess DIA project performance and outcomes to date, offer “best practices” or “common pitfalls to avoid,” and recommend additional metrics or indicators OEA could use in future evaluations of DIA projects. The report should present project findings in a visually appealing format appropriate for print or electronic media, and use
The successful respondent shall submit a draft research report to OEA at least 90 days before the end of the project period. If OEA approves the draft research report, it will approve publication of a final research report, and the successful respondent will brief OEA leadership on the research methods and report results.
OEA will work closely with the successful respondent to share the report's findings with DIA Grantees and other relevant stakeholders in order to refine the evaluation design and offer programmatic recommendations to project leaders in the field.
During the term of the cooperative agreement, OEA may request the successful respondent to develop case studies or attend events to present on “best practices” or “lessons learned” through this project. OEA will provide advanced notification when these products or events may be necessary. Respondents should budget for up to ten (10) case studies and travel for three (3) conference presentations in the Washington, DC area.
All items produced under the OEA-approved scope of work for this project may be posted on or linked to OEA's Web site at
Respondents must specify in their proposals and budgets how they propose to complete the scope of work, which consists of carrying out the tasks outlined above or enumerated in the respondent's proposal and final award, within the initial one-year project period.
This cooperative agreement may result in up to a four-year project period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, OEA policy, and satisfactory performance under the award.
OEA anticipates a close working partnership with the successful respondent. OEA will exercise substantial involvement under this cooperative agreement in the following ways:
1. Approval of the Recipient's project schedule.
2. OEA and Recipient joint participation in communications/engagement with OEA Grantees.
3. OEA and Recipient collaboration on project methodology over the course of the project period.
4. Approval of draft reports, technical assistance materials and presentations.
Each respondent is required to: (a) Provide a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; (b) be registered in SAM before submitting its application; and (c) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. OEA may not make a Federal award to a respondent until the respondent has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if a respondent has not fully complied with the requirements by the time OEA is ready to issue a Federal award, OEA may determine that the respondent is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another respondent.
Electronic submissions must be received by OEA by 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2015 Eastern Daylight Savings Time. Proposals sent after this time will not be reviewed.
Not applicable.
OEA reserves the right to decline to fund pre-Federal award costs. Final awards may include pre-Federal award costs at the discretion of OEA; however, this must be specifically requested in the grantee's application.
The recipient may not earn or keep any profit resulting from Federal financial assistance.
Funding may not be used for direct hard- or soft-construction activities.
Each proposal shall consist of no more than ten (10) single-sided pages typed in a minimum 11-point common typeface, with no less than 1” margins, exclusive of appendices, attachments, and cover sheet and/or transmittal letter. Electronically submitted materials should be sent in Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat PDF format.
In reviewing proposals under this notice, OEA considers and weights equally each of the following factors:
1. Overall conformance with proposal requirements;
2. Overall quality of proposed research plan;
3. Overall expertise, experience, qualifications and ability of investigators;
4. Previous Federal grant management experience; and
5. Overall cost.
Proposals will be reviewed by OEA staff for completeness and accuracy as they are received. After the submission deadline, a panel of Federal agency staff will convene to review and rate the proposals using the criteria in section II, part e, Selection Criteria. Each panelist convened for this competition will evaluate each and every proposal.
Once a successful proposal has been selected, OEA will notify the respondent and assign a Project Manager to advise and assist with the preparation and submission of an application for a cooperative agreement in OEA's proprietary electronic grant management system.
A typical research project period begins with an initial meeting between the successful respondent and OEA staff to discuss the project scope of work and to ensure that all parties are in agreement as to the project terms. The successful respondent will then submit an application. The application will be reviewed for its completeness and accuracy, and, to the extent possible, an award notification will be issued within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of a complete application.
Unsuccessful respondents will be notified that their proposals were not selected for further action and funding, and may request a debriefing on their submitted proposal. Requests for debriefing must be submitted in writing within 3 calendar days of notification of an unsuccessful proposal.
In the event a cooperative agreement is awarded, the successful respondent (Recipient) will receive a notice of award in the form of a Cooperative Agreement, signed by the Director, OEA (Grantor), on behalf of DoD. The Cooperative Agreement will be transmitted electronically or, if necessary, by U.S. Mail. The Recipient must review the award agreement and indicate their consent to its terms by signing and returning it to OEA.
Any cooperative agreement awarded under this program will be governed by the provisions of the OMB circulars
• 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”;
• 2 CFR part 1103, “Interim Grants and Cooperative Agreements Implementation of Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”;
• 2 CFR part 25, “Universal Identifier and System for Award Management”;
• 2 CFR part 170, “Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information”;
• 2 CFR part 180, OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), as implemented by DoD in 2 CFR part 1125, Department of Defense Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension; and
• 32 CFR part 28, “New Restrictions on Lobbying”.
OEA requires periodic performance reports, an interim financial report for each 12 months a cooperative agreement is active, and one final performance report. Performance reports will contain information on the following:
a. A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period;
b. Reasons for slippage if established objectives were not met;
c. Additional pertinent information when appropriate;
d. A comparison of actual and projected quarterly expenditures in the cooperative agreement; and,
e. Amount of Federal cash on hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period.
The final performance report must contain a summary of activities for the entire project period. All required deliverables should be submitted with the final performance report.
The final SF 425, “Federal Financial Report,” must be submitted to OEA within 90 days after the end of the cooperative agreement.
Any funds actually advanced and not needed for project purposes shall be returned immediately to OEA. OEA will provide a schedule for reporting periods and report due dates in the Cooperative Agreement.
For further information, to answer questions, or for help with problems, contact: Ms. Elizabeth Chimienti, Project Manager, Office of Economic Adjustment, 2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 520, Arlington, VA 22202-3711, Office: (703) 697-2075. Email:
Selection of an organization under this FFO does not constitute approval of a cooperative agreement for the proposed project as submitted. Before any funds are awarded, OEA may enter into negotiations about such items as program components, staffing and funding levels, and administrative systems in place to support implementation of the award. The amount of available funding may require the final award amount to be less than that originally requested by the respondent. If the negotiations do not result in a mutually acceptable submission, OEA reserves the right to terminate the negotiations and decline to fund an application. OEA further reserves the right not to fund any application received under this FFO.
In the event the respondent is awarded a cooperative agreement that is less than the amount requested, the respondent will be required to modify its grant application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the cooperative agreement. OEA reserves the right to reduce or withdraw the award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the respondent within 15 business days from the date the request for modification is made. Any modifications must be within the scope of the original application.
Amendment or renewal of an award to increase funding or to extend the period of performance is at the discretion of OEA. If a respondent is awarded funding under this FFO, neither OEA, DoD nor any Federal agency are under any obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award or to make any future award(s).
Given the subject matter, some submissions may include proprietary information as it relates to confidential commercial information. The Freedom of Information Act defines “confidential commercial information” as information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm. Respondents may wish to request that OEA not disclose what they regard as confidential commercial information.
To assist OEA in making a determination on a non-disclosure request, respondents are encouraged to identify any specific confidential commercial information their proposals, or to email OEA directly with questions on this matter. Please list the information by page and paragraph numbers.
The documents and information submitted in response to this FFO become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
In the event of a cooperative agreement award, the Recipient may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was purchased, under an award. The Federal awarding agencies reserve a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so. Such uses include, but are not limited to, the right to modify and distribute such products worldwide by any means, electronically or otherwise. The Recipient may not use Federal funds to pay any royalty or license fee for use of a copyrighted work, or the cost of acquiring by purchase a copyright in a work, where DoD has a license or rights of free use in such work. If revenues are generated through selling products developed with cooperative agreement funds, including intellectual property, these revenues are program income and shall be added to the cooperative agreement and must be expended for allowable cooperative agreement activities.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k. The A-Mill Project consists of: (1) Removal of an existing concrete bulkhead blocking the existing intake structure; (2) an existing headrace tunnel rehabilitated and sleeved with a new 616-foot-long, 5-foot-diameter steel penstock; (3) a new vertical steel pipe installed in the existing downstream drop-shaft; (4) a new 600-kilowatt turbine generator; (5) a new 6-foot-wide by 4-foot-tall concrete outlet structure at the existing downstream tailrace; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is estimated to be 3,400 megawatt-hours.
l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
m.
Issue Notice of Acceptance: April 2015.
Issue notice soliciting final terms and conditions: May 2015.
Commission issues EA: July 2015.
Take notice that on March 18, 2015, Southwest Gas Storage Company (Southwest), 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP15-116-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, requesting authorization to plug and abandon 11 wells, associated lateral pipelines, and appurtenances at its Waverly Storage Field in Morgan County, Illinois, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Specifically, Southwest proposes to plug and abandon seven inactive injection/withdrawal wells (Carr 2-9, Staton 2-15, Mosley 2-16, Rogers 1-16, Stenemeyer 2-15, Edwards 1-16, and Wheeler 2-15). Southwest further proposes to abandon the related laterals, totaling 5,362 feet of 4-, 6-, and 8-inch diameter pipeline, with appurtenances. Additionally, Southwest proposes to plug and abandon four observation wells (Dora Hubbs 1-33, Burnett 1-4, B.J. Stenemeyer 1-22, and Wheeler 1-22). Southwest states that the working gas at the Waverly Storage Field has been reduced, leaving a number of wells too far from the gas bubble to provide useful service. Also, Southwest asserts that there have been integrity problems in the lateral pipelines, well site facilities, and wellheads due to corrosion. Southwest states that it does not anticipate storage field operation to change to where the subject wells would be needed for injection/withdrawal service. Southwest avers that the proposed abandonment project will have no effect on the certificated physical parameters of the Waverly Storage Field, including total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated capacity. Southwest estimates the cost of the proposed abandonment to be approximately $853,000.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Stephen Veatch, Sr. Director of Certificates, Southwest Gas Storage Company, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at (713) 989-2024, by facsimile at (713) 989-1205, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 17, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (Empire) (collectively, Applicants) 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate the Northern Access 2016 Project (the Project), and authorization to abandon and acquire certain related facilities. The Project will be located in McKean County, Pennsylvania and Alleghany, Cattaraugus, Erie and Niagara Counties, New York. The filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Kenneth E. Webster, Attorney for National Fuel and Empire, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or call at (716) 857-7067.
Specifically, National Fuel requests authorization: (i) To construct 96.65 miles of 24-inch diameter pipeline; (ii) to add 5,350 horsepower (hp) of compression at the Porterville, New York compressor station; (iii) to construct an interconnect meter and regulation (M&R) station with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.'s 200 Line; (iv) to construct an M&R station and tie-in in Hinsdale, New York; (v) to construct an interconnection with NFG Midstream Clermont, L.L.C.; (vi) to modify an existing tie-in; (vii) to construct a pressure reduction station; (viii) to abandon, via sale to Empire, all 3.09 miles of National Fuel's existing Line XM-10 pipeline and certain other existing facilities; (ix) to charge an initial incremental firm recourse rate for the Project; and (x) for a limited waiver of General Terms and Conditions Section 31.1 of National Fuel's tariff to permit the Project's Foundation Shipper to shift its primary delivery point for a portion of the Project's incremental capacity more than ninety days after its initial request. National Fuel proposes to provide 497,000 dekatherms per day of new firm natural gas transportation capacity.
Empire requests authorization to: (i) Construct a new 22,214 hp compressor station in Pendleton, New York; (ii) construct 3.05 miles of 24-inch pipeline, replacing 3.05 miles of existing National Fuel 16-inch XM-10 pipeline; (iii) construct a new dehydration facility; (iv) modify two existing tie-ins; and (v) acquire from National Fuel the aforementioned 3.09 miles of Line XM-10. Empire proposes to provide 350,000 dekatherms per day of new firm natural gas transportation capacity.
The total cost of the Project would be approximately $376,670,388 (National Fuel) and $74,348,362 (Empire).
On July 24, 2014, the Commission staff granted the Applicants' request to use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-18-000 to staff activities involving the proposed facilities. Now, as of the filing of this application on March 17, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP15-115-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Chairs. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, April 22, 2015—8 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Thursday, April 23, 2015—8 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Doubletree, 2561 Perimeter Parkway, Augusta, Georgia 30909.
David Borak, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-9928.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Union Meter Station Upgrade Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest) in Union County, Oregon. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on April 27, 2015.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on March 6, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-110-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
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 proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Northwest provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Northwest proposes to modify its existing meter station in Grande Ronde Valley, southeast of La Grande, Union County, Oregon. The Union Meter Station Upgrade Project would increase the existing Union Meter Station's capacity from approximately 3,120,000 to 5,500,000 standard cubic feet per day of natural gas in accordance with a Facility Agreement between Northwest and Avista Corporation, a local distribution company.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The project would require approximately 0.2 acre of total surface use occurring on previously disturbed and graveled land. Project construction would occur within the existing 50-foot-wide by 100-foot-long Union Meter Station property.
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 issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• geology and soils;
• land use;
• water use and quality;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species; and
• public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. 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 4.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
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 27, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP15-110-000) 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
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own property 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 send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
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 at
In addition, the Commission now 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
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission (April 14, 2015). The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for license for the Merced River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2179), and the Merced Falls Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2467) and prepared a draft multi-project environmental impact statement (EIS) for the projects.
Both projects are located on the Merced River. The Merced River Project is located at river mile (RM) 62.5 and 56.3, respectively, about 23 miles northeast of the city of Merced in Mariposa County, California. The Merced River Project occupies 3,154.9 acres of federal land administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Merced Falls Project is located at RM 55 on the border of Merced and Mariposa Counties, California. The Merced Falls Project occupies 1.0 acre of federal land administered by BLM.
The draft EIS contains staff's analysis of the applicants' proposals and the alternatives for relicensing the Merced River and Merced Falls projects. The draft EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicants, and Commission staff.
A copy of the draft EIS is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
All comments must be filed by Friday, May 29, 2015, and should reference Project Nos. 2179-043 and 2467-020. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's efiling system at
Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18 CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified above. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Commission staff will hold two public meetings for the purpose of receiving comments on the draft EIS. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribe, and non-governmental organization comments, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. All interested individuals and entities will be invited to attend the public meeting. A notice detailing the exact date, time, and location of the public meetings will be forthcoming.
For further information, please contact Matt Buhyoff at (202) 502-6824 or at
Commission staff (Protestor) hereby protests the prior notice request filed under the provisions of part 157, subpart F, of the Commission's regulations, by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) on January 20, 2015 in the above referenced docket. Pursuant to its part 157, subpart F, blanket certificate authority, Northern proposes to construct and abandon facilities in Clark and Codington Counties, South Dakota. Protestor seeks to have this prior notice request processed as a case-specific application filed under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and part 157, subpart A, of the Commission's regulations.
Protestor notes that on February 27, 2015, Northern filed a data response which described communication with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation (tribe). The tribe indicated that it would be necessary to conduct a Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) survey to ensure that no TCPs would be affected by construction. Northern has not yet provided the results of the TCP survey. Northern must file with the FERC the results of the TCP survey and/or updated communication with the tribe to ensure the project's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as required under Appendix II to Subpart F of Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. Without this information, environmental concerns cannot be adequately assessed before the protest period expires today.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend upcoming PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) Members Committee and Markets and Reliability Committee meetings, as well as other PJM committee, subcommittee or task force meetings.
• April 23, 2015 (Wilmington, DE)
• May 19-21, 2015 (Atlantic City, NJ)
• June 25, 2015 (TBD)
• August, 27, 2015 (TBD)
• September 24, 2015 (TBD)
• October 22, 2015 (TBD)
• November 19, 2015 (TBD)
• April 23, 2015 (Wilmington, DE)
• May 28, 2015 (Wilmington, DE)
• June 25, 2015 (Wilmington, DE)
• July 23, 2015 (Wilmington, DE)
• August 27, 2015 (Wilmington, DE)
• September 24, 2015 (TBD)
• October 22, 2015 (TBD)
• November 19, 2015 (TBD)
• December 17, 2015 (TBD)
• April 8, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• May 6, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• June 10, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• July 8, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• August 12, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• September 9, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• October 7, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• November 4, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
• December 2, 2015 (Audubon, PA)
The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address matters at issue in pending proceedings before the Commission, including the following currently pending proceedings:
Docket No. EL05-121,
Docket No. EL08-14,
Docket No. ER09-1148,
Docket No. ER09-1256,
Docket Nos. ER09-1589 and EL10-6,
Docket No. EL10-52,
Docket No. EL11-54,
Docket No. ER11-1844,
Docket No. AD12-1 and ER11-4081,
System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. AD12-16,
Docket No. EL12-54,
Docket No. ER12-91,
Docket No. ER12-92,
Docket No. ER12-2399,
Docket No. ER12-2708,
Docket No. EL13-47,
Docket No. ER13-90,
Docket No. ER13-195,
Docket No. ER13-198,
Docket No. ER13-349-001,
Docket No. ER13-535,
Docket No. ER13-1654,
Docket No. ER13-1924,
Docket No. ER13-1926,
Docket No. ER13-1927,
Docket No. ER13-1936,
Docket No. ER13-1944,
Docket No. ER13-1947,
Docket No. ER13-2108,
Docket No. EL14-20,
Docket No. EL14-45,
Docket No. EL14-55,
Docket Nos. EL14-94, EL14-36,
Docket No. ER14-972,
Docket No. ER14-503,
Docket No. ER14-504,
Docket No. ER15-746,
Docket No. ER14-822,
Docket No. ER14-1144,
Docket No. ER14-1145,
Docket No. ER14-1461,
Docket No. ER14-1485,
Docket No. ER14-2242,
Docket Nos. ER14-2864, ER14-2867,
Docket No. ER14-2940,
Docket No. EL15-15, ER15-696,
Docket No. EL15-18,
Docket No. EL15-31,
Docket No. EL15-38,
Docket No. EL15-40,
Docket No. EL15-41,
Docket No. EL15-46,
Docket No. ER15-61,
Docket No. ER15-135,
Docket Nos. ER15-623, EL15-29,
Docket No. ER15-643,
Docket No. ER15-738,
Docket No. ER15-739,
Docket No. ER15-834,
Docket No. ER15-852,
Docket No. ER15-952,
Docket No. ER15-1193,
Docket No. ER15-1232,
Docket No. ER13-1957,
Docket No. ER13-1942,
Docket No. ER13-1946,
Docket No. ER13-1947,
Docket No. ER13-1960,
Docket No. ER13-1926,
Docket No. ER13-1944,
Docket No. ER13-1943,
Docket No. ER13-1924,
Docket No. ER13-1945,
Docket No. ER13-1955,
Docket No. ER13-1956,
Docket No. ER15-376,
For additional meeting information, see:
The meetings are open to stakeholders. For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6139 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
As discussed in prior notices, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a workshop to discuss standards for calculating Available Transfer Capability (ATC) for wholesale electric transmission services.
The workshop is prompted by the filing by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) proposing changes to its ATC-related reliability standards,
The workshop will commence at 12:00 noon and conclude by 4:15 p.m., EST. The workshop will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC, 20426. Commission members may participate in the workshop.
This Notice contains an Agenda that is materially the same as the Updated Agenda previously issued in this docket. However, specific details may change as Commission staff finalizes the agenda, including the list of featured speakers, times of the session discussions or details of the topics to be discussed. The Commission will issue an additional Notice as needed. This workshop is free of charge and open to the public. Commission members may participate in the workshop.
Those who plan to attend the workshop are encouraged to complete the registration form located at:
Transcripts of the workshop will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202-347-3700). Additionally, there will be a free webcast of the workshop. Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the workshop can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at
Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For further information on this workshop, please contact:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “State Program Adequacy Determination: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) and Non-Municipal, Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Hazardous Waste (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1608.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0152) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2014-0839, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, mail code 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9037; fax number: (703) 308-8686; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
In response to the statutory requirement in § 4005(c), EPA developed 40 CFR part 239, commonly referred to as the State Implementation Rule (SIR). The SIR describes the state application and EPA review procedures and defines the elements of an adequate state permit program.
The collection of information from the state during the permit program adequacy determination process allows EPA to evaluate whether a program for which approval is requested is appropriate in structure and authority to ensure owner or operator compliance with the revised federal criteria. Section 239.3 of the SIR, requires that all state applications contain the following five components:
(1) A transmittal letter requesting permit program approval.
(2) A narrative description of the state permit program, including a demonstration that the state's standards for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste are technically comparable to the Part 257, Subpart B criteria and/or that its MSWLF standards are technically comparable to the Part 258 criteria.
(3) A legal certification demonstrating that the state has the authority to carry out the program.
(4) Copies of state laws, regulations, and guidance that the state believes demonstrate program adequacy.
(5) Copies of relevant state-tribal agreements if the state has negotiated with a tribe for the implementation of a permit program on tribal lands.
The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations of adequacy to the EPA Regional Administrator. The appropriate EPA Regional Office, therefore, will use the information provided by each state to determine whether the state's permit program satisfies the statutory test reflected in the requirements of 40 CFR part 239.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application 59639-EUP-RI from Valent U.S.A. Corp., requesting an experimental use permit (EUP) for Clothianidin. The Agency has determined that the permit may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, because of the potential significance, EPA is seeking comments on this application.
Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0667, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
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
1.
2.
3.
Under section 5 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow manufacturers to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers are required to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses of pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or more of land or one acre or more of water.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the following EUP application may be of regional and national significance, and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
Following the review of the application and any comments and data received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held April 21 and 22, 2015 at the Sheraton Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. The CHPAC was created to advise the Environmental Protection Agency on science, regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental health.
The CHPAC will meet April 21 and 22, 2015.
8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910.
Martha Berger, Office of Children's Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2191 or
The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. The CHPAC will meet on April 21 from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and April 22 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. An agenda will be posted at
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of information collection to be submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the survey collection instrument for its fourth National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (2015 Household Survey), currently approved under OMB Control No. 3064-0167, scheduled to be conducted in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to its June 2015 Current Population Survey (CPS). The survey seeks to estimate the proportions of unbanked and underbanked households in the U.S. and to identify the factors that inhibit the participation of these households in the mainstream banking system, and opportunities to expand the use of banking services among underserved consumers. The results of these ongoing surveys will help policymakers and bankers understand the issues and challenges underserved households perceive when deciding how and where to conduct financial transactions.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 6, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. All comments should refer to “National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households”:
•
•
•
•
Interested members of the public may obtain a copy of the survey and related instructions by clicking on the link for the
The FDIC is requesting OMB approval to revise the following collection of information:
The FDIC recognizes that public confidence in the banking system is strengthened when banks effectively serve the broadest possible set of consumers. As a result, the agency is committed to increasing the participation of unbanked and underbanked households in the financial mainstream by ensuring that all Americans have access to safe, secure, and affordable banking services. These National Surveys of Unbanked and Underbanked Households are one contribution to this end.
These National Surveys of Unbanked and Underbanked Households are also a key component of the FDIC's efforts to comply with a Congressional mandate contained in section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (“Reform Act”) (Pub. L. 109-173), which calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys “on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account or other type of transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution (hereafter in this section referred to as the `unbanked') into the conventional finance system.” Section 7 further instructs the FDIC to consider several factors in its conduct of the surveys, including: (1) “what cultural, language and identification issues as well as transaction costs appear to most prevent `unbanked' individuals from establishing conventional accounts,” and (2) “what is a fair estimate of the size and worth of the `unbanked' market in the United States.” The 2015 Household Survey is designed to address these factors and provide a factual basis on the proportions of unbanked households. Such a factual basis is necessary to adequately assess banks' efforts to serve these households as required by the statutory mandate.
To obtain this information, the FDIC partnered with the U.S. Census Bureau, which administered the Household Survey supplement (“FDIC Supplement') to households that participated in the January 2009, June 2011, and June 2013 CPS. The results of these surveys were released to the public in December 2009, September 2012, and October 2014, respectively.
The FDIC supplement has yielded nationally-representative data, not otherwise available, on the size and characteristics of the population that is unbanked or underbanked, the use by this population of alternative financial services, and the reasons why some households do not make greater use of mainstream banking services. These National Surveys of Unbanked and Underbanked Households are the only population-representative surveys conducted at the national level that provides state-level estimates of the size and characteristics of unbanked and underbanked households for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. An executive summary of the results of the first three Household Surveys, the full reports, and the survey instruments can be accessed through the following link:
Consistent with the statutory mandate to conduct the surveys on an ongoing basis, the FDIC already has in place arrangements for conducting the fourth Household Survey as a supplement to the June 2015 CPS. However, prior to finalizing the next survey instrument, the FDIC seeks to solicit public comment on whether changes to the existing instrument are desirable and, if so, to what extent. It should be noted that, as a supplement of the CPS survey, the 2015 Household Survey needs to adhere to specific parameters that include limits in the length and sensitivity of the questions that can be asked of CPS respondents. Specifically, there is a strict limitation on the average time required to complete the survey.
On January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3234), the FDIC issued a request for comment on possible revisions to the 2015 Household Survey. The FDIC received three comments related to this survey effort. One of the commenters suggested that the FDIC collect information on household asset levels. The commenter noted that this would allow retail banks that use asset levels in their segmentation and strategy work to easily incorporate data from the 2015 Household Survey into their analyses. The FDIC seeks to provide insights from the 2015 Household Survey to inform efforts to better meet the needs of underserved consumers, and strongly encourages use of the survey data by financial institutions and other stakeholders. The FDIC is concerned that households' asset holdings may be sensitive information for many households and that asking for this information may reduce participation in the survey. In all of the surveys to date, including the 2015 Household Survey, there are no survey questions that ask households for specific dollar amounts regarding saving, assets or spending. The 2015 Household Survey does contain some new questions that will help the FDIC better understand households' savings behavior, including ways in which households save money, and about their ability to meet their monthly obligations. Detailed data on households' asset holdings are available from other sources, such as the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances.
One commenter cautioned against the use of online methods for conducting the 2015 Household Survey. The 2015 Household Survey is an interviewer-administered survey conducted by the Census Bureau in-person or by telephone.
One commenter recommended that the 2015 Household Survey retain as
One commenter suggested the addition of specific questions to measure household financial fragility to help understand the connections between emergency savings and banking access (
One commenter suggested collecting information on a wider range of credit products. The 2015 questionnaire added a new section on the use of credit products, including mainstream banking credit products (
The commenter also made suggestions to improve the usability of the online tool for analyzing the survey data that is currently available at
One commenter encouraged the FDIC to offer training to municipalities and others on how to use and maximize the opportunities offered by the custom table generator at:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The FDIC will consider all comments to determine the extent to which the information collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. After the comment period closes, comments will be summarized and/or included in the FDIC's request to OMB for approval of the collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 1, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
In connection with this application, Applicants have also applied to acquire Square 1 Venture Management 1, L.P., Durham, North Carolina, and thereby engage in funds management, investment advisory, and private placement activities, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6)(i), (b)(7)(i) and (b)(7)(iii), respectively.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 21, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:
1.
Office of Government-wide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of a bulletin.
The purpose of this notice is to inform agencies that FTR Bulletin 15-03 pertaining to Relocation Allowances—Relocation Income Tax (RIT) Allowance Tables is now available online at
Mr. Rick Miller, Office of Asset and Transportation Management (MA), Office of Government-wide Policy, GSA, at 202-501-3822 or via email at
The GSA published FTR Amendment 2008-04 in the
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 section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) was established in 1987 to comply with Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (Pub. L. 99-660) (§ 2105) (42 U.S. Code 300aa-5 (PDF—78 KB)). Its purpose is to advise and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to program responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) has been designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the Director of the National Vaccine Program. The National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) is located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NVPO provides leadership and fosters collaboration among the various federal
In February 2013, the NVAC created a working group to review the current state of HPV immunization, to understand the root cause(s) for the observed low vaccine uptake, both in initiation and in series completion, and to identify existing best practices to increase the use of the HPV vaccine in young adolescents.
Through a series of teleconferences, electronic communications, and public discussions during the NVAC meetings, a working group identified a number of draft recommendations categorized into five priority areas of opportunity for improving vaccination coverage among adolescents. The draft report and draft recommendations from the working group will inform NVAC deliberations as the NVAC finalizes their recommendations for transmittal to the ASH.
On behalf of NVAC, NVPO is soliciting public comment on the draft report and draft recommendations from a variety of stakeholders, including the general public. Comments will be considered by the NVAC as it develops its final recommendations to the ASH. It is anticipated that the draft report and draft recommendations, as revised with consideration given to public comment and stakeholder input, will be presented to the NVAC for discussion and adoption in NVAC meeting in June 2015.
Comments for consideration by the NVAC should be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 6, 2015.
(1) The draft report and draft recommendations are available on the web at
(2) Electronic responses are preferred and may be addressed to:
(3) Written responses should be addressed to: National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 715H, Washington, DC 20201. Attn: HHS HPV Immunizations.
National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services; telephone (202) 690-5566; fax (202) 690-4631; email:
There are an average of 25,900 newly diagnosed cases per year of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancer in the United States. An estimated 14 million people are newly infected with HPV each year and nearly half of these infections occur in people between the ages of 14-25 years. While most infections resolve over time, persistent infection with oncogenic HPV types is associated with a variety of cancers. Virtually all cervical cancers are due to HPV along with 90 percent of anal, 69 percent of vaginal, 60 percent of oropharyngeal, 51 percent of vulvar, and 40 percent of penile cancers. Further, 87 percent of anal, 76 percent of cervical, 60 percent of oropharyngeal, 55 percent of vaginal, 44 percent of vulva and 29 percent of penile cancers are caused by oncogenic HPV types 16 or 18. Of the 35,000 HPV cancers reported in 2009 in the U.S., 39 percent occurred in males.
Through their analysis and discussion, the NVAC identified five major areas of opportunity:
(1) Endorsing the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) report, Accelerating HPV Vaccine Uptake: Urgency for Action to Prevent Cancer, and adopt the recommendations outlined therein.
(2) Monitoring “the status of uptake and implementation of the recommendations” through an annual progress report from HPV vaccination stakeholders identified in the PCP report.
(3) Working with relevant agencies and stakeholders to develop evidence-based, effective, coordinated communication strategies to increase the strength and consistency of clinician recommendations for HPV vaccination to adolescents (both males and females) in the recommended age groups and to improve acceptance among parents/guardians, adolescents and young adults.
(4) Working with the relevant agencies and stakeholders to strengthen the immunization system in order to maximize access to and support of adolescent vaccinations, including HPV vaccines.
(5) Encouraging the review or development of available data that could lead to a simplified HPV vaccination schedule. In addition to a review that could impact existing vaccines, manufacturers of HPV vaccines in development should also consider opportunities to support the simplest HPV immunization schedule while maintaining vaccine effectiveness, safety, and long-term protection.
NVPO, on behalf of the NVAC HPV Working Group, requests input on the draft report and draft recommendations. In addition to general comments on the draft report and draft recommendations, NVPO is seeking input on efforts or barriers to HPV immunization not represented in the report where HHS efforts could advance adolescent immunization efforts. Please limit your comments to six (6) pages.
HHS invites input from a broad range of stakeholders including individuals and organizations that have interests in HPV immunization efforts and the role of HHS in advancing those efforts.
Examples of potential responders include, but are not limited to, the following:
When responding, please self-identify with any of the above or other categories (include all that apply) and your name. Anonymous submissions will not be considered. Written submissions should not exceed six (6) pages. Please do not send proprietary, commercial, financial, business, confidential, trade secret, or personal information.
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 Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.
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 of Dental & Craniofacial Research, 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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 6, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes the FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
By their very nature, medical and health decisions are comparative (
The design consists of two pretests and a main study. We will conduct two sequential pretest waves prior to main data collection. The purpose the pretests are to: (1) Ensure the stimuli are understandable and viewable; (2) identify and address any challenges to embedding the stimuli within the online survey; and (3) ensure the study questions are appropriate and meet the study's goals. Participants in the pretests will be randomly assigned to one of two versions of an ad. One version will present information about the price of the product relative to a competitor for the same indication (Price Comparison). Another version will present this information with additional contextual information that the two drugs may not be comparable in
Participants in Pretest 1 will be consumers (n=400) who self-identify as having been diagnosed with diabetes. Pretest 2 will be conducted with physicians (n=1,000) who are General Practitioners (
In the main study phase, physician (n=1440) and consumer (n=1,500) participants will be randomly assigned to view one of three possible versions of a DTC or professional ad for a fictitious prescription drug for diabetic neuropathy and will be asked to complete an online survey to assess their perceptions and understanding of product safety and efficacy, perceptions and understanding of the additional contextual information, perceptions of comparative safety and efficacy, perceptions of the comparator product, and intention to seek more information about the product (see Exhibit 2). This sample size will provide us with sufficient power to detect small-to-medium sized effects.
In addition to the Price Comparison and Price Comparison + Additional Context ads used in pretesting, a third ad version will have a claim about the price of the product but will not present information about the price relative to a competitor, and will act as a control.
Participants will be consumers who self-identify as having been diagnosed with diabetes and physicians who are General Practitioners (
In the
(Comment 1 from Lenisse Lippert, Quality Matrix Solutions) “I would like to participate in the industry feedback on a proposed study to better understand direct-to-consumer advertisements that compare drug pricing, and how that information affects a consumer's perception of a drug's overall safety and efficacy versus the comparator product.”
(Response) We thank Ms. Lippert for her comment.
(Comment 2 from AbbVie) To prevent fatigue, online market research surveys do not generally exceed 20 minutes. Given that FDA is trying to make the most of their survey opportunity by asking many questions, it would be wise to place the meatier pricing related questions earlier in the survey when respondents are still engaged.
(Response) We take the survey length very seriously. We are sensitive to issues regarding respondent fatigue and its impact upon completion rates and thus have placed items that are most likely to be influenced by respondent fatigue (open-ended questions) at the beginning of the survey. We have employed similar online surveys on
(Comment 3 from AbbVie) In both surveys, respondents are asked many questions about product X that appear positively stated. Therefore, there is a risk of a bias by asking the critical pricing and language questions after the respondent has already been exposed to many product X questions and supposed attributes. To avoid bias, the most critical questions should appear as up front in the surveys as possible.
(Response) Of greatest interest to FDA is the question of whether presence or absence of price comparison information and contextual information influences outcomes such as perceptions of comparative safety and efficacy, perceptions of the comparator product, and intentions to seek more information about the advertised product. Placing pricing related questions near the beginning of the survey would likely bias participants to think about pricing information more than they would under natural conditions, which may influence their responses to the aforementioned critical dependent variables. Although current question ordering may bias responses to pricing related questions, we believe this outcome is less consequential than the reverse, as suggested in this comment. Consequently, we intend to retain the current order of questions in the survey.
(Comment 4 from AbbVie) It is unclear if the drug examples (X and Y) are real world medicines that could be taken by the patient respondents. If so, do respondents need to be aware of each product? If they need not be aware, you will need to balance the samples for any differences between cells. In addition, the cells will also need to be balanced for current drug usage to prevent additional bias.
(Response) We have constructed a fictional product for use in this study to control for effects that might result as a consequence of having taken the product in the past. The comparator is a real product. We will measure participants' experience with medication for this condition, prior exposure to advertising for the comparator, and prior experience taking the comparator. Responses to these questions can be used as covariates in analysis.
(Comment 5 from AbbVie) The questions on the physician survey should be at a higher level language versus the general population. We note the questions in the patient questionnaire seem to vary in reading level required to comprehend them. We recommend that FDA review the questions for consistency so as not [to] introduce a reading bias.
(Response) We appreciate this comment. We have conducted cognitive interviews (OMB control number 0910-0695) to refine and improve the survey questions. We will also be conducting two rounds of pretesting which will provide an additional opportunity to identify and remove questions that do not function as intended, further refining the questionnaire prior to the main study. These activities include consideration of language level and whether it is appropriate for the participants being surveyed.
(Comment 6 from AbbVie) We recommend this ad explicitly present contextual information that the two drugs may not be comparable in terms of efficacy and safety (
(Response) The context language is based on feedback from the cognitive interviews. We appreciate the comment and have added a question to assess participants' attitudes about the context with regard to interchangeability of the products being compared.
(Comment 7 from AbbVie) It is not clear what type of cost information is being presented in these ads. We suggest that the advertisement should make clear what costs are being presented, for what doses, and over what time frames so that readers are comparing `apples to apples' when viewing the ads. If study budget allows, it would be ideal to test a variety of cost information.
(Response) The price comparison is for the same indication on a yearly basis. We agree that it would be informative to expand the study to test a variety of cost information but do not have the resources to do so.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 6, 2015.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The purpose of this study is to compare existing device labeling from approximately six different types of medical devices with a standard content and format of the same labeling that FDA researchers will develop using the existing labeling as their source of the information.
Building upon the research methodology and success of the approach FDA used to evaluate drug labeling, we propose to measure the usability and usefulness of a draft standard content and format of device labeling against existing manufacturer labeling of the same device. This will support our research that has already been done to assess whether health care practitioners (HCPs) find the format and content of device labeling to be clear, understandable, useful, and user friendly (OMB control number 0910-0715). Findings will provide evidence to inform FDA's planned regulatory approach to standardizing medical device labeling across the United States.
In the
(Comment 1) One comment stated that FDA should coordinate with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as they already have published a consensus standard (F2943) on this topic. This standard resulted from the work of a multi-stakeholder working group.
(Response) FDA reviewed the consensus standard (F2943) when we drafted the outline for this study. We consulted with a member of the ASTM committee. We also requested a member of the committee to be on our strategic planning committee for this study.
(Comment 2) A comment stated that FDA does not follow the guidance on formative human factors and usability studies. The guidance provides good direction on appropriately choosing representative end users, replicating the intended user environment, and evaluating the user-product interface (see FDA draft guidance “Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Optimize Medical Device Design” issued on June 22, 2011).
(Response) FDA had designed the protocol for this study with a human factors expert and a social scientist. In this particular study, we will be doing a cognitive test of the health care practitioners. They will be asked to find a piece of information in the draft outline of standard content of labeling, or in the manufacturer's existing labeling. They will not be interacting with the device and this will be a usability test; they will be responding to scenarios to search for information.
(Comment 3) One comment stated that FDA should ask the question, particularly to physicians, whether the standard of care requires them to read the user instructions and understand the product's warning.
(Response) This study is the third part of a three-part study. FDA performed focus groups of health care practitioners asking them what they want in labeling, where do they find labeling, what are the most important sections of labeling, and whether they even look at labeling. Their responses indicated that they do not look at labeling because it is complicated and they typically cannot find the information they want in one section. They stated they would like an abbreviated version of labeling in order to find use information more easily, they would like a standard content of labeling, and they also would like to find it electronically and in one place if possible.
FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine; we do, however, regulate labeling that accompanies a device. Based on the previous phases of the studies already done, we now want to test a standard content of labeling against an existing piece of the same labeling to see if health care practitioners can find what they need in a consistent and easy way. This is a cognitive testing of a standard content of labeling and does not include questions regarding whether or not someone is required to read the labeling before using the device.
We will be using outside experts to develop the protocol, develop the scenarios, develop the draft standardized labeling, perform the testing, and provide a summary of the study. This is being done through the Entrepreneurs in Residence program that is funded by the White House to use outside experts and their special knowledge and skills to work on an innovative idea that helps the government when faced with a unique problem. Dr. Daryle Gardner-Bonneau is a renowned social scientist and human factors specialist who has worked with the device industry, standards organizations, and the National Research Council on issues with medical device labeling. Patricia Kingsley is a former FDA employee who worked on medical device labeling issues. Nancy Ostrove is a former FDA employee who worked on surveys and studies with drug community when the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research was developing standardized labeling
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We plan to screen approximately 60 potential respondents prior to being included in the study. The screener will be done using email. We estimate that the screener will only take approximately 5 minutes per person.
We will conduct the studies at three different sites including two area hospitals using their devices, existing labeling, and HCPs. We expect that the maximum time for testing will be 1.5 hours. Given a sample of 6 devices with 2 different labeling types, there will be 12 different labeling types to be tested. We plan to have 24 people test each type of the labeling.
We will also conduct the studies on FDA's campus using medical devices received from medical device industry representatives through a material transfer agreement. To account for travel time we have included 2 additional hours per response in the burden estimate for the 12 health care professionals participating at FDA.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and 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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets. Seating for this meeting may be limited, so the public is encouraged to watch the free Web cast if you are unable to attend. The Web cast will be available at 8:30 a.m. on May 13, 2015, at the link provided.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public conference.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an educational conference cosponsored with the Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA). The public conference regarding FDA's clinical trial requirements is designed to aid the clinical research professional's understanding of the mission, responsibilities, and authority of FDA and to facilitate interaction with FDA representatives. The program will focus on the relationships among FDA and clinical trial staff, investigators, and institutional review boards (IRBs). Individual FDA representatives will discuss the informed consent process including informed consent documents, regulations relating to drugs, devices, and biologics, as well as inspections of clinical investigators, IRBs, and research sponsors.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact SOCRA (see
Extended periods of question and answer and discussion have been included in the program schedule. SOCRA designates this education activity for a maximum of 13.3 Continuing Education (CE) Credits for SOCRA CE and Continuing Nurse Education (CNE). SOCRA designates this live activity for a maximum of 13.3 American Medical Association Physicians Recognition Award Category 1 Credit(s)
The public workshop helps fulfill the Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to protect the public health. The workshop will provide those engaged in FDA-regulated (human) clinical trials with information on a number of topics concerning FDA requirements related to informed consent, clinical investigation requirements, institutional review board inspections, electronic record requirements, and investigator-initiated research.
Topics for discussion include the following: (1) The Role of the FDA District Office Relative to the Bioresearch Monitoring Program; (2) Modernizing FDA's Clinical Trials/BIMO Programs; (3) What FDA Expects in a Pharmaceutical Clinical Trial; (4) Medical Device Aspects of Clinical Research; (5) Adverse Event Reporting—Science, Regulation, Error and Safety; (6) Working with FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; (7) Ethical Issues in Subject Enrollment; (8) Keeping Informed and Working Together; (9) FDA Conduct of Clinical Investigator Inspections; (10) Investigator Initiated Research; (11) Meetings with the FDA—Why, When, and How; (12) Part 11 Compliance—Electronic Signatures; (13) IRB Regulations and FDA Inspections; (14) Informed Consent Regulations; (15) The Inspection is Over—What Happens Next? Possible FDA Compliance Actions; (16) Question and Answer Session/Panel Discussion.
FDA has made education of the drug and device manufacturing community a high priority to help ensure the quality of FDA-regulated drugs and devices. The workshop helps to achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which includes working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public. The workshop also is consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as outreach activities by Government agencies to small businesses.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for JUXTAPID and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-7900.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub, L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product JUXTAPID (lomitapide mesylate). JUXTAPID is indicated as an adjunct to a low-fat diet and other lipid-lowering treatments, including LDL apheresis where available, to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for JUXTAPID (U.S. Patent No. 5,712,279) from Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 31, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of JUXTAPID represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for JUXTAPID is 6,002 days. Of this time, 5,705 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 297 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive applications for two limited competition cooperative agreements under the National Indian Health Outreach and Education (NIHOE) program: the Behavioral Health—Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Intervention (MSPI) outreach and education award and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) outreach and education award. The Behavioral Health—MSPI outreach and education award is funded by IHS and is authorized under the Snyder Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 13; the Transfer Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2001; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Public. Law 113-76. The HIV/AIDS outreach and education award is funded by the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Funding for the HIV/AIDS award will be provided by OS via an Intra-Departmental Delegation of Authority dated to IHS to permit obligation of funding appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Public Law 113-76. Each award is funded through a separate funding stream by each respective Agency's appropriations. The awardee is responsible for accounting for each of the two awards separately and must provide two separate financial reports (one for each award), as indicated below. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 93.933.
The NIHOE program carries out health program objectives in the American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) community in the interest of improving Indian health care for all 566 Federally-recognized Tribes including Tribal governments operating their own health care delivery systems through Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) contracts and compacts with the IHS and Tribes that continue to receive health care directly from the IHS. This program addresses health policy and health programs issues and disseminates educational information to all AI/AN Tribes and villages. The NIHOE IIMSPI and HIV/AIDS awards require that public forums be held at Tribal educational consumer conferences to disseminate changes and updates in the latest health care information. These awards also require that regional and national meetings be coordinated for information dissemination as well as for the inclusion of planning and technical assistance and health care recommendations on behalf of participating Tribes to ultimately inform IHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) based on Tribal input through a broad based consumer network.
The purpose of these cooperative agreements is to further IHS health program objectives in the AI/AN community with expanded outreach and education efforts for the MSPI and HIV/AIDS programs on a national scale and in the interest of improving Indian health care. This announcement includes two separate awards, each of which will be awarded as noted below. The purpose of the MSPI award is to further the goals of the national MSPI program. The MSPI is a national demonstration project aimed at addressing the dual problems of methamphetamine use and suicide in Indian Country. The MSPI supports an AI/AN community driven focus on the utilization and development of evidence-based and practice-based intervention models that promote a culturally appropriate prevention, treatment, and postvention approach to methamphetamine use and suicide. The six goals of the MSPI are to effectively prevent, reduce, or delay the use and/or spread of methamphetamine use; build on the foundation of prior methamphetamine and suicide prevention and treatment efforts in order to support the IHS, Tribes, and urban Indian health organizations in developing and implementing Tribal and/or culturally appropriate methamphetamine and suicide prevention and early intervention strategies; increasing access to methamphetamine and suicide prevention services; improving services for behavioral health issues associated with methamphetamine use and suicide prevention; promoting the development of new and promising services that are culturally and community relevant; and demonstrating efficacy and impact.
[Note: While the national MSPI program includes outreach to urban Indian organizations, outreach aimed specifically at urban Indian organizations will be addressed in a separate award announcement. However, materials developed by the grantee in the (NIHOE-II) MSPI award described in this announcement may be distributed by IHS to urban Indian organizations, at the discretion of the Agency.]
The purpose of the HIV/AIDS award is to further the goals of the national HIV/AIDS program. HIV and AIDS are a critical and growing health issue within the AI/AN population. The IHS National HIV/AIDS Program seeks to avoid complacency and to increase awareness of the impact of HIV/AIDS on AI/ANs. All activities are part of the IHS's implementation plan to meet the three goals of the President's National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) to reduce the number of people who become infected with HIV, increase access to care and optimize health outcomes for people living with HIV, and reduce HIV-related disparities. This population faces additional health disparities that contribute significantly to the risk of HIV transmission such as substance abuse and sexually transmitted infections. Amongst AI/AN people, HIV/AIDS exists in both urban and rural populations (and on or near Tribal lands); however, many of those living with HIV are not aware of their status. These statistics, risk factors, and missed opportunities for screening illuminate the need to go beyond raising awareness about HIV and begin active integration of initiatives that will help routinize HIV services. If the status quo is unchanged, prevalence will continue to increase and AI/AN communities may face an irreversible problem. Therefore, the National HIV/AIDS Program is working to change the way HIV is discussed, to change and improve the way HIV testing is integrated into health services, and to firmly establish linkages and access to care. The IHS HIV/AIDS Program is implemented and executed via an integrated and comprehensive approach through collaborations across multi-health sectors, both internal and external to the agency. It attempts to encompass all types of service delivery `systems' including IHS/Tribal/Urban facilities. The IHS HIV/AIDS Program is committed to realizing the goals of the President's NHAS and has bridged the objectives and implementation to the IHS HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan.
Competition for both of the awards included in this announcement is limited to national Indian health care organizations with at least ten years of
Cooperative Agreement.
The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2015 is approximately $250,000 to fund two cooperative agreements for one year; $150,000 will be awarded for the Behavioral Health—MSPI award and $100,000 will be awarded for the HIV/AIDS award. The amount of funding available for competing awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
Two awards will be issued under this program announcement. It is the intention of IHS and the Office of the Secretary (OS) that one entity will receive both awards. OS and IHS will concur on the final decision as to who will receive both awards.
The project periods for each award will be for one year and will run from September 30, 2015 with completion by September 29, 2016.
Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:
The IHS assigned program official will monitor the overall progress of the awardee's execution of the requirements of the two awards: IHS award and OS award noted below as well as their adherence to the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreements. This includes providing guidance for required reports, developing of tools, and other products, interpreting program findings, and assisting with evaluations and overcoming any difficulties or performance issues encountered. The IHS assigned program official must approve all presentations, electronic content, and other materials, including mass emails, developed by awardee pursuant to these awards and any supplemental awards prior to the presentation or dissemination of such materials to any party.
i. The IHS assigned program official will work in partnership with the awardee to identify and provide presentation topics on MSPI for the National Tribal Advisory Committee meetings; the Behavioral Health Work Group; webinars; and IHS Area conference calls.
ii. The IHS assigned program official will work in partnership with the awardee to identify MSPI projects in need of technical assistance.
IHS staff will provide support for the HIV/AIDS award as follows:
i. The IHS assigned program official will work in partnership with the awardee in all decisions involving strategy, hiring of grantee personnel, deployment of resources, release of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, training, reports, budgets, and evaluations. Collaboration includes data analysis, interpretation of findings, and reporting.
ii. The IHS assigned program official will work closely with OS and all participating IHS health services/programs, as appropriate, to coordinate award activities.
iii. The IHS assigned program official will coordinate the following for OS and the participating IHS program offices and staff:
• Discussion and release of any and all special grant conditions upon fulfillment.
• Monthly scheduled conference calls.
• Appropriate dissemination of required reports to each participating program.
iv. The IHS will, jointly with the awardee, plan and set an agenda for each of the conferences mentioned in this announcement that:
• Shares the training and/or accomplishments.
• Fosters collaboration amongst the participating program offices, agencies, and/or departments.
• Increases visibility for the partnership between the awardee and the IHS and OS.
v. IHS will provide guidance in addressing deliverables and requirements.
vi. IHS will provide guidance in preparing articles for publication and/or presentations of program successes, lessons learned, and new findings.
vii. IHS will communicate via monthly conference calls, individual or collective site visits, and monthly meetings.
viii. IHS staff will review articles concerning the HHS, OS, and the Agency for accuracy and may, as requested by the awardee, provide relevant articles.
ix. IHS will provide technical assistance to the entity as requested.
x. IHS staff may, at the request of the entity's board, participate on study groups and may recommend topics for analysis and discussion.
The awardee must comply with relevant Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular provisions regarding lobbying, any applicable
The awardee is responsible for the following in addition to fulfilling all requirements noted for each award component: Behavioral Health—MSPI and HIV/AIDS.
i. To succinctly and independently address the requirements for each of the two awards listed below: Behavioral Health—MSPI and HIV/AIDS.
ii. To facilitate a forum or forums at which concerns can be heard that are representative of all Tribal governments in the area of health care policy analysis and program development for each of the two components listed above.
iii. To assure that health care outreach and education is based on Tribal input through a broad-based consumer network involving the Area Indian health boards or health board representatives from each of the 12 IHS Areas.
iv. To establish relationships with other national Indian organizations, professional groups, and Federal, State, and local entities supportive of AI/AN health programs.
v. To improve and expand access for AI/AN Tribal governments to all available programs within the HHS.
vi. To disseminate timely health care information to Tribal governments, AI/AN health boards, other national Indian organizations, professional groups, Federal, State, and local entities.
vii. To provide periodic dissemination of health care information, including publication of a newsletter four times a year that features articles on MSPI and HIV/AIDS health promotion/disease/behavioral health prevention activities and models of best or promising practices, health policy, and funding information relevant to AI/AN, etc.
The following schedule of deliverables outlines the requirements necessary to effectuate timely and effective support services to Tribal MSPI projects:
• At a minimum, the awardee shall provide Tribal MSPI program updates at the National Tribal Advisory Committee meetings and conference calls; and the Behavioral Health Work Group meetings and conference calls.
• At a minimum, the awardee shall serve as a committee member for the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention's American Indian/Alaska Native Task Force.
• The awardee shall participate in MSPI Area conference calls requested by the IHS assigned program official. The awardee must be included on the agenda and provide presentations on specific areas of interest identified by the Tribal MSPI programs and IHS assigned program official.
• The awardee shall provide information and education via multi-media venues, including but not limited to teleconference, webinar workshops, and/or online training modules on topics of particular importance to Tribal MSPI projects. The awardee will work with MSPI Tribal projects and the IHS assigned program official to identify topics. Topics will be discussed prior to the teleconference or webinar and will be subject to approval from the IHS assigned program official. PowerPoint slides must be submitted for approval two weeks prior to the presentation and will be made available on the IHS MSPI Web sites. Awardee's organizational Web site will link to IHS MSPI Web sites.
• The awardee shall conduct workshops and/or presentations including, but not limited to, the successes of the MSPI and promising practices and/or best practices of Tribal MSPI programs at three national conferences (venue and content of presentations to be agreed upon by the awardee and the IHS assigned program official).
• The awardee shall maintain a booth at identified meetings and conferences to provide comprehensive information on Tribal MSPI programs, curricula, findings, and strategies to local, regional, state, and Federal agencies and organizations.
• The awardee shall conduct site visits at Tribal MSPI programs, as funding is available, with two weeks advanced notification to the IHS assigned program official.
• The awardee shall review progress reports of MSPI projects identified by the program official.
• The awardee will develop and maintain orientation materials for MSPI projects including but limited to factsheets and guides.
• The awardee will provide training and technical assistance to increase AI/AN specific culture- or tradition-based interventions to be listed on the IHS Best and Promising Practice Registry.
• The awardee shall develop, maintain, and disseminate comprehensive information on Tribal MSPI programs, curricula, findings, articles, and strategies to all Tribal MSPI programs, and present the information at conference and meeting booths as described above.
• The awardee will provide postings on MSPI related information for the IHS MSPI Web site.
• The awardee will develop and/or maintain a comprehensive list of evidence-based and practice-based program development and business practice guidelines for use by Tribal MSPI programs.
• The awardee will develop and publish a semi-annual MSPI newsletter focusing on the impact and outcomes of the MSPI projects in Tribal communities to be cleared by IHS and then published on the IHS MSPI Web site.
• The awardee shall provide semi-annual reports documenting and describing progress and accomplishment of the activities specified above, attaching any necessary documentation to adequately document accomplishments.
• The awardee shall attend bi-weekly, regularly scheduled, in-person and conference call meetings with the IHS assigned program official team to discuss the awardee's services and MSPI/related issues. The awardee must provide meeting minutes that highlight the awardee's specific involvement and participation.
• The awardee shall obtain approval from the IHS assigned program official for all PowerPoint presentations, electronic content, and other materials, including mass emails, developed by awardee pursuant to this award and any supplemental awards prior to the presentation or dissemination of such materials to any party, allowing for a reasonable amount of time for IHS review.
• Attendance at regularly scheduled meetings between awardee and the IHS assigned program official, evidenced by meeting minutes which highlight the awardee's specific involvement and participation.
• Participation on MSPI Area conference calls identified by the IHS assigned program official, evidenced by meeting agenda and minutes as needed.
• Report of outcomes at the following (meeting booths, workshops, site visitations and/or presentations provided):
(a) National Tribal Advisory Committee conference calls and meetings.
(b) Behavioral Health Work Group conference calls and meetings. (PowerPoint slides in electronic form and one hard copy are to be submitted to the program official and the IHS assigned program official as required).
(c) IHS Area conference calls.
(d) IHS Area and national webinars.
(e) MSPI Project site visitations.
(f) Other AI/AN national conferences.
• Completed programmatic reviews of semi and annual progress reports of Tribal MSPI projects in order to identify projects that require technical assistance.
[Note: This review is not to replace IHS review of MSPI programs. The programmatic reviews to be conducted by grantee are secondary reviews intended solely to identify programs in need of technical assistance.]
○ The awardee shall help the IHS assigned program official identify challenges faced by participating Tribal communities and assist in developing solutions.
• Copies of educational and practice-based information provided to Tribal MSPI programs (electronic form and one hard copy).
• Copies of all promotional and educational materials provided to Tribal MSPI programs and other projects (electronic form and one hard copy).
• Copies of all promotional materials provided to media and other outlets (electronic form and one hard copy).
• Copies of all articles published (electronic form and one hard copy). Submit semi-annual and annual progress reports to Division of Behavioral Health (DBH), due no later than 30 days after the reporting cycle, attaching any necessary documentation. For example: meeting minutes, correspondence with Tribal MSPI projects, samples of all written materials developed including brochures, news articles, videos, radio and television ads to adequately document accomplishments.
• The awardee will submit a deliverable schedule to the program official no later than 30 days after the start date.
In alignment with the above program and independent from MSPI activities (both via fiscal resources and programmatic implementation), the awardee shall:
• Disseminate existing HIV/AIDS messages to AI/AN audiences in a format designed to solicit, collect, and report on community-level feedback and generate discussion regarding the disease and its prevention. This may include electronic and emerging means of communication. At least four distinct audiences (such as women, young people, etc.) will be addressed and engaged. Preference will be given to reaching audiences with the highest HIV burden or potential increases as supported by the NHAS.
• Disseminate existing IHS HIV/AIDS program and other HIV/AIDS training materials to educators, health care providers, and other key audiences. Collect and report on relevant evaluation criteria, including impacts on underlying knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about HIV acquisition, testing, or treatment.
• Deliver HIV/AIDS technical assistance and activity support program. Engage in documented partnerships with AI/AN communities to expand their capacity relevant to HIV/AIDS education and prevention efforts. Local activity support may include sub-awards of resources and distribution of incentives to qualified AI/AN-serving community organizations increasing HIV/AIDS education and prevention in their populations. Sub-award eligibility standards and management controls will be proposed by the awardee and will be subject to IHS approval. These activities must be conducted in accordance with Federal grant policies and procedures. Awardee will collect and maintain relevant evaluation materials and generate reports that highlight progress towards the President's NHAS goals on the community level and that collect best practices for dissemination to other communities.
• Contribute technical expertise to the IHS HIV/AIDS program and develop formal written documents responding to information requests from the public regarding HIV/AIDS initiatives.
• Develop and launch anti-stigma messaging for at least one audience, coordinated with other local activities to increase HIV screening and increase access to services, or increase positive role modeling for people living with, or at risk of, acquiring HIV/AIDS.
• Support and document issue-specific discussions with Tribal Leaders as needed to address effective prevention interventions for AI/AN populations as noted in the President's NHAS.
• Obtain approval from the IHS assigned program official of all presentations, electronic content, and other materials, including mass emails, developed by awardee pursuant to this award and any supplemental awards prior to the presentation or dissemination of such materials to any party, allowing for a reasonable amount of time for IHS review.
To be eligible for this “New/Competing Continuation Limited Competition Announcement”, an applicant must:
Provide proof of non-profit status with the application,
The national Indian organization must have the infrastructure in place to accomplish the work under the proposed program.
Eligible entities must have demonstrated expertise in the following areas:
• Representing all Tribal governments and providing a variety of services to Tribes, Area health boards, Tribal organizations, and Federal agencies, and playing a major role in focusing attention on Indian health care needs, resulting in improved health outcomes for AI/ANs.
• Promotion and support of Indian education and coordinating efforts to inform AI/AN of Federal decisions that affect Tribal government interests including the improvement of Indian health care.
• National health policy and health programs administration.
• Have a national AI/AN constituency and clearly support critical services and activities within the IHS mission of improving the quality of health care for AI/AN people.
• Portray evidence of their solid support of improved health care in Indian Country.
• Provide evidence of at least ten years of experience providing education and outreach on a national scale.
Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114.
Two complete separate signed applications are required. Both applications should address all the following components separately in each application. Each separate application must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.
• Application forms:
○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
• Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).
• Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 20 pages).
○ Background information on the organization.
○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.
• Letter of Support from Organization's Board of Directors.
• 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).
• Position Descriptions for all key personnel.
• Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.
• Organizational Chart (optional).
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-133 required Financial Audit (if applicable).
Acceptable forms of documentation include:
○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site:
All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.
A.
Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the ORC in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 20 pages will be reviewed. The 20-page page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.
There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.
Reminder: You are required to submit two separate complete and signed application packages. One for the Behavioral Health—MSPI cooperative agreement and one complete signed application package for the HIV/AIDS cooperative agreement. This applies to the narratives and budgets as well and all components listed below. Be sure to address each component separately in its respective application package. The page limitations below are for each narrative and budget submitted.
Describe how the national Indian organization has the experience to provide outreach and education efforts regarding the pertinent changes and updates in health care for each of the two components listed herein: Behavioral Health—MSPI and HIV/AIDS.
Describe fully and clearly how the national Indian organization plans to address the NIHOE II MSPI and HIV/AIDS requirements, including how the national Indian organization plans to demonstrate improved health education and outreach services to all 566 Federally-recognized Tribes for each of the two components described herein.
Describe fully and clearly how the outreach and education efforts will impact changes in knowledge and awareness in Tribal communities regarding both components. Identify anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribal constituency.
Identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health outreach and education. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period for both components, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.
Identify and summarize recent major health related outreach and education project activities of the work performed
B.
Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Ms. Tammy Bagley, Acting Director of DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process. A written waiver request must be sent to
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.
• Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per component.
• IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at:
• Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.
• If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to
• If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.
• Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.
• All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this Funding Announcement.
• After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT) will notify the applicant that the application has been received.
• Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a UEI number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The UEI number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided to each entity. The UEI number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a UEI number. Obtaining a UEI number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a UEI
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on subawards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier subrecipients that no entity may receive a first-tier subaward unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site:
The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 20 page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:
(1) Describe the organization's current health, education and technical assistance operations as related to the broad spectrum of health needs of the AI/AN community. Include what programs and services are currently provided (
(2) Describe the organization's current technical assistance ability. Include what programs and services are currently provided, programs and services projected to be provided, and describe any memorandums of agreement with other national Indian organizations that deem the applicant as the primary source of health policy information for AI/ANs, or any other memorandums of agreement with other Area Indian health boards, etc.
(3) Describe the population to be served by the proposed projects. Are they hard to reach? Are there barriers? Include a description of the number of Tribes who currently benefit from the technical assistance provided by the applicant.
(4) Describe the geographic location of the proposed project including any geographic barriers experienced by the recipients of the technical assistance to the health care information provided.
(5) Identify all previous IHS cooperative agreement awards received, dates of funding and summaries of the projects' accomplishments. State how previous cooperative agreement funds facilitated education, training and technical assistance nationwide for AI/ANs. (Copies of reports will not be accepted.)
(6) Describe collaborative and supportive efforts with national, Area, and local Indian health boards.
(7) Explain the need/reason for the proposed projects by identifying specific gaps or weaknesses in services or infrastructure that will be addressed by the proposed projects. Explain how these gaps/weaknesses have been assessed.
(8) Explain what measures were taken or will be taken to ensure the proposed projects will not create new gaps or weaknesses in services or infrastructure.
(9) Describe the effect of the proposed project on current programs (
(10) Describe how the projects relate to the purpose of the cooperative agreement by identifying how the proposed project will address national Indian health care outreach and education regarding various health data listed,
(1) Identify the proposed project objective(s) for each of the two projects, as applicable, addressing the following:
• Measurable and (if applicable) quantifiable.
• Results oriented.
• Time-limited.
Example: Issue four quarterly newsletters, provide alerts and quantify number of contacts with Tribes. Goals must be clear and concise.
(2) Address how the proposed projects will result in change or improvement in program operations or processes for each proposed project objective for the selected projects. Also address what tangible products, if any, are expected from the project, (
(3) Address the extent to which the proposed projects will provide, improve, or expand services that address the need(s) of the target population. Include a strategic plan and business plan currently in place that are being used that will include the expanded services. Include the plan(s) with the application submission.
(4) Submit a work plan in the Appendix that:
• Provides the action steps on a timeline for accomplishing each of the projects' proposed objective(s).
• Identifies who will perform the action steps.
• Identifies who will supervise the action steps taken.
• Identifies what tangible products will be produced during and at the end of the proposed project objective(s).
• Identifies who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed projects and at the end of the proposed projects.
• Identifies any training that will take place during the proposed projects and who will be attending the training.
• Identifies evaluation activities proposed in the work plans.
(5) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please include the following information in their scope of work (or note if consultants/contractors will not be used):
• Educational requirements.
• Desired qualifications and work experience.
• Expected work products to be delivered on a timeline.
If a potential consultant/contractor has already been identified, please include a resume in the Appendix.
(6) Describe what updates will be required for the continued success of the proposed project. Include when these updates are anticipated and where funds will come from to conduct the update and/or maintenance.
Each proposed objective requires an evaluation component to assess its progress and ensure its completion. Also, include the evaluation activities in the work plan.
Describe the proposed plan to evaluate both outcomes and process. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.
(1) For outcome evaluation, describe:
• What will the criteria be for determining success of each objective?
• What data will be collected to determine whether the objective was met?
• At what intervals will data be collected?
• Who will collect the data and their qualifications?
• How will the data be analyzed?
• How will the results be used?
(2) For process evaluation, describe:
• How will the projects be monitored and assessed for potential problems and needed quality improvements?
• Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing project improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and what are their qualifications?
• How will ongoing monitoring be used to improve the projects?
• Describe any products, such as manuals or policies, that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.
• How will the organization document what is learned throughout the projects' grant periods?
(3) Describe any evaluation efforts planned after the grant period has ended.
(4) Describe the ultimate benefit to the AI/AN population served by the applicant organization that will be derived from these projects.
This section outlines the broader capacity of the organization to complete the project outlined in the work plan. It includes the identification of personnel responsible for completing tasks and the chain of responsibility for successful completion of the projects outlined in the work plans.
(1) Describe the organizational structure of the organization beyond health care activities, if applicable.
(2) Describe the ability of the organization to manage the proposed projects. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance, as well as other cooperative agreements/grants and projects successfully completed.
(3) Describe what equipment (
(4) List key personnel who will work on the projects. Include title used in the work plans. In the Appendix, include position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel. Position descriptions should clearly describe each position and duties, indicating desired qualifications and experience requirements related to the proposed project. Resumes must indicate that the proposed staff member is qualified to carry out the proposed project activities. If a position is to be filled, indicate that information on the proposed position description.
(5) If personnel are to be only partially funded by this cooperative agreement, indicate the percentage of time to be allocated to this project and identify the resources used to fund the remainder of the individual's salary.
This section should provide a clear estimate of the program costs and justification for expenses for the entire cooperative agreement period for each award. The budgets and budget justifications should be consistent with the tasks identified in the work plans. Because each of the two awards included in this announcement are funded through separate funding streams, the applicant must provide a separate budget and budget narrative for each of the two components and must account for costs separately.
(1) Provide a categorical budget for each of the 12-month budget periods requested for each of the two projects.
(2) If IDC are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the Appendix.
(3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each line item is necessary or relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient costs and other details to facilitate the determination that the cost is allowable (
• Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Map of area identifying project location(s).
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the ODSCT to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 60 points, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the ODSCT within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The ODSCT will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.
Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved”, but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2015 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS Grants Management Official announcing to the Project Director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.
Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:
A. The criteria as outlined in this Program Announcement.
B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:
45 CFR part 75, Administrative Requirements.
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.
D. Cost Principles:
45 CFR part 75, subpart E. Cost Principles.
E. Audit Requirements:
• 45 CFR part 75, subpart F. Audit Requirements.
This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Reports must be submitted electronically via GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required semi-annually within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.
Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at:
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: the Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act subaward and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.
IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: 1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and 2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at:
Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: TTY (301) 443-6394.
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to:
3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to:
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, National Vaccine Program Office, Department of Health and Human Services
Notice.
The National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) was established in 1987 to comply with Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (Pub. L. 99-660) (§ 2105) (42 U.S. Code 300aa-5 (PDF-78 KB)). Its purpose is to advise and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to program responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) has been designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the Director of the National Vaccine Program. The National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) is located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NVPO provides leadership and fosters collaboration among the various federal agencies involved in vaccine and immunization activities. The NVPO also supports the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The NVAC advises and makes recommendations to the ASH in her capacity as the Director of National Vaccine Program on matters related to vaccine program responsibilities.
Recognizing that immunizations are given across the lifespan and there are likely to be important differences in vaccine acceptance at different stages of life, in February of 2013 the National Vaccine Advisory Committee accepted an initial charge from the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) to report on how confidence in vaccines impacts the optimal use of recommended childhood vaccines in the United States, including reaching Healthy People 2020 immunization coverage targets. Focus of such a report may include understanding the determinants of vaccination acceptance among parents, what HHS should be doing to improve parental confidence in vaccine recommendations and how to best measure confidence in vaccine and vaccination to inform and evaluate interventions in the future.
Through a series of teleconferences, electronic communications, presentations and public discussions during the NVAC meetings, a working group identified a number of draft recommendations to further understand and address issues of vaccine confidence in the United States.
On behalf of NVAC, NVPO is soliciting public comment on the draft report and draft recommendations from a variety of stakeholders, including the general public, for consideration by the NVAC as they develop their final recommendations to the ASH. It is anticipated that the draft report and draft recommendations, as revised with consideration given to public comment and stakeholder input, will be presented to the NVAC for adoption in June 2015 at the quarterly NVAC meeting.
Comments for consideration by the NVAC should be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 6, 2015.
(1) The draft report and draft recommendations are available on the Web at
(2) Electronic responses are preferred and may be addressed to:
(3) Written responses should be addressed to: National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 733G, Washington, DC 20201. Attn: Vaccine Confidence Working Group.
National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health,
Vaccination confidence is one of a number of factors that affect individual and population-level willingness to accept a vaccine. Vaccine confidence means having confidence in the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, having confidence in the competence of the health professionals who administer the vaccine, and having trust in the motivations of the policy-makers who decide which vaccines are needed and when. Vaccine confidence has been shown to influence vaccine decision making, but to what extent remains unclear. This is partly due to a lack of consensus on how best to quantify the confidence of an individual and a population. Gaining this understanding along with identifying factors which drive public confidence is critical for assessing the magnitude of the problem in the U.S., as well as designing and evaluating potential intervention strategies.
Through their analysis and discussion, the NVAC proposes the following recommendations:
1.1 NVAC recommends development of an “index,” composed of a number of individual and social dimensions, to measure vaccine confidence. This index should be capable of (1) a rapid, reliable and valid surveillance of national vaccine confidence; (2) detection and identification of variations in vaccine confidence at the community level; and (3) diagnosis of the key dimensions that affect vaccine confidence.
1.2 NVAC recommends continuing the use of existing measures for vaccine confidence, including systems that measure vaccine coverage as well as vaccine-related confidence, attitudes and beliefs while the science of understanding and tracking vaccine confidence is being advanced.
1.3 NVAC recommends the development of measures and methods to analyze the mass media environment and social media conversations to identify topics of concern to parents, healthcare providers, and members of the public.
1.4 NVAC recommends that existing approaches and systems for monitoring vaccination coverages and vaccine-related cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors be strengthened and enhanced. These include: (1) Immunization Information Systems (IIS) and Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to collect and capture delays and refusals; (2) Reliable and valid measures (or surveys) of cognitive factors, such as adults and parents' confidence, attitudes, and beliefs regarding vaccines and recommended vaccinations; (3) Surveys of provider attitudes and beliefs towards vaccination; and (4) Integration of data from all existing systems to track trends of vaccination confidence over time and to detect variations across time and geography.
2.1 NVAC recommends healthcare providers, immunization programs, and those involved in promoting recommended vaccinations actively reinforce that vaccination according to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended schedule is the social norm and not the exception. Misperceptions that vaccination in line with the ACIP recommended schedule is not the norm should be appropriately addressed.
2.2 NVAC recommends consistent communications assessment and feedback pertaining to vaccine confidence. These include:
2.2.1 Creation of a Communication Assessment Infrastructure to assess vaccine sentiment and provide timely, accurate and actionable information related to vaccination confidence and acceptance to relevant stakeholders. This system should have the capability to regularly assess vaccine-related messaging environment (
2.2.2 Identification, evaluation and validation of communication resources and approaches in terms of their effects on enhancing vaccine and vaccination confidence so that effective (“evidence-based/evidence-informed”) interventions and best practices can be shared and more widely used.
2.2.3 Creation of a repository of evidenced-based best practices for informing, educating, and communicating with parents and others in ways that foster or increase vaccine or vaccination confidence. This repository would be maintained and expanded as future evidence is compiled regarding messages, materials, and interventions that positively affect vaccine or vaccination confidence.
2.3 NVAC recommends the development of systems to support parent and community efforts that seek to promote vaccine confidence and vaccination.
2.4 NVAC recommends support for a community of practice or network of stakeholders who are actively taking steps to foster or grow vaccine confidence and vaccination; such a network can foster partnerships and encourage sharing of resources and best practices.
3.1 NVAC recommends the development and deployment of evidence-based materials and toolkits for providers to address parent questions and concerns. These materials and toolkits should continue to be revised to incorporate the latest science and research.
3.1.1 A repository of evidence-based effective practices for providers should be an output of this effort.
3.2 NVAC recommends curriculum and communication training that focuses on vaccine confidence (
3.2.1 This training should encompass “providers-in-training,” such as students, residents, and interns as well as currently practicing physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers through Continuing Medical Education (CMEs).
3.2.2 Clear and accessible information on vaccinations, the schedule and any changes to the immunization schedule should be developed specifically for providers and made available to them through resources they utilize most.
3.3 NVAC recommends the development of: (i) Provisional billing codes for vaccine counseling when vaccination is ultimately not given; and (ii) Pay for performance initiatives and incentives as measured by: (a) Establishment of an immunizing standard within a practice; and (b) Continued improvement in immunization coverage rates within a provider's practice.
4.1 NVAC recommends states and territories with existing personal belief exemption policies should assess their policies to assure that exemptions are only available after appropriate parent education and acknowledgement of the associated risks of not vaccinating, to
4.1.1 Increased efforts should be made to educate the public and state legislatures on the safety and value of vaccines, the importance of recommended vaccinations and the ACIP schedule, and the risks posed by low or under-vaccination in communities and schools.
4.2 NVAC recommends information on vaccination rates, vaccination exemptions, and other preventative health measures (
4.2.1 Encourage educational institutions and childcare facilities to report vaccination rates publicly (
4.3 NVAC recommends “on-time vaccination” should be included as a Quality Measure for all health plans, public and private, as a first line indicator of vaccine confidence. NVAC acknowledges that other issues, such as access, can also effect on time vaccination.
5.1 The NVAC recommends that the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) should work with federal and non-federal partners to develop an implementation plan to address vaccine confidence, including metrics, and report back to NVAC on progress, annually.
NVPO, on behalf of the NVAC Vaccine Confidence Working Group, requests input on the draft report and draft recommendations. Please limit your comments to three (3) pages.
HHS invites input from a broad range of stakeholders including individuals and organizations that have interests in immunization efforts and the role of HHS in advancing those efforts.
Examples of potential responders include, but are not limited to, the following:
When responding, please self-identify with any of the above or other categories (include all that apply) and your name. Anonymous submissions will not be considered. Written submissions should not exceed three to five (3-5) pages. Please do not send proprietary, commercial, financial, business, confidential, trade secret, or personal information.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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.
The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (“DATA,” Pub. L. 106-310) amended the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)) to permit practitioners (physicians) to seek and obtain waivers to prescribe certain approved narcotic treatment drugs for the treatment of opiate addiction. The legislation sets eligibility requirements and certification requirements as well as an interagency notification review process for physicians who seek waivers. The legislation was amended in 2005 to eliminate the patient limit for physicians in group practices, and in 2006, to permit certain physicians to treat up to 100 patients.
To implement these provisions, SAMHSA developed a notification form (SMA-167) that facilitates the submission and review of notifications. The form provides the information necessary to determine whether practitioners (
However, there is no prohibition on use of other means to provide requisite information. The Secretary will convey notification information and determinations to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which will assign an identification number to qualifying practitioners; this number will be included in the practitioner's registration under 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
Practitioners may use the form for three types of notification: (a) New, (b) immediate, and (c) to notify of their intent to treat up to 100 patients. Under “new” notifications, practitioners may make their initial waiver requests to SAMHSA. “Immediate” notifications inform SAMHSA and the Attorney General of a practitioner's intent to prescribe immediately to facilitate the treatment of an individual (one) patient under 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)(E)(ii). Finally, the form may be used by physicians with waivers to certify their need and intent to treat up to 100 patients.
The form collects data on the following items: Practitioner name; state medical license number and DEA registration number; address of primary location, telephone and fax numbers; email address; name and address of
Since July 2002, SAMHSA has received over 25,000 notifications and has certified almost 27,000 physicians. Fifty-none percent of the notifications were submitted by mail or by facsimile, with approximately forty-one percent submitted through the Web based online system. Approximately 60 percent of the certified physicians have consented to disclosure on the SAMHSA Buprenorphine Physician Locator.
Respondents may submit the form electronically, through a dedicated Web page that SAMHSA will establish for the purpose, as well as via U.S. mail.
There are no changes to the forms and burden hours.
The following table summarizes the estimated annual burden for the use of this form.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 or email her a copy at
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for information and comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease and Prevention is collaborating with the Labour Inspection, Labour Administration and Occupational Safety and Health Branch of the International Labour Office (ILO) in developing a set of digital reference radiographs for the ILO International Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconiosis (ILO Classification). The current ILO Classification depends on 22 standard reference radiographs that are used to formally identify and characterize pneumoconiosis and related pulmonary abnormalities arising from occupational exposure. The original standards were based on film radiography, but the advent of digital radiography has led to the need for reference standards based on digitally-acquired images. NIOSH is assisting the ILO in the process of identifying such digital images.
For this purpose, NIOSH is requesting trained users of the ILO Classification (
Electronic or written comments must be received by June 5, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2015-0008 and docket number NIOSH-282, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Michael Attfield, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26505-2888, telephone (304) 285-5737 (this is not a toll free number).
The ILO Classification, as of the 2000 revision, consists of 22 standard reference radiographic films. These films were selected to demonstrate a variety of types and severities of lung abnormalities that frequently arise from occupational dust exposure. Proper use of the classification involves a visual comparison of the test subject's X-Ray film side-by-side with the standards. The test subject is assigned the classification pertaining to the standard radiograph or radiographs to which it is most similar in appearance,
The ILO classification was developed and used for over 50 years solely in conjunction with film radiography. In recent years radiographic technology has advanced to digital imaging. This poses severe problems for the use of the ILO Classification since the test subject's image must be viewed on a computer terminal screen while the standards can only be seen on a separate film viewing box. This results in the process being extremely cumbersome, while intrinsic differences in the appearance of film versus digital images interfere with the proper assessment of abnormality. To minimize these problems, the ILO released a set of digitized images in 2011. These images are digitized views of the existing film images, obtained by formally scanning each film to a digital file image.
While digitizing the current standard reference films removed the need to employ a light box, as both images could now be viewed on the same computerized image display system alongside that showing the subject's radiograph, it did not eliminate the problems arising from different inherent appearances between the original film and the digital test images, since those still remained in the digitized versions. Ultimately, the best means to remove the potentially interfering visual differences from the comparison between the digitally-acquired chest radiographic image and the reference image is to select new digitally-acquired reference images.
NIOSH is collaborating with and assisting the ILO in identifying a set of 22 digital images, each of which is intended to mimic as closely as possible the type and severity of abnormality evident on each of the current standard films/digitized images. There is no intention to modify or alter the underlying structure or format of the existing ILO Classification. The final outcome of this exercise will simply be an additional set of standard reference images, derived from digitally-acquired images.
In pursuing this objective both NIOSH and the ILO are aware that users of the classification may feel that one or more of the existing standard references do not optimally demonstrate the specified parenchymal or pleural findings. Appendix C of the manual that accompanies the ILO Classification [2] provides comments on each of the current standard radiographs. Comments range from issues of quality (
In addition to the published issues, regular users of the ILO Classification may feel that certain of the standard reference radiographs are sub-optimal in some way or another. For example, perhaps the appearances of a particular standard are generally felt to be at variance with its formally-designated degree of abnormality. In addition, there may be other factors where there are opportunities for improvement.
NIOSH and the ILO, in selecting the new digital standard images, wish to correct any technical issues affecting the current standard reference radiographs. To be able to do this, they require access to information on perceived problems with the current standards. This docket is a request for information from interested parties on perceived issues with any of the current standards. This request in no way involves comment on the structure and content of the ILO Classification per se. NIOSH and the ILO will summarize the comments received on each of the standard radiographs, and employ that information in the derivation of the new digital standard reference radiographs.
(1) The standard reference title to which your submitted comments apply. For small opacities please state `small opacities' and the profusion (0/0, 1/1, 2/2, or 3/3, and the type (p/p, q/q, r/r, s/s, t/t, or u/u, where applicable) for which you are supplying comments. For large opacities please state `large opacities' and the stage (A, B, C). For pleural abnormalities, please state `pleural'.
(2) For radiographs concerning small opacities, please note whether the standard radiograph shows appearances consistent with its designated profusion, and if not, what profusion you believe it shows.
(3) For radiographs concerning small opacities, please note whether the standard radiograph shows appearances consistent with its designated type, and if not, what type you believe it shows.
(4) For large opacities, please note whether the standard radiograph shows appearances consistent with its designated stage, and if not, what stage you believe it shows.
(5) For the composite radiograph showing pleural abnormalities, please note your concerns with each segment.
(6) For all, please note any problems associated with other factors that impact its optimal reliability as a standard, indicate their effect on classification, and suggest a solution for improvement.
Office of the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that a meeting is scheduled to be held for the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (the “Advisory Group”). The meeting will be open to the public. Information about the Advisory Group and the agenda for this meeting can be obtained by accessing the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on April 20, 2015 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be held via teleconference. Teleconference information will be published closer to the meeting date at:
Office of the Surgeon General, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201; 202-205-9517;
The Advisory Group is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee that was initially established under Executive Order 13544, dated June 10, 2010, to comply with the statutes under section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148. The Advisory Group was established to assist in carrying out the mission of the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (the Council). The Advisory Group provides recommendations and advice to the Council.
The Advisory Group was terminated on September 30, 2012, by E. O. 13591, dated November 23, 2011. Authority for the Advisory Group to be re-established was given under E. O. 13631, dated December 7, 2012. Authority for the Advisory Group to continue to operate until September 30, 2015 was given under Executive Order 13652, dated September 30, 2013.
It is authorized for the Advisory Group to consist of not more than 25 non-federal members. The Advisory Group currently has 21 members who were appointed by the President. The membership includes a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who have expertise in (1) worksite health promotion; (2) community services, including community health centers; (3) preventive medicine; (4) health coaching; (5) public health education; (6) geriatrics; and (7) rehabilitation medicine.
The meeting will be held in order to review and approve recommendations developed by the Recommendation Drafting Sub-Committee of the Advisory Group. These recommendations are directed towards the Council, the Surgeon General, the Administration, and other entities.
Members of the public have the opportunity to attend the meeting and/or provide comments to the Advisory Group on April 20, 2015. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or provide comments must register by 12:00 p.m. EST on April 13, 2015. In order to register, individuals must send their full name and affiliation via email to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on April 24, 2015, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will meet on Friday, April 24, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
Feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
Members of the public who are pre-registered and later require cancellation, please do so in advance of the meeting by accessing one (1) of the following links:
The meeting will be held at the International Trade Commission in the Main Hearing Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
All visitors to the International Trade Commission Building must show a state-issued ID or Passport to proceed through the security checkpoint for admittance to the building. There will be signage posted directing visitors to the location of the Main Hearing Room.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (202) 344-1661 as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the “Agenda” section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than April 15, 2015, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2015-0011, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on April 24, 2015. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP Web page,
Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC) will hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed on those topics:
1. The One U.S. Government Subcommittee will discuss the Automated Commercial Environment, Partner Government Agencies and International Interoperability (World Customs Organization).
2. The Exports Subcommittee will address policy and a strategic approach regarding exports. The subcommittee will work in close collaboration with One U.S. Government Subcommittee.
3. The Trade Enforcement Subcommittee will discuss policy to include metrics and implementation through Centers of Excellence and Expertise.
4. The Global Supply Chain Subcommittee will discuss Customs—Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, Land ports of entry (Canada and Mexico), Ocean Cargo, In-Transit and Air Cargo Advance Screening.
5. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will start work once the pilot has advanced to the implementation phase for testing U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Partner Government Agency trade benefits.
6. The Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss International Strategy (World Trade Organization Trade Facilitation Agreement, Trans Pacific Partnership, and World Customs Organization), Trade Expertise and Revenue Modernization.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice is to announce a public meeting to solicit public input on the proposed “Revised Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.”
The public meeting will be held in Dallas, TX on April 7, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. Central Time (CT) to 11:30 a.m. Central Time (CT).
The public meeting will be held in Dallas, TX, at Center for Community Cooperation, Room 100 Oak Corner, 2900 Live Oak Street, Dallas, TX 75204.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact the person listed in the
Due to space constraints of the facility, seating will be limited to 140 participants for the meeting. To reserve a seat in advance for this meeting, please provide a request via email or mail with the contact information of the participant (including name, mailing address, and email address), the meeting(s) to be attended, and include the subject/attention line (or on the envelope if by mail): Reservation Request for FFRMS Meeting. Advance reservations are preferred three (3) business days prior to the meeting to ensure processing, but will be accepted until seating capacity is reached. Unregistered participants will be accepted after all participants with reservations have been accommodated and will be admitted on a first-come, first-serve basis, provided the person capacity is not exceeded. To submit reservations, please email:
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered at the public meeting. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Bradley Garner, 202-646-3901 or
On January 30, 2015, the President signed E.O. 13690, directing FEMA, on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, to publish for public comment draft revised Floodplain Management Guidelines to provide guidance to agencies on the implementation of E.O. 11988, as amended, consistent with a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. These draft revised Guidelines were developed by the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group in consultation with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. FEMA is publishing this Notice on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, which is chaired by FEMA, to solicit and consider public input on the draft revised Guidelines at a public meeting.
Background information about these topics is available on the FFRMS Web site at
The meeting is exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group is an intergovernmental committee and falls under the intergovernmental committee exception to FACA, 41 CFR 102-3.40(g).
E.O. 11988, as amended; E.O. 13690.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Conoco Phillips Company (COP) to evaluate unmanned aircraft system (UAS) capabilities, benefits, risks and technical limitations of operating UAS from land and/or off a Coast Guard Cutter in a maritime environment. The Coast Guard will conduct flight testing and evaluation of UASs under a wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant real-world maritime operational scenarios, such as ice operations, marine environmental monitoring, marine safety, search and rescue, and potentially other Coast Guard mission sets. While the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with COP, the agency solicits public comment on the possible nature of and participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA. In addition, the Coast Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants, who have the interest and capability to bring similar contributions to this type of research, to consider submitting proposals for consideration for similar CRADAs.
Comments must be submitted to the online docket via
Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast Guard (see
Submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see
•
•
•
If you have questions on this notice or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact LT Keely Higbie, Project Official, Surface Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center (RDC), 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone 860-271-2815, email
We encourage you to submit comments and related material on this notice. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard (see
Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-0197 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at
CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).
CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have a specific purpose and should not be confused with other types of agreements such as procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements.
Under the proposed CRADA, the Coast Guard would collaborate with one non-Federal participant. Together, the RDC and the non-Federal participant would identify and investigate the potential of the UAS to contribute to the Coast Guard's mission effectiveness and determine the utility of the UAS to support Coast Guard operations and assets at sea.
The RDC, with the non-Federal participant, will develop a demonstration test plan and evaluate the UAS using quantitative and qualitative measures under a wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant real-world maritime operational scenarios The demonstration would be conducted both on land and/or on a cutter operating in an Arctic maritime environment over a period of approximately 14 days.
We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Develop the demonstration test plan to be executed;
(2) Provide the cutter that the system will be installed on;
(3) Determine the electromagnetic compatibility of the system on the cutter to determine if safe flight operations can be accomplished;
(4) Conduct a Privacy Threshold Analysis as required for the demonstration to be conducted;
(5) Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment as required for the demonstration to be conducted;
(6) Coordinate spectrum approval for the system to be used
(7) Develop, route, and receive an “interim authority to test” approval, authorizing the installation of the system onboard the cutter;
(8) Develop the interface control document, engineering change proposal, and technical data package as required to install the system onboard the cutter;
(9) Coordinate and receive interim flight clearance for the demonstration to be executed;
(10) Provide airspace coordination and de-confliction for execution of the demonstration test plan;
(11) Develop the communications plan to be used for the demonstration;
(12) Analyze demonstration test plan data in accordance with the CRADA demonstration test plan; and
(13) Develop the demonstration final report, which will document the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this CRADA work.
We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
(1) Provide UAS equipment, including air vehicles, land based ground control stations, forward eyes for the cutter, and all other equipment required to conduct the demonstration as described in the demonstration test plan;
(2) Provide operators for UAS equipment;
(3) Provide UAS technical data;
(4) Provide shipping for all UAS equipment to and from the cutter and other appropriate locations to be used under the CRADA;
(5) Install and remove the system and all UAS equipment from the cutter;
(6) Provide an approved certificate of authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration for the UAS equipment; and
(7) Required travel, associated personnel, and other expenses.
The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
(1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
(2) How well they address the following criteria:
(a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party contributions described; and
(b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party contributions described.
Currently, the Coast Guard is considering COP for participation in this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that COP has demonstrated its ability to operate UAS in an Arctic maritime environment, and its UAS's widespread use throughout the Department of Defense. However, we do not wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
This is a technology demonstration effort. Since the goal of this CRADA is to identify and investigate the potential of the UAS to contribute to Coast Guard mission effectiveness in an Arctic maritime environment, non-Federal CRADA participants will not be excluded from any future Coast Guard procurements based solely on their participation in this CRADA. Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S.
This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act, this notice advises of the cause and description of administrative actions taken by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board against HUD-approved mortgagees.
Nancy A. Murray, Secretary to the Mortgagee Review Board, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room B-133/3150, Washington, DC, 20410-8000; telephone (202) 708-2224 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(c)(5)) requires that HUD “publish a description of and the cause for administrative action against a HUD-approved mortgagee” by the Department's Mortgagee Review Board (“Board”). In compliance with the requirements of Section 202(c)(5), this notice advises of actions that have been taken by the Board in its meetings from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to request public nominations for five members of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee (GSENM-MAC). The GSENM-MAC provides advice and recommendations to GSENM on science issues and the achievement of GSENM Management Plan objectives. The GSENM will receive public nominations for 30 days from the date this notice is published.
A completed nomination form and accompanying nomination/recommendation letters must be received at the address listed below no later than May 6, 2015.
Completed applications should be sent to the Bureau of Land Management, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Headquarters Office, 669 South Highway 89A, Kanab, Utah 84741.
Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs Officer, GSENM Headquarters Office, 669 South Highway 89A, Kanab, Utah 84741; phone 435-644-1209, or email:
The Secretary of the Interior established the GSENM-MAC pursuant to section 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1739) and in conformity with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). The 15 appointed members of the GSENM-MAC perform several primary tasks: (1) Review evaluation reports produced by the Management Science Team and make recommendations on protocols and projects to meet overall objectives; (2) Review appropriate research proposals and make recommendations on project necessity and validity; (3) Make recommendations regarding the allocation of research funds through review of research and project proposals, as well as the research needs identified through the evaluation process above; and (4) Be available to provide support for issues such as protocols for specific projects.
The Secretary appoints persons to the GSENM-MAC who are representatives of the various major citizen interests pertaining to land-use planning and management of the lands under BLM management in the GSENM.
Each GSENM-MAC member will be a person who, as a result of training and experience, has knowledge or special expertise which qualifies him or her to provide advice from among the categories of interest listed below. As appropriate, certain committee members may be appointed as Special Government Employees. Special Government Employees serve on the committee without compensation, and are subject to financial disclosure requirements in the Ethics in Government Act and 5 CFR part 2634.
This notice, published pursuant to 43 CFR 1784.4-1 and in accordance with the Approved Management Plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (February 2000), solicits public nominations to fill five positions on the committee. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the GSENM-MAC. Individuals may nominate themselves for GSENM-MAC membership.
Nomination forms may be obtained from the GSENM Headquarters Office, address listed above. Nominations packages must include a letter of nomination, a completed nomination form, letters of reference from the represented interest groups or organizations associated with the interests represented by the candidate, and any other information that speaks to the candidate's qualifications.
The five open member positions are: One member, a Livestock Grazing permittee operating within the Monument to represent livestock operators on the Monument; one member, a State representative to represent the State of Utah's interest in the Monument; one member, a Tribal representative to represent Tribal interests in the Monument; one member will be appointed as a special government employee with expertise in Paleontology; and, one member will be appointed as a special government employee with expertise in Systems Ecology.
The specific category the nominee would represent should be identified in the letter of nomination and in the nomination form. The BLM-Utah State Director and Monument Manager will review the nomination forms and letters of reference. The State Director shall confer with the Governor of the State of Utah on potential nominations, then she will forward recommended nominations to the Secretary of the Interior who has responsibility for making the appointments.
Members will serve without monetary compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses at current U.S. General Services Administration rates. The Committee will meet at least twice a year. Additional meetings may be called by the Designated Federal Officer.
43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of extension.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a Notice of Proposed Supplementary Rules in the
The comment period is extended to May 5, 2015.
Please mail or hand-deliver comments to Keith McGrath, State Chief Law Enforcement Ranger, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709; or email comments to
Keith McGrath, Bureau of Land Management, (208) 373-4046,
The supplementary rules are proposed to promote consistency between State and Federal regulations with respect to certain uses of Federal lands under BLM jurisdiction in Idaho. The supplementary rules would allow BLM law enforcement personnel and partner agencies to address gaps in current regulations, to continue enforcing existing public land regulations in a manner consistent with current State of Idaho statutes, and would provide more clarity for public land users, especially visitors to BLM recreation areas.
The original notice containing the proposed supplementary rules included the email address
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information, be aware that your 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 we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 8365.1-6
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of target endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 6, 2015.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. Alternatively, you may use one of the following methods to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the permit
•
•
•
Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) 628-2670 (phone);
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittees to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with their applications are 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 applicant requests a permit renewal to conduct presence/absence surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicants request a permit renewal to conduct presence/absence surveys for interior least tern (
The applicant requests an amendment to a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys and propagate American burying beetle (
The applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (
The applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (
The applicant requests an amendment to conduct presence/absence surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests 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 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193.
BOEM announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for remanded Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 (Lease Sale 193), originally held on February 6, 2008. BOEM prepared the Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 Final Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to address a deficiency identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Court of Appeals) in its opinion of January 22, 2014. The Final Second SEIS considers the potential impacts of oil and gas activities that could result from leases issued in Lease Sale 193, including the full range of likely production if oil production were to occur (80 FR 9266, Feb. 20, 2015).
In making her decision, the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) considered four alternatives for Lease Sale 193, the
For more information on the ROD, you may contact Mr. Michael Routhier, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Ste. 500, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. You may also contact Mr. Routhier by telephone at 907-334-5265.
In the Lease Sale 193 Final Second SEIS, BOEM evaluated four alternatives summarized below:
Alternative I was not selected for the original sale in 2008. Since Lease Sale 193 has already occurred, all of the leases originally issued are contained in an area smaller than, but covered by, Alternative I. Accordingly, selecting Alternative I would result in affirming Lease Sale 193 and all of the leases issued as a result of the sale.
Five leases issued as a result of Lease Sale 193 are contained within Corridor I. Accordingly, selecting Alternative III would result in affirming the lease sale and all leases, except the Corridor I area, and those five leases, which would be vacated.
After careful consideration, the ASLM has decided to select Alternative IV and affirm Lease Sale 193 and the leases issued as a result of the sale. As described in the ROD, the ASLM fully considered the potential impacts of this action as described in the Final Second SEIS, considered potential mitigation of potential impacts through deferral of sensitive OCS areas and implementation of lease stipulations, and articulated factors considered in selecting the agency's preferred alternative. In making her decision, the ASLM confirmed the previously adopted lease stipulations as being the most practicable means of reducing or avoiding impacts to the environment, while also noting that the OCS Lands Act provides BOEM and BSEE broad discretion to require additional mitigations on postlease activities.
In affirming Lease Sale 193 and preserving the opportunity to explore and possibly develop all the leases issued in Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193, the ASLM's decision balances the national policies mandated by Congress to expeditiously and safely develop the natural resources of the OCS, subject to environmental safeguards, in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of competition and other national needs. The ASLM's selection of Alternative IV, and adoption of all practicable mitigation measures at the lease sale stage, balances the goal of orderly resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments, while also ensuring that the public receives an equitable return for these resources and that free-market competition is maintained.
This NOA is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1506) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for recovery permits to conduct activities with the purpose of enhancing the survival of an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing such permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 6, 2015.
Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Colleen Henson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address, or by telephone (503-231-6131) or fax (503-231-6243).
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittee to conduct activities (including take or interstate commerce) with respect to U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review by request from the Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification at the address listed in the
The permittee requests a permit amendment to remove and reduce to possession (survey, collect, propagate, and outplant)
The permittee requests a permit amendment to take (survey, capture, handle, photograph, and release) the Taylor's checkerspot butterfly (
The permittee requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey using taped playback and monitor nests with cameras) the Mariana common moorhen (
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request 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 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order withdraws 230.08 acres of public lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws for 20 years on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management to protect scenic, recreational, and other natural resource values within the Browns Canyon corridor of the Arkansas River. The lands have been and will remain open to leasing under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws.
Steve Craddock, Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Office, 303-239-3707, or write: Land Tenure Program Lead, BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215-7093. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Bureau of Land Management will manage the Browns Canyon corridor of the Arkansas River to protect the unique natural, scenic, cultural, and recreational values.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, to protect the unique natural, scenic, cultural, and recreational values in the Browns Canyon corridor of the Arkansas River:
The areas described aggregate 230.08 acres, more or less, in Chaffee County.
2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of the public land laws other than the mining laws.
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, we announce that the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science will hold a meeting.
National Weather Center, Don Nickels Conference Room, 3rd Floor (NWC3910 A/B), 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Norman, OK.
Mr. Robin O'Malley, Designated Federal Officer, Policy and Partnership Coordinator, National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 400, Reston, VA 20192,
Chartered in May 2013, the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (ACCCNRS) advises the Secretary of the Interior on the establishment and operations of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs). ACCCNRS members represent federal agencies; state and local governments; American Indian tribes and other Native American entities; nongovernmental organizations; academic institutions; and the private sector. Duties of the committee include: (A) Advising on the contents of a national strategy identifying key science priorities to advance the management of natural resources in the face of climate change; (B) advising on the nature, extent, and quality of relations with and engagement of key partners at the regional/CSC level; (C) advising on the nature and effectiveness of mechanisms to ensure the identification of key priorities from management partners and to effectively deliver scientific results in useful forms; (D) advising on mechanisms that may be employed by the NCCWSC to ensure high standards of scientific quality and integrity in its products, and to review and evaluate the performance of individual CSCs, in advance of opportunities to re-establish expiring agreements; and (E) coordinating as appropriate with any Federal Advisory Committee established for the DOI Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. More information about the ACCCNRS is available at
Individuals or groups requesting to make comment at the public Committee meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker. The Committee will endeavor to provide adequate opportunity for all speakers, within available time limits. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak, but could not be accommodated during the public comment period, are encouraged to submit their comments in written form to the Committee after the meeting.
Written comments should be submitted, prior to, during, or after the meeting, to Mr. Robin O'Malley, Designated Federal Officer, by U.S. Mail to: Mr. Robin O'Malley, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 400, Reston, VA 20192, or via email, at
The meeting is open to the public but participants must register and will be issued a name badge. When entering National Weather Center Building please be prepared to show government issued photo identification and to pass through a metal detector. Space is limited, so all interested in attending should pre-register. Please submit your name, email address and phone number to Lisa LaCivita via email at
United States International Trade Commission.
April 10, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 701-TA-530 (Preliminary) (Supercalendered Paper from Canada). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination on April 13, 2015; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on April 20, 2015.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
Pursuant to Section 112 of the 1976 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (Pub. L. 94-283), 2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(1)-(2), the Secretary of Labor has certified to the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission and publishes this notice in the
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, May 15, 2015. The meeting will be held in the Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC.
The Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on technical aspects of the collection and formulation of economic measures. The BLS presents issues and then draws on the expertise of Committee members representing specialized fields within the academic disciplines of economics, statistics and survey design.
The meeting will be held in rooms 1-3 of the Postal Square Building Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the meeting are as follows:
The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Sarah Dale, Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee, on 202-691-5643. Individuals who require special accommodations should contact Ms. Dale at least two days prior to the meeting date.
Pursuant to Section 33105(c) of Title 49, United States Code, and the delegation of the Secretary of Transportation's responsibilities under that Act to the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (49 CFR 501.2(a)(9)), the Secretary of Labor has certified to the Administrator and published this notice in the
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) resulted from an initiative of the Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Following guidance set out by OSTP and OMB in April 2010, the National Science Foundation (NSF) received authorization from OMB to use the RPPR.
NSF is announcing plans to request renewed clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting OMB clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; 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.
Written comments should be received by June 5, 2015 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to
Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292-7556 or send email to
NSF developed the RPPR as a new service within Research.gov. This service replaced NSF's annual and interim project reporting capabilities, which resided in the NSF FastLane System.
Information regarding NSF's implementation of the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) may be found at the following Web site:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for comment and public meeting.
On December 19, 2014, as supplemented on February 26, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received from Zion Solutions, LLC, (ZS), the License Termination Plan (LTP) for the Zion Nuclear Power Station (ZNPS), Units 1 and 2. The LTP provides details about the known radiological information for the site, the planned demolition and decommissioning tasks to be completed, and the final radiological surveys and data that will need to be obtained to allow termination of the NRC's license for ZNPS. The NRC is requesting public comments on ZS's LTP and will hold a public meeting to discuss the LTP.
Submit comments by May 26, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
John Hickman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3017, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0082 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0082 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Zion Solutions is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors located in Lake County, Illinois.
In September 1996, ZNPS Unit 2 was permanently shut-down after approximately 23 years of operation. In February 1997, ZNPS Unit 1 was permanently shut-down after approximately 24 years of operation. In early 1998, in accordance with section 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of title 10 of the
By letter dated December 19, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15005A336), and supplemented on February 26, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15061A281), ZS submitted the LTP for ZNPS in accordance with section 50.82(a)(9). The LTP addresses site characterization to ensure that final radiation surveys (FRS) cover all areas where contamination existed, remains, or has the potential to exist or remain, identification of remaining dismantlement activities, plans for site remediation, a description of the FRS plan to confirm that ZNPS will meet the release criteria in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, dose-modeling scenarios that ensure compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination, an estimate of the remaining site-specific decommissioning costs, and a supplement to the Defueled Safety Analysis Report and the Environmental Report describing any new information or significant environmental change associated with proposed license termination activities.
The NRC is requesting public comments on the ZNPS LTP. The NRC will conduct a public meeting to discuss the LTP and receive comments on Tuesday, April 28, 2015, from 6 p.m. until 9 p.m., Central Time, at the Illinois Beach Resort & Conference Center, 1 Lake Front Drive., Zion, IL. For additional information regarding the meeting, see the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
April 6, 13, 20, 27, May 4, 11, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 20, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 4, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 11, 2015.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an addition of Priority Mail Contract 121 to the competitive product list. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-43 and CP2015-54 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 121 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 6, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-43 and CP2015-54 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than April 6, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an addition of Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 to the competitive product list. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5.
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-45 and CP2015-56 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 product and the related contract, respectively.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 7, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints James F. Callow to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-45 and CP2015-56 to consider the matters raised in each docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than April 7, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is an forwarding Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under section 7(b)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), and section 5(c) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) any person aggrieved by a decision made by an office of the RRB on his or her application for an annuity or benefit under those Acts has the right to appeal to the RRB. This right is prescribed in 20 CFR part 260 and 20 CFR part 320. The notification letter, which is provided at the time of filing the original application, informs the applicant of such right. When an applicant protests a decision, the concerned RRB office reviews the entire file and any additional evidence submitted and sends the applicant a letter explaining the basis of the determination. The applicant is then notified that to protest further, they can appeal to the RRB's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. The appeal process is prescribed in 20 CFR 260.5 and 260.9 and 20 CFR 320.12 and 320.38.
To file a request for an appeal the applicant must complete Form HA-1,
Under section 2(e)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), an annuity is not payable for any month in which a beneficiary works for a railroad. In addition, an annuity is reduced for any month in which the beneficiary works for an employer other than a railroad employer and earns more than a prescribed amount. Under the 1988 amendments to the RRA, the Tier II portion of the regular annuity and any supplemental annuity must be reduced by one dollar for each two dollars of Last Pre-Retirement Non-Railroad Employment (LPE) earnings for each month of such service. However, the reduction cannot exceed fifty percent of the Tier II and supplemental annuity amount for the month to which such deductions apply. The LPE generally refers to an annuitant's last employment with a non-railroad person, company, or institution prior to retirement, which was performed at the same time as railroad employment or after the annuitant stopped railroad employment. The collection obtains earnings information needed by the RRB to determine if possible reductions in annuities are in order due to LPE.
The RRB utilizes Form G-19L,
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Charles Mierzwa, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to amend Rule 706 to authorize the Exchange to share any Member-designated risk settings in the trading system with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of the Member. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 Rule 706 to authorize the Exchange to share any Member-designated risk settings in the trading system with the Clearing Member that clears transactions on behalf of the Member. Rule 706 states that “[u]nless otherwise provided in the Rules, no one but a Member or a person associated with a Member shall effect any Exchange Transactions.”
Each Member that transacts through a Clearing Member on the Exchange executes a Letter of Clearing Authorization, in the case of Electronic Access Members, or a Market Maker Letter of Guarantee, in the case of Primary Market Makers and Competitive Market Makers, wherein the Clearing Member “accepts financial responsibility for all Exchange Transactions made by the” Member on whose behalf the Clearing Member submits the letter of guarantee. The Exchange believes that because Clearing Members guarantee all transactions on behalf of a Member, and therefore, bear the risk associated with those transactions, it is appropriate for Clearing Members to have knowledge of what risk settings a Member may utilize within the trading system.
The Exchange notes that while not all Members are Clearing Members, all Members require a Clearing Member's consent to clear transactions on their behalf in order to conduct business on the Exchange. As the Clearing Member ultimately bears all the risk for a trade they clear on any Member's behalf, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide Clearing Members with information relating to the risk settings used by each Member whose transactions they are clearing. To the extent that a Clearing Member might reasonably require a Member to provide access to its risk settings as a prerequisite to continue to clear trades on the Member's behalf, the Exchange's proposal to share those risk settings directly reduces the administrative burden on Members and ensures that Clearing Members are receiving information that is up-to-date and conforms to the settings active in the trading system.
The Exchange further notes that any broker-dealer is free to become a Clearing Member of the Options Clearing Corporation (the “OCC”), which would enable that Member to avoid sharing risk settings with any third party, if they so choose. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act as it provides Clearing Members with additional risk-related information that may aid them in complying with the Act, notably Rule 15c3-5 and, as noted, Members that do not wish to share such settings with a Clearing Member can do so by become clearing members of the OCC.
The risk settings that would be shared pursuant to the proposed rule are currently codified in Rule 804 (for regulars orders) and Rule 722 (for complex orders). The risk settings are designed to mitigate the potential risks of multiple executions against a Member's trading interest that, in today's highly automated and electronic trading environment, can occur simultaneously across multiple series and multiple option classes. The proposed rule will allow the Exchange to share a Member's risk settings with the Clearing Member that guarantees the Member's transactions, and therefore has a financial interesting [sic] in understanding the risk tolerance of a Member.
Because the Letter of Clearing Authorization and the Market Maker Letter of Guarantee codifies relationships between a Member and the Clearing Member, the Exchange is on notice of which Clearing Members have relationships with which Members. The proposed rule change would simply provide the Exchange with authority to directly provide Clearing Members with information that may otherwise be available to such Clearing Members by virtue of their relationship with the respective Member.
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(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by codifying that the Exchange can directly provide to Clearing Members that guarantee that Member's transactions on the Exchange the Member-designated risk settings in the trading system, which are designed to mitigate the potential risk of multiple executions against a Member's trading interest that, in today's highly automated and electronic trading environment, can occur simultaneously across multiple series and multiple option classes. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interests because it will permit Clearing Members with a financial interest in a Member's risk settings to better monitor and manage the potential risks assumed by Members with whom the Clearing Member has entered into a letter of guarantee, thereby providing Clearing Members with greater control and flexibility over setting their own risk tolerance and exposure.
The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 23c-1(a) under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.23c-1(a)) permits a closed-end fund to repurchase its securities for cash if, in addition to the other requirements set forth in the rule, the following conditions are met: (i) Payment of the purchase price is accompanied or preceded by a written confirmation of the purchase (“written confirmation”); (ii) the asset coverage per unit of the security to be purchased is disclosed to the seller or his agent (“asset coverage disclosure”); and (iii) if the security is a stock, the fund has, within the preceding six months, informed stockholders of its intention to purchase stock (“six month notice”). Commission staff estimates that 78 closed-end funds undertake a total of 702 repurchases annually under Rule 23c-1.
In addition, the fund must file with the Commission a copy of any written solicitation to purchase securities given by or on behalf of the fund to 10 or more persons. The copy must be filed as an exhibit to Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128).
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Complying with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory. The filings that the rule requires to be made with the Commission are available to the public. 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.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to amend the manner in which the Exchange assesses Port Fees which are located in Chapter XV, entitled “Options Pricing,” which governs pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on April 1, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. 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 increase Port Fees for the following ports from $600.00 to $650.00 per port, per month, per mnemonic: Order Entry Port,
Each NOM Participant is assigned a market participant identifier or “mnemonic”
The Exchange is proposing to increase OTTO and SQF Ports from $600.00 to $750.00, per port, per month, per mnemonic for the OTTO Port and per port, per month for the SQF port. All other port fees (Order Entry Port, CTI Port, ITTO Port, BONO Port, Order Entry DROP Port and OTTO Drop Ports) will increase from $600.00 to $650.00 per port, per month, per mnemonic. NOM Market Makers utilize OTTO and SQF ports for their market making business, which ports require a greater throughput as compared to the other ports mentioned herein. The Exchange expends greater resources to provide the OTTO and SQF ports, which is the reason for the increased fee for these ports as compared to other ports.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that increasing the Order Entry Port, CTI Port, ITTO Port, BONO Port, Order Entry DROP Port and OTTO DROP Port fees from $600 to $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to keep pace with increasing technology costs. The increased Port Fees reflect the increased costs that the Exchange bears with respect to maintaining ports. The Port Fees are reasonable because they enable the Exchange to offset, in part, its connectivity costs associated with making such ports available, including costs based on gateway software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to gateway development, quality assurance, and support. The Exchange's Port Fees are in line with costs for ports at other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that increasing the Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, ITTO Ports, BONO Ports, Order Entry DROP Port and OTTO DROP Port fees from $600 to $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange assesses the same fees for all ports to all NOM participants.
The Exchange believes that increasing the OTTO Port and SQF Port Fees from $600 to $750 is reasonable because it would allow the Exchange to keep pace with increasing technology costs. NOM Market Makers utilize the OTTO and SQF ports, which ports require a greater throughput as compared to the other ports mentioned herein. The Exchange expends greater resources to provide the OTTO and SQF ports, which is the reason for the increased fee as compared to other ports. The increased Port Fees reflect the increased costs that the Exchange bears with respect to maintaining ports. The Port Fees are reasonable because they enable the Exchange to offset, in part, its connectivity costs associated with making such NOM Market Maker ports available, including costs based on gateway software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to gateway development, quality assurance, and support. The Exchange's Port Fees are in line with costs for ports at other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that increasing the OTTO Port and SQF Port Fees from $600 to $750 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange assesses the same fees for these ports which are utilized by NOM Market Makers for any NOM market participant desiring these ports.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonably designed to be fair and equitable, and therefore, will not unduly burden any particular group of market participants trading on the Exchange. The Exchange's proposal to increase all port fees for all NOM Participants with respect to the Order Entry Port, CTI Port, ITTO Port, BONO Port, Order Entry DROP Port and OTTO DROP Port fees from $600 to $650 does not create an undue burden on competition. The proposed fees are designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to
With respect to the OTTO Port and SQF Port Fees, the increase in the port fees from $600 to $750 is greater. These ports are utilized by NOM Market Makers in connection with marking markets. NOM Market Makers utilize the OTTO and SQF ports, which ports require a greater throughput as compared to the other ports mentioned herein. The Exchange expends greater resources to provide the OTTO and SQF ports, which is the reason for the increased fee as compared to other ports. The increased Port Fees reflect the increased costs that the Exchange bears with respect to maintaining ports. The Exchange does not believe these fee increases create an undue burden on competition. Moreover, the Exchange believes that its fee increases are competitive with similar fees at other options exchanges.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
PHLX proposes to amend and restate certain rules that govern NASDAQ OMX PSX (“PSX”) in order to provide a clearer and more detailed description of certain aspects of its functionality. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Phlx 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. Phlx 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 and restate certain Exchange rules that govern PSX in order to provide a clearer and more detailed description of certain
At present, most of the rules governing Order Types and Order Attributes are found in Rule 3301 (Definitions). The Exchange is proposing to thoroughly amend Rule 3301. The Exchange is also proposing to remove definitions pertaining to Order Types and Order Attributes and adopt them as separate new Rules 3301A (Order Types) and 3302B (Order Attributes). While the Exchange is also proposing certain conforming changes to other rules, in subsequent proposed rule changes the Exchange plans to restate the remainder of the rules numbered 3302 through 3316 so that they appear sequentially following Rule 3301B.
Amended Rule 3301 will adopt revised definitions applicable to the Rule 3200 and 3300 Series of the Exchange rules:
• The terms “Best Bid”, “Best Offer”, “National Best Bid and National Best Offer”, “Protected Bid”, “Protected Offer”, “Protected Quotation”, and “Intermarket Sweep Order” shall have the meanings assigned to them under Rule 600 under SEC Regulation NMS;
• The term “PSX,” or “System”, which defines the components of the securities execution and trade reporting system owned and operated by the Exchange, is being modified to state that the System includes a montage for “Quotes” and “Orders”, referred to as the “PSX Book”, that collects and ranks all Quotes and Orders submitted by “Participants”.
• The term “Quote” is being modified to make it clear that a Quote is an Order with Attribution (as defined in Rule 3301B) entered by a Market Maker or Equities ECN for display (price and size) next to the Participant's MPID in the PSX Book. Accordingly, all Quotes are also Orders.
• The definition of the term “Order” is being amended to mean an instruction to trade a specified number of shares in a specified System Security
• The term “ET” means Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Time, as applicable.
• The term “Market Hours” is being defined to mean the period of time beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET and ending at 4 p.m. ET (or such earlier time as may be designated by the Exchange on a day when PSX closes early). The term “System Hours” means the period of time beginning at 8 a.m. ET and ending at 5 p.m. ET (or such earlier time as may be designated by the Exchange on a day when PSX closes early). The term “Pre-Market Hours” means the period of time beginning at 8 a.m. ET and ending immediately prior to the commencement of Market Hours. The term “Post-Market Hours” means the period of time beginning immediately after the end of Market Hours and ending at 5 p.m. ET.
• The term “marketable” with respect to an Order to buy (sell) means that, at the time it is entered into the System, the Order is priced at the current Best Offer or higher (at the current Best Bid or lower).
• The term “market participant identifier” or “MPID” means a unique four-letter mnemonic assigned to each Participant in the System. A Participant may have one or more than one MPID.
• The term “minimum price increment” means $0.01 in the case of a System Security priced at $1 or more per share, and $0.0001 in the case of a System Security priced at less than $1 per share.
• The definition of the term “System Book Feed”, which means a data feed
Proposed Rule 3301A provides that Participants may express their trading interest in PSX by entering Orders. PSX offers a range of Order Types that behave in the manner specified for each particular Order Type. Each Order Type may be assigned certain Order Attributes that further define its behavior. All Order Types and Order Attributes operate in a manner that is reasonably designed to comply with the requirements of Rules 610 and 611 under Regulation NMS. Specifically, Orders are reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs of Protected Quotations to the extent required by Rule 611 under Regulation NMS, and to prevent the display of quotations that lock or cross Protected Quotations to the extent required by Rule 610 under Regulation NMS.
Proposed Rule 3301A further provides that the Exchange maintains several communications protocols for Participants to use in entering Orders and sending other messages to the System:
• OUCH is an Exchange proprietary protocol.
• RASH is an Exchange proprietary protocol.
• FLITE is an Exchange proprietary protocol.
• FIX is a non-proprietary protocol.
Except where otherwise stated, all protocols are available for all Order Types and Order Attributes.
Upon entry, an Order is processed to determine whether it may execute against any contra-side Orders on the PSX Book in accordance with the parameters applicable to the Order Type and Order Attributes selected by the Participant and in accordance with the priority for Orders on the PSX Book as provided in Rule 3307. Thus, for example, a “Price to Comply Order” would be evaluated for potential execution in accordance with different criteria than a “Post-Only Order.”
Thereafter, as detailed in proposed Rules 3301A and 3301B, and current Rule 3315 (Order Routing), there are numerous circumstances in which the Order on the PSX Book may be modified and receive a new timestamp. The sole instances in which the modification of an Order on the PSX Book will not result in a new timestamp are: (i) A decrease in the size of the Order due to execution or modification by the Participant or by the System, and (ii) a redesignation of a sell Order as a long sale, a short sale, or an exempt short sale.
The Exchange is amending Rule 3306 to make it clear that the redesignation of a sell Order as a long sale, short sale, or exempt short sale can be done only with respect to Orders entered through OUCH or FLITE; Orders entered through RASH or FIX would have to be cancelled and reentered to change their designation. Similarly, Rule 3306 is being amended to clarify that modification of an Order by the Participant to decrease its size is not possible with respect to a Pegged Order (including a Discretionary Order that is Pegged). Such an Order would have to be cancelled and reentered by the Participant to reduce its size.
In addition, the proposed rule notes that all Orders are also subject to cancellation and/or repricing and reentry onto the PSX Book in the circumstances described in Rule 3100(a)(5) (providing for compliance with Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility) and Rule 3303 (providing for compliance with Regulation SHO). In all circumstances where an Order is repriced pursuant to those provisions, it is processed by the System as a new Order with respect to potential execution against Orders on the PSX Book, price adjustment, routing, reposting to the PSX Book, and subsequent execution against incoming Orders. If multiple Orders at a given price are repriced, the Order in which they are reentered is random, based on the respective processing time for each such Order;
Proposed Rule 3301A further describes the behavior of each Order Type. Except where otherwise stated, each Order Type is available to all Participants, although certain Order Types and Order Attributes may require the use of a specific protocol. As a result, a Participant would be required to use that protocol in order to use Order Types and Order Attributes
The Price to Comply Order is an Order Type designed to comply with Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS by having its price and display characteristics adjusted to avoid the display of quotations that lock or cross any Protected Quotation in a System Security during Market Hours. The Price to Comply Order is also designed to provide potential price improvement. PSX does not have a “plain vanilla” limit order that attempts to execute at its limit price and is then posted at its price or rejected if it cannot be posted; rather, the Price to Comply Order, with its price and display adjustment features, is one of the primary Order Types used by Participants to access and display liquidity in the System. The price and display adjustment features of the Order Type enhance efficiency and investor protection by offering an Order Type that first attempts to access available liquidity and then to post the remainder of the Order at prices that are designed to maximize their opportunities for execution.
When a Price to Comply Order is entered, the Price to Comply Order will be executed against previously posted Orders on the PSX Book that are priced equal to or better than the price of the Price to Comply Order, up to the full amount of such previously posted Orders, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation. Any portion of the Order that cannot be executed in this manner will be posted on the PSX Book (and/or routed if it has been designated as Routable).
During Market Hours, the price at which a Price to Comply Order is posted is determined in the following manner. If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation and the Price to Comply Order could not execute against an Order on the PSX Book at a price equal to or better than the price of the Protected Quotation, the Price to Comply Order will be displayed on the PSX Book at a price one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for a Price to Comply Order to buy) or higher than the current Best Bid (for a Price to Comply Order to sell) but will also be ranked on the PSX Book with a non-displayed price equal to the current Best Offer (for a Price to Comply Order to buy) or to the current Best Bid (for a Price to Comply Order to sell). The posted Order will then be available for execution at its non-displayed price, thus providing opportunities for price improvement to incoming Orders.
For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer of $11, the Price to Comply Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. An incoming Order to sell at a price of $11 or lower would execute against the Price to Comply Order at $11.
During Pre-Market Hours and Post-Market Hours, a Price to Comply Order will be ranked and displayed at its entered limit price without adjustment. This is the case because PSX's rule with respect to locked and crossed markets, as adopted pursuant to Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS and approved by the Commission, applies only during Market Hours.
Depending on the protocol used to enter a Price to Comply Order, Participants have different options with respect to adjustment of the Price to Comply Order following its initial entry and posting to the PSX Book. Specifically, if a Price to Comply Order is entered through RASH or FIX, during Market Hours the price of the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the PSX Book (unless the Order is assigned a Routing Order Attribute that would cause it to be routed to another market center rather than remaining on the PSX Book):
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes, the displayed and non-displayed price of the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO; provided, however, that if the quotation of another market center moves in a manner that would lock or cross the displayed price of a Price to Comply Order, the prices of the Price to Comply Order will not be adjusted. For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. If the Best Offer then moves to $11.01, the displayed price will be changed to $11 and the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11.01. However, if another market center then displays an offer of $11 (thereby locking the previously displayed price of the Price to Comply Order, notwithstanding Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS), the price of the Price to Comply Order will not be changed.
• If the original entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order would no longer lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the Price to Comply Order will be ranked and displayed at that price and will receive a new timestamp, and will not thereafter be adjusted under this provision.
If a Price to Comply Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, during Market Hours the price of the Price to Comply Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the PSX Book:
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes so that the Price to Comply Order could be displayed at a price at or closer to its entered limit price without locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, the Price to Comply Order may either remain on the PSX Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. If the Best Offer changes to $11.01, the Order will not be repriced, but rather will either remain with a displayed price of $10.99 but ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Price to Comply Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order locked a Protected Quotation, the price of the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted after initial entry only as follows. If the
With regard to the foregoing options, it is important to emphasize that the Price to Comply Order receives a new timestamp whenever its price is changed, and also receives a new timestamp if the Price to Comply Order would no longer lock a Protected Quotation and is therefore displayed at its original entered limit price. Thus, there are no circumstances under which a Price to Comply Order that originally locked or crossed a Protected Quotation would “jump the queue” and be displayed at its original entered limit price while retaining its original time priority. In fact, as discussed throughout this filing, PSX does not offer any functionality that enables a Participant to “jump the queue” by displaying a previously entered non-displayed Orders without also receiving a new timestamp.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Price to Comply Order. The effect of each Order Attribute is discussed in detail below with respect to proposed new Rule 3301B.
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, and may include a displayed price as well as a non-displayed price.
• Size.
• Reserve Size (available through RASH and FIX only).
• A Time-in-Force other than “Immediate or Cancel” (“IOC”).
• Designation as an “ISO”. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Price to Comply Order designated as an ISO would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Price to Comply Order would lock or cross.
• Routing (available through RASH and FIX only).
• “Primary Pegging” and “Market Pegging” (available through RASH and FIX only).
• “Discretion” (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Display. A Price to Comply Order is always displayed, although, as provided above, it may also have a non-displayed price and/or Reserve Size.
A “Price to Display Order” is an Order Type designed to comply with Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS by avoiding the display of quotations that lock or cross any Protected Quotation in a System Security during Market Hours. Price to Display Orders are available solely to Participants that are Market Makers for System Securities and are always attributable.
When a Price to Display Order is entered, if its entered limit price would lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the Price to Display Order will be repriced to one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for a Price to Display Order to buy) or higher than the current Best Bid (for a Price to Display Order to sell). For example, if a Price to Display Order to buy at $11 would cross a Protected Offer of $10.99, the Price to Display Order will be repriced to $10.98. The Price to Display Order (whether repriced or not repriced) will then be executed against previously posted Orders on the PSX Book that are priced equal to or better than the adjusted price of the Price to Display Order, up to the full amount of such previously posted Orders, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation. Any portion of the Order that cannot be executed in this manner will be posted on the PSX Book (and/or routed if it has been designated as Routable).
During Market Hours, the price at which a Price to Display Order is displayed and ranked on the PSX Book will be its entered limit price if the Price to Display Order was not repriced upon entry, or the adjusted price if the Price to Comply Order was repriced upon entry, such that the price will not lock or cross a Protected Quotation. During Pre-Market Hours and Post-Market Hours, a Price to Display Order will be displayed and ranked at its entered limit price without adjustment.
As is the case with a Price to Comply Order, a Price to Display Order may be adjusted after initial entry.
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Display Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes, the price of the Order will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO; provided, however, that if the quotation of another market center moves in a manner that would lock or cross the price of a Price to Display Order, the price of the Price to Display Order will not be adjusted.
• If the original entered limit price of the Price to Display Order would no longer lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the Price to Display Order will be displayed and ranked at that price and will receive a new timestamp, and will not thereafter be adjusted under this provision.
If a Price to Display Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, during Market Hours the Price to Display Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the PSX Book:
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Display Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes so that the Price to Display Order could be ranked and displayed at a price at or closer to its original entered limit price without locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, the Price to Display Order may either remain on the PSX Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on the Participant's choice. For example, if a Price to Display Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked and displayed at $10.99. If the Best Offer changes to $11.01, the Price to Display Order will not be repriced, but rather will either remain at its current price or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Price to Display Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Price to Display Order:
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid locking or crossing a Protected Quotation.
• Size.
• Reserve Size (available through RASH and FIX only).
• A Time-in-Force other than IOC.
• Designation as an ISO. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Price to Display Order designated as an ISO would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Price to Display Order would lock or cross.
• Routing (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Primary Pegging and Market Pegging (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Discretion (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Attribution. All Price to Display Orders are Attributable Orders.
• Display. A Price to Display Order is always displayed (but may also have Reserve Size).
A “Non-Displayed Order” is an Order Type that is not displayed to other Participants, but nevertheless remains available for potential execution against incoming Orders until executed in full or cancelled. Thus, the Order Type provides a means by which Participants may access and/or offer liquidity without signaling to other Participants the extent of their trading interest. The Order may also serve to provide price improvement vis-à-vis the NBBO. Under Regulation NMS, a Non-Displayed Order may lock a Protected Quotation and may be traded-through by other market centers.
When a Non-Displayed Order is entered, the Non-Displayed Order will be executed against previously posted Orders on the PSX Book that are priced equal to or better than the price of the Non-Displayed Order, up to the full amount of such previously posted Orders, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation. Any portion of the Non-Displayed Order that cannot be executed in this manner will be posted to the PSX Book (unless the Non-Displayed Order has a Time-in-Force of IOC) and/or routed if it has been designated as Routable.
During Market Hours, the price at which a Non-Displayed Order is posted is determined in the following manner. If the entered limit price of the Non-Displayed Order would lock a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be placed on the PSX Book at the locking price. If the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be repriced to a price that would lock the Protected Quotation and will be placed on the PSX Book at that price.
As is the case with a Price to Comply Order, a Non-Displayed Order may be adjusted after initial entry.
• If the original entered limit price of a Non-Displayed Order is higher than the Best Offer (for an Order to buy) or lower than the Best Bid (for an Order to sell) and the NBBO moves toward the original entered limit price of the Non-Displayed Order, the price of the Non-
• If, after being posted to the PSX Book, the NBBO changes so that the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be repriced at a price that would lock the new NBBO and receive a new timestamp.
If a Non-Displayed Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, during Market Hours the Non-Displayed Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the PSX Book:
• If the original entered limit price of the Non-Displayed Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes so that the Non-Displayed Order could be posted at a price at or closer to its original entered limit price without crossing a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order may either remain on the PSX Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. For example, if a Non-Displayed Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be priced at $11. If the Best Offer changes to $11.01, the Order will not be repriced, but rather will either remain at its current $11 price or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Non-Displayed Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
• If, after a Non-Displayed Order is posted to the PSX Book, the NBBO changes so that the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be cancelled back to the Participant. For example, if a Non-Displayed Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer of $11, the Non-Displayed Order will be posted at $11. If the Best Offer then changes to $10.99, the Non-Displayed Order will be cancelled back to the Participant.
• If a Non-Displayed Order entered through OUCH or FLITE is assigned a Midpoint Pegging Order Attribute,
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Non-Displayed Order:
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid crossing a Protected Quotation.
• Size.
• “Minimum Quantity”.
• Time-in-Force.
• Designation as an ISO. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Non-Displayed Order designated as an ISO would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Non-Displayed Order would cross. As discussed above, a Non-Displayed Order would be accepted at a price that locked a Protected Quotation, even if the Order was not designated as an ISO, because the non-displayed nature of the Order allows it to lock a Protected Quotation under Regulation NMS. Accordingly, the System would not interpret receipt of a Non-Displayed Order marked ISO that locked a Protected Quotation as the basis for determining that the Protected Quotation had been executed for purposes of accepting additional Orders at that price level.
• Routing (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Primary Pegging and Market Pegging (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Pegging to the Midpoint.
• Discretion (available through RASH and FIX only).
A “Post-Only Order” is an Order Type designed to have its price adjusted as needed to post to the PSX Book in compliance with Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS by avoiding the display of quotations that lock or cross any Protected Quotation in a System Security during Market Hours, or to execute against locking or crossing quotations in circumstances where economically beneficial to the Participant entering the Post-Only Order. Post-Only Orders are always displayed, although as discussed below, they may also have a non-displayed price in circumstances similar to a Price to Comply Order. Post-Only Orders are thus designed to allow Participants to help control their trading costs, while also “provid[ing] displayed liquidity to the market and thereby contribut[ing] to public price discovery—an objective that is fully consistent with the Act.”
During Market Hours, a Post-Only Order is evaluated at the time of entry with respect to locking or crossing other Orders on the PSX Book, Protected
• If a Post-Only Order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the price of the Order will first be adjusted. If the Order is Attributable, its adjusted price will be one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for bids) or higher than the current Best Bid (for offers). If the Order is not Attributable, its adjusted price will be equal to the current Best Offer (for bids) or the current Best Bid (for offers). However, the Order will not post or execute until the Order, as adjusted, is evaluated with respect to Orders on the PSX Book.
○ If the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross an Order on the PSX Book, the Order will be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order (if it is not Attributable) or a Price to Display Order (if it is Attributable). Specifically, if the Post-Only Order is not Attributable, it will be displayed on the PSX Book at a price one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for bids) or higher than the current Best Bid (for offers) but will be ranked on the PSX Book with a non-displayed price equal to the current Best Offer (for bids) or to the current Best Bid (for offers). For example, if a Post-Only Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. If the Post-Only Order is Attributable, it will be ranked and displayed on the PSX Book at a price one minimum increment lower than the current Best Offer (for bids) or higher than the current Best Bid (for offers). Thus, in the preceding example, the Post-Only Order to buy would be ranked and displayed at $10.99.
○ If the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross an Order on the PSX Book, the Post Only Order will be repriced, ranked, and displayed at one minimum price increment below the current best-priced Order to sell on the PSX Book (for bids) or above the current best-priced Order to buy on the PSX Book (for offers); provided, however, the Post-Only Order will execute if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the PSX Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the PSX Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the PSX Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds $0.01 per share. For example, if a Participant entered a Non-Attributable Post-Only Order to buy at $11.01, another market center is displaying a Protected Offer at $11, and there is a Non-Displayed Order on the PSX Book to sell at $11, the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order will be $11. However, because the Post-Only Order would be executable against the Non-Displayed Order on the PSX Book and would receive $0.01 price improvement (as measured against the original $11.01 price of the Post-Only Order), the Post-Only Order would execute.
• If the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation but would lock or cross an Order on the PSX Book, the Post Only Order will be repriced, ranked, and displayed at one minimum price increment below the current best-priced Order to sell on the PSX Book (for bids) or above the current best-priced Order to buy on the PSX Book (for offers); provided, however, the Post-Only Order will execute if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the PSX Book equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the PSX Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the PSX Book equals or exceeds $0.01 per share. For example, if a Participant entered a Post-Only Order to buy at $11.02, the Best Offer was $11.04, and there was a Non-Displayed Order on the PSX Book to sell at $11.02, the Post-Only Order would be ranked and displayed at $11.01. However, if a Participant entered a Post-Only Order to buy at $11.03, the Order would execute against the Order on the PSX Book at $11.02, receiving $0.01 per share price improvement.
• If a Post-Only Order is entered with a Time-in-Force of IOC, the price of an Order to buy (sell) will be repriced to the lower of (higher of) (i) one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Order or (ii) the current Best Offer (Best Bid). The Order will execute against any Order on the PSX Book with a price equal to or better than the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order. If the Post-Only Order cannot execute, it will be cancelled. For example, if a Post-Only Order to buy at $11 with a Time-in-Force of IOC was entered and the current Best Offer was $11.01, the Order would be repriced to $10.99; however, if the Best Offer was $10.98, the Order would be repriced to $10.98.
• If a Post-Only Order would not lock or cross an Order on the PSX Book or any Protected Quotation, it will be posted on the PSX Book at its entered limit price.
During Pre-Market and Post-Market Hours, a Post-Only Order will be processed in a manner identical to Market Hours with respect to locking or crossing Orders on the PSX Book, but will not have its price adjusted with respect to locking or crossing the quotations of other market centers.
If a Post-Only Order is entered through RASH or FIX, during System Hours the Post-Only Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the PSX Book:
• If the original entered limit price of the Post-Only Order is not being displayed, the displayed (and non-displayed price, if any) of the Order will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the PSX Book, as applicable; provided, however, that if the quotation of another market center moves in a manner that would lock or cross the displayed price of a Post-Only Order, the price(s) of the Post-Only Order will not be adjusted.
If a Post-Only Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, the Post-Only Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the PSX Book:
• During Market Hours, if the original entered limit price of the Post-Only Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation, the Post-Only Order may be adjusted after initial entry in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order (or a Price to Display Order, if it is Attributable). Thus, in the case of a Non-Attributable Post-Only Order that crossed a Protected Quotation, if the NBBO changed so that the Post-Only Order could be ranked and displayed at a price at or closer to its original entered limit price without locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, the Post-Only Order may either remain on the PSX Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. In the case of a Non-Attributable Post-Only Order that locked a Protected Quotation, if the limit price would no longer lock a Protected Quotation, the Post-Only Order may either remain on the PSX Book unchanged, may be cancelled back to the Participant, or may be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price, depending on the Participant's choice, and will not thereafter be adjusted under this provision.
• During System Hours, if the original entered limit price of the Post-Only Order locked or crossed an Order on the PSX Book and the PSX Book changes so that the original entered limit price would no longer lock or cross an Order on the PSX Book, the Post-Only Order may either remain on the PSX Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on the Participant's choice. For example, if a Post-Only Order to buy at $11 would lock an Order on the PSX Book priced at $11, the Post-Only Order will be ranked and displayed at $10.99. If the Order at $11 is cancelled or executed, the Post-Only Order may either remain with a displayed price of $10.99 or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on the Participant's choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Post-Only Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Post-Only Order:
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, and may include a displayed price as well as a non-displayed price.
• Size.
• Time-in-Force.
• Designation as an ISO. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Post-Only Order designated as an ISO that locked or crossed a Protected Quotation would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Post-Only Order would lock or cross.
• Attribution.
• Display. A Post-Only Order is always displayed, although as provided above, may also have a non-displayed price.
A “Market Maker Peg Order” is an Order Type designed to allow a Market Maker to maintain a continuous two-sided quotation at a price that is compliant with the quotation requirements for Market Makers set forth in Rule 3213(a)(2).
Upon entry, the price of a Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) is automatically set by the System at the Designated Percentage (as defined in Rule 3213) away from the Reference Price in order to comply with the quotation requirements for Market Makers set forth in Rule 3213(a)(2). For example, if the Best Bid is $10 and the Designated Percentage for the security is 8%, the price of a Market Marker Peg Order to buy would be $9.20. If the limit price of the Order is not within the Designated Percentage, the Order will be sent back to the Participant.
Once a Market Maker Peg Order has posted to the PSX Book, its price is adjusted if needed as the Reference Price changes. Specifically, if as a result of a change to the Reference Price, the difference between the price of the Market Maker Peg Order and the Reference Price reaches the Defined Limit (as defined in Rule 3213), the price of a Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) will be adjusted to the Designated Percentage away from the Reference Price. In the foregoing example, if the Defined Limit is 9.5% and the Best Bid increased to $10.17, such that the price of the Market Maker Peg Order would be more than 9.5% away, the Order will be repriced to $9.35, or 8% away from the Best Bid. Note that calculated prices of less than the minimum increment will be rounded in a manner that ensures that the posted price will be set at a level that complies with the percentages stipulated by this rule. If the limit price of the Order is outside the Defined Limit, the Order will be sent back to the Participant.
Similarly, if as a result of a change to the Reference Price, the price of a Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) is within one minimum price variation more than (less than) a price that is 4% less than (more than) the Reference Price, rounded up (down), then the price of the Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) will be adjusted to the Designated Percentage away from the Reference Price. For example, if the Best Bid is $10 and the Designated Percentage for the security is 8%, the price of a Market Marker Peg Order to buy would initially be $9.20. If the Best Bid then moved to $9.57, such that the price of the Market Maker Peg Order would be a minimum of $0.01 more than a price that is 4% less than the Best Bid, rounded up (
A Market Maker may enter a Market Maker Peg Order with a more aggressive offset than the Designated Percentage, but such an offset will be expressed as a price difference from the Reference Price. Such a Market Maker Peg Order will be repriced in the same manner as a Price to Display Order with Attribution and Primary Pegging. As a result, the price of the Order will be adjusted whenever the price to which the Order is pegged is changed.
A new timestamp is created for a Market Maker Peg Order each time that its price is adjusted. In the absence of a Reference Price, a Market Maker Peg Order will be cancelled or rejected. If, after entry, a Market Maker Peg Order is priced based on a Reference Price other than the NBBO and such Market Maker Peg Order is established as the Best Bid or Best Offer, the Market Maker Peg Order will not be subsequently adjusted in accordance with this rule until a new Reference Price is established. If a Market Maker Peg Order is repriced 1,000 times, it will be cancelled. This restriction is designed to conserve System resources by limiting the persistence of Orders that update repeatedly without any reasonable prospect of execution.
Notwithstanding the availability of Market Maker Peg Order functionality, a Market Maker remains responsible for entering, monitoring, and resubmitting, as applicable, quotations that meet the requirements of Rule 3213.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Market Maker Peg Order:
• Price. As discussed above, the price of Market Maker Peg Order is established by the PSX based on the Reference Price, the Designated Percentage (or a narrower offset established by the Market Maker), the Defined Limit, and the 4% minimum difference from the Reference Price.
• Size.
• A Time-in-Force other than IOC or “Good-till-Cancelled”.
• If the Market Maker designates a more aggressive offset, Primary Pegging is required.
• Attribution. All Market Maker Peg Orders are Attributable.
• Display. Market Marker Peg Orders are always Displayed.
Proposed Rule 3301A lists the Order Attributes that may be assigned to specific Order Types. Proposed Rule 3301B details the parameters of each Order Attribute.
The “Time-in-Force” assigned to an Order means the period of time that PSX will hold the Order for potential execution. Participants specify an Order's Time-in-Force by designating a time at which the Order will become active and a time at which the Order will cease to be active. The available times for activating Orders are:
• The time of the Order's receipt by the System;
• the beginning of Market Hours;
• the end of Market Hours;
• the resumption of trading, in the case of a security that is the subject of a trading halt.
The available times for deactivating Orders are:
• “Immediate” (
• the end of Market Hours;
• the end of System Hours;
• one year after entry; or
• a specific time identified by the Participant; provided, however, that an Order specifying an expire time beyond the current trading day will be cancelled at the end of the current trading day.
Notwithstanding the Time-in-Force originally designated for an Order, a Participant may always cancel an Order after it is entered.
The following Times in Force are referenced elsewhere in PSX's Rules by the designations noted below:
• An Order that is designated to deactivate immediately after determining whether the Order is marketable may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “Immediate or Cancel” or “IOC”. Any Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC entered between 9:30 a.m. ET and 4 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “Market Hours Immediate or Cancel” or “MIOC”. An Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC that is entered at any time between 8 a.m. ET and 5 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “System Hours Immediate or Cancel” or “SIOC”.
• An Order that is designated to deactivate at 8 p.m. may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “System Hours Day” or “SDAY”.
• An Order that is designated to deactivate one year after entry may be referred to as a “Good-till-Cancelled” or “GTC” Order. If a GTC Order is designated as eligible for execution during Market Hours only, it may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “Market Hours Good-till-Cancelled” or “MGTC”. If a GTC is designated as eligible for execution during System Hours, it may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “System Hours Good-till-Cancelled” or “SGTC”.
• An Order that is designated to deactivate at the time specified in advance by the entering Participant may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “System Hours Expire Time” or “SHEX”.
• An Order that is designated to activate at any time during Market Hours and deactivate at 4 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “Market Hours Day” or “MDAY”. An Order entered with a Time-in-Force of MDAY after 4 p.m. ET will be accepted but given a Time-in-Force of IOC,.
• An Order that is designated to activate when entered and deactivate at 4 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “Good-till-Market Close” or “GTMC”. GTMC Orders entered after 4 p.m. ET will be treated as having a Time-in-Force of SIOC.
Except as otherwise provided, an Order may be entered in any whole share size between one share and 999,999 shares. Orders for fractional shares are not permitted. The following terms may be used to describe particular Order sizes:
• “normal unit of trading” or “round lot” means the size generally employed by traders when trading a particular security, which is 100 shares in most instances;
• “mixed lot” means a size of more than one normal unit of trading but not a multiple thereof; and
• “odd lot” means a size of less than one normal unit of trading.
With limited exceptions, all Orders must have a price, such that they will execute only if the price available is equal to or better than the price of the Order. The maximum price that the System will accept is $199,999.99. Certain Orders have a price that is determined by the System based on the NBBO or other reference prices, rather than by the Participant. As described below with respect to the Pegging Order Attribute, an Order may have a price that is pegged to the opposite side of the market, in which case the Order will behave like a “market order” or “unpriced order” (
Pegging is an Order Attribute that allows an Order to have its price automatically set with reference to the NBBO; provided, however, that if PSX is the sole market center at the Best Bid or Best Offer (as applicable), then the price of any Displayed Order with Pegging will be set with reference to the highest bid or lowest offer disseminated by a market center other than PSX.
• Primary Pegging means Pegging with reference to the Inside Quotation on the same side of the market. For example, if the Inside Bid was $11, an Order to buy with Primary Pegging would be priced at $11.
• Market Pegging means Pegging with reference to the Inside Quotation on the opposite side of the market. For example, if the Inside Offer was $11.06, an Order to buy with Market Pegging would be priced at $11.06.
• Midpoint Pegging means Pegging with reference to the midpoint between the Inside Bid and the Inside Offer (the “Midpoint”). Thus, if the Inside Bid was $11 and the Inside Offer was $11.06, an Order with Midpoint Pegging would be priced at $11.03. An Order with Midpoint Pegging is not displayed. An Order with Midpoint Pegging may be executed in sub-pennies if necessary to obtain a midpoint price.
Pegging is available only during Market Hours. An Order with Pegging may specify a limit price beyond which they Order may not be executed; provided, however, that if an Order has been assigned a Pegging Order Attribute and a Discretion Order Attribute, the Order may execute at any price within the discretionary price range, even if beyond the limit price specified with respect to the Pegging Order Attribute. If an Order with Pegging is priced at its limit price, the price of the Order may nevertheless be changed to a less aggressive price based on changes to the Inside Quotation.
Primary Pegging and Market Pegging are available through RASH or FIX only. An Order entered through OUCH or FLITE with Midpoint Pegging will have its price set upon initial entry to the Midpoint, unless the Order has a limit
An Order entered through RASH or FIX with Pegging will have its price set upon initial entry and will thereafter have its price reset in accordance with changes to the relevant Inside Quotation. An Order with Pegging receives a new timestamp whenever its price is updated and therefore will be evaluated with respect to possible execution (and routing, if it has been assigned a Routing Order Attribute) in the same manner as a newly entered Order. If the price to which an Order is pegged is not available, the Order will be rejected.
Pegging functionality allows a Participant to have the System adjust the price of the Order continually in order to keep the price within defined parameters. Thus, the System performs price adjustments that would otherwise be performed by the Participant through cancellation and reentry of Orders. The fact that a new timestamp is created for a Pegged Order whenever it has its price adjusted allows the Order to seek additional execution opportunities and ensures that the Order does not “jump the queue” with respect to any Orders that were previously at the Pegged Order's new price level.
If an Order with Primary Pegging is updated 1,000 times, it will be cancelled; if an Order with other forms of Pegging is updated 10,000 times, it will be cancelled. This restriction is designed to conserve System resources by limiting the persistence of Orders that update repeatedly without any reasonable prospect of execution.
Minimum Quantity is an Order Attribute that allows a Participant to provide that an Order will not execute unless a specified minimum quantity of shares can be obtained. Thus, the functionality serves to allow a Participant that may wish to buy or sell a large amount of a security to avoid signaling its trading interest unless it can purchase a certain minimum amount. An Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute may be referred to as a “Minimum Quantity Order.” For example, a Participant could enter an Order with a Size of 1000 shares and specify a Minimum Quantity of 500 shares. In that case, upon entry, the System would determine whether there were posted Orders executable against the incoming Order with a size of at least 500 shares.
Upon entry, an Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute must have a size of at least one round lot. An Order entered through OUCH or FLITE may have a minimum quantity condition of any size of at least one round lot. An Order entered through RASH or FIX must have a minimum quantity of one round lot or any multiple thereof, and a mixed lot minimum quantity condition will be rounded down to the nearest round lot. In the event that the shares remaining in the size of an Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute following a partial execution thereof are less than the minimum quantity specified by the Participant entering the Order, the minimum quantity value of the Order will be reduced to the number of shares remaining. An Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute may not be displayed; if a Participant marks an Order with both a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute and a Display Order Attribute, the System will accept the Order but will give a Time-in-Force of IOC, regardless of the Time-in-Force marked by the Participant. An Order marked with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute and a Routing Order Attribute will be rejected.
Routing is an Order Attribute that allows a Participant to designate an Order to employ one of several Routing Strategies offered by PSX, as described in Rule 3315; such an Order may be referred to as a “Routable Order.” Upon receipt of an Order with the Routing Order Attribute, the System will process the Order in accordance with the applicable Routing Strategy. In the case of a limited number of Routing Strategies, the Order will be sent directly to other market centers for potential execution. For most other Routing Strategies, the Order will attempt to access liquidity available on PSX in the manner specified for the underlying Order Type and will then be routed in accordance with the applicable Routing Strategy. Shares of the Order that cannot be executed are then returned to PSX, where they will (i) again attempt to access liquidity available on PSX and (ii) post to the PSX Book or be cancelled, depending on the Time-in-Force of the Order. Under certain Routing Strategies, the Order may be routed again if the System observes an accessible quotation of another market center, and returned to PSX again for potential execution and/or posting to the PSX Book.
In connection with the trading of securities governed by Regulation NMS, all Orders shall be routed for potential execution in compliance with Regulation NMS. Where appropriate, Routable Orders will be marked as Intermarket Sweep Orders.
Discretion is an Order Attribute under which an Order has a non-displayed discretionary price range within which the entering Participant is willing to trade; such an Order may be referred to as a “Discretionary Order.”
Under the circumstances described below, the System processes an Order with Discretion by generating a Non-Displayed Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC (a “Discretionary IOC”) that will attempt to access liquidity available within the discretionary price range. The Discretionary IOC will not be permitted to execute, however, if the price of the execution would trade through a Protected Quotation. If more than one Order with Discretion satisfies conditions that would cause the generation of a Discretionary IOC simultaneously, the order in which such Discretionary IOCs are presented for execution is random, based on the respective processing time for each such Order. Whenever a Discretionary IOC is generated, the underlying Order with Discretion will be withheld or removed from the PSX Book and will then be routed and/or placed on the PSX Book if the Discretionary IOC does not exhaust the full size of the underlying Order with Discretion, with its price determined by the underlying Order Type and Order Attributes selected by the Participant.
• If an Order has been assigned a Discretion Order Attribute, but has not been assigned a Routing Order Attribute, upon entry of the Order, the System will automatically generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the highest price for an Order with Discretion to buy (lowest price for an Order with Discretion to sell) within the discretionary price range and a size equal to the full size of the underlying Order to determine if there are any Orders within the discretionary price range on the PSX Book. If the Discretionary IOC does not exhaust the full size of the Order with Discretion, the remaining size of the Order with Discretion will post to the PSX Book in accordance with the parameters that apply to the underlying Order Type. Thus, for example, if a Participant enters a Price to Display Order to buy at $11 with a discretionary price range of up to $11.03, upon entry the System will generate a Discretionary IOC to buy priced at $11.03. If there is an Order on the PSX Book to sell priced at $11.02 and an execution at $11.02 would not trade through a Protected Quotation, the Discretionary IOC will execute against the Order on the PSX Book, up to the full size of each Order. Any remaining size of the Price to Display Order would post to the PSX Book in accordance with its parameters.
• After the Order posts to the PSX Book, the System will examine whether at any time there is an Order on the PSX Book with a price in the discretionary price range against which the Order with Discretion could execute. In doing so, the System will examine all Orders (including Orders that are not Displayed). If the System observes such an Order, it will generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the highest price for an Order to buy (lowest price for an Order to sell) within the discretionary price range and a size equal to the full size of the Order.
• If an Order that uses a passive routing strategy (
• If an Order that uses a reactive routing strategy (
• If an Order that uses a passive routing strategy has been assigned a Discretion Order Attribute and does have a pegged discretionary price range, upon entry of the Order, the System will examine all Orders (including Orders that are not Displayed) on the PSX Book to determine if there is an Order on the PSX Book with a price in the discretionary price range against which the Order with Discretion could execute. If the System observes such an Order, it will generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the price of the Order on the PSX Book and a size equal to the applicable size of the Order on the PSX Book. The System will also determine if there are any accessible quotations with prices that are within the discretionary price range at destinations on the applicable routing table for the selected routing strategy. If there are such quotations, the System will generate one or more Discretionary IOCs to route to such destinations, with a price and size that match the price and size of the market center's quotation. If necessary to maximize execution opportunities and comply with Regulation NMS, the System may mark such Discretionary IOCs as Intermarket Sweep Orders. If the Discretionary IOC(s) do not exhaust the full size of the Order with Discretion, the remaining size of the Order with Discretion will post to the PSX Book in accordance with the parameters that apply to the underlying Order Type. Thereafter, the Order will not generate further Discretionary IOCs unless the Order is updated in a manner that causes it to receive a new timestamp, in which case the Order will behave in the same manner as a newly entered Order.
• If an Order that uses a reactive routing strategy has been assigned a Discretion Order Attribute and does have a pegged discretionary price range, upon entry of the Order, the System will examine all Orders (including Orders that are not Displayed) on the PSX Book to determine if there is an Order on the PSX Book with a price in the discretionary price range against which the Order with Discretion could execute. If the System observes such an Order, it will generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the price of the Order on the PSX Book and a size equal to the applicable size of the Order on the PSX Book. The System will also determine if there are any accessible quotations with prices that are within the discretionary price range at destinations on the applicable routing table for the selected routing strategy. If there are such quotations, the System will generate one or more Discretionary IOCs to route to such destinations, with a price and size that match the price and size of the market center's quotation. If necessary to maximize execution opportunities and comply with Regulation NMS, the System may mark such Discretionary IOCs as Intermarket Sweep Orders. If the Discretionary IOC(s) do not exhaust the full size of the Order with Discretion, the remaining size of the Order with Discretion will post to the PSX Book in accordance with the parameters that apply to the underlying Order Type. The System will then examine whether at any time there is an Order on the PSX Book or an accessible quotation at another trading venue with a price in the discretionary price range against which the Order with Discretion could execute. In examining the PSX Book, the System will examine Displayed Orders but will not examine Non-Displayed Orders. If the System observes such an Order or quotation, it will generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the price of such the Order or quotation and a size equal to the applicable size of the Order on the PSX Book or the displayed size of the quotation.
Reserve Size is an Order Attribute that permits a Participant to stipulate that an Order Type that is displayed may have its displayed size replenished from additional non-displayed size. An Order with Reserve Size may be referred to as a “Reserve Order.” At the time of entry, the displayed size of such an Order selected by the Participant must be one or more normal units of trading; an Order with a displayed size of a mixed lot will be rounded down to the nearest round lot. A Reserve Order with displayed size of an odd lot will be accepted but with the full size of the Order displayed. Reserve Size is not available for Orders that are not displayed; provided, however, that if a Participant enters Reserve Size for a Non-Displayed Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC, the full size of the Order, including Reserve Size, will be processed as a Non-Displayed Order.
Whenever a Participant enters an Order with Reserve Size, the System will process the Order as two Orders: a Displayed Order (with the characteristics of its selected Order Type) and a Non-Displayed Order. Upon entry, the full size of each such Order will be processed for potential execution in accordance with the parameters applicable to the Order Type. For example, a Participant might enter a Price to Display Order with 200 shares displayed and an additional 3,000 shares non-displayed. Upon entry, the Order would attempt to execute against available liquidity on the PSX Book, up to 3,200 shares. Thereafter, unexecuted portions of the Order would post to the PSX Book as a Displayed Price to Display Order and a Non-Displayed Order; provided, however, that if the remaining total size is less than the display size stipulated by the Participant, the Displayed Order will post without Reserve Size. Thus, if 3,050 shares executed upon entry, the Price to Display Order would post with a size of 150 shares and no Reserve Size.
When an Order with Reserve Size is posted, if there is an execution against the Displayed Order that causes its size to decrease below a normal unit of trading, another Displayed Order will be entered at the level stipulated by the Participant while the size of the Non-Displayed Order will be reduced by the same amount. Any remaining size of the original Displayed Order will remain on the PSX Book. The new Displayed Order will receive a new timestamp, but the Non-Displayed Order (and the original Displayed Order, if any) will not; although the new Displayed Order will be processed by the System as a new Order in most respects at that time, if it was designated as Routable, the System will not automatically route it upon reentry.
A Participant may stipulate that the Displayed Order should be replenished to its original size. Alternatively, the Participant may stipulate that the original and subsequent displayed size will be an amount randomly determined based on factors selected by the Participant.
When the Displayed Order with Reserve Size is executed and replenished, applicable market data disseminated by the Exchange will show the execution and decrementation of the Displayed Order, followed by replenishment of the Displayed Order. In all cases, if the remaining size of the Non-Displayed Order is less than the fixed or random amount stipulated by the Participant, the full remaining size of the Non-Displayed Order will be displayed and the Non-Displayed Order will be removed.
Attribution is an Order Attribute that permits a Participant to designate that the price and size of the Order will be displayed next to the Participant's MPID in market data disseminated by PSX. An Order with Attribution is referred to as an “Attributable Order” and an Order without attribution is referred to as a “Non-Attributable Order.”
Designation of an Order as an Intermarket Sweep Order, or ISO, is an Order Attribute that allows the Order to be executed within the System by Participants at multiple price levels without respect to Protected Quotations of other market centers within the meaning of Rule 600(b) under Regulation NMS. ISOs are immediately executable within the System against Orders against which they are marketable. An Order designated as an ISO may not be assigned a Routing Order Attribute.
Simultaneously with the routing of an ISO to the System, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed by the entering Participant to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation with a price that is superior to the price of the Order identified as an Intermarket Sweep Order (as defined in Rule 600(b) under Regulation NMS). These additional routed orders must be identified as Intermarket Sweep Orders.
Upon receipt of an ISO, the System will consider the stated price of the ISO to be available for other Orders to be entered at that price, unless the ISO is not itself accepted at that price level (for example, a Post-Only Order that has its price adjusted to avoid executing against an Order on the PSX Book) or the ISO is not Displayed.
In addition, as described with respect to various Order Types, such as the Price to Comply Order, Orders on the PSX Book that had their price adjusted may be eligible to be reentered at the stated price of the ISO. For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer at $11, the Price to Comply Order will be posted with a non-displayed price of $11 and a displayed price of $10.99. If the System then receives an ISO to buy at $11, the ISO will be posted at $11 and the Price to Comply Order will be reentered at $11 (if the Participant opted to have its Orders reentered). The respective priority of such reentered Orders will be maintained among multiple repriced Orders; however, other new Orders may also be received after receipt of the ISO but before the repricing of the Price to Comply Order is complete; accordingly, the priority of an Order on the PSX Book vis-à-vis a newly entered Order is not guaranteed.
Display is an Order Attribute that allows the price and size of an Order to be displayed to market participants via market data feeds. All Orders that are Attributable are also displayed, but an Order may be displayed without being Attributable. As discussed in Rule 3301A, a Non-Displayed Order is a specific Order Type, but other Order Types may also be non-displayed if they are not assigned a Display Order Attribute; however, depending on context, all Orders that are not displayed may be referred to as “Non-Displayed Orders.” An Order with a Display Order Attribute may be referred to as a “Displayed Order.”
Although the Exchange, like many exchanges, offers a wide range of possible combinations of Order Types and Order Attributes in order to provide options that support of a range of legitimate trading strategies, the Exchange believes that an analysis of the extent of usage of particular Order Type permutations is important to promoting a deeper understanding of current market structure. Based on analysis of a month of data for the period from August 26, 2013 through September 29, 2013, the Exchange offers the following observations about the usage of different Order Types on its market:
• 19.53% of entered Order volume was Price to Comply Orders with no Order Attributes other than price and size. Such Orders were involved in 17.53% of execution volume.
• 45.54% of entered Order volume was Post-Only Orders with no Order Attributes other than price and size. Such Orders were involved in 14.70% of execution volume.
• Non-Displayed Orders with a Time-in-Force of IOC and no special Order Attributes accounted for 2.11% of entered Order volume and 11.20% of execution volume. Non-Displayed Orders with a Time-in-Force of IOC marked as ISOs but with no other special Order Attributes accounted for 0.65% of entered Order volume and 34.66% of execution volume.
• Non-Displayed Orders with a Time-in-Force longer than IOC but no special Order Attributes accounted for 3.78% of entered Order volume and 0.50% of execution volume.
• Post-Only Orders marked ISO but with no other special Order Attributes accounted for 13.66% of entered Order volume and 13.59% execution volume. Price to Comply Orders marked ISO but with no other special Order Attributes accounted for 4.01% of entered Order volume and 1.15% of execution volume.
• All other Order Type and Order Attribute combinations accounted for 14.72% of entered Order volume and 7.82% of execution volume.
Thus, while a range of combinations of Order Types and Order Attributes can exist on PSX, the Exchange believes that these data support the conclusion that many of these possible combinations are not used to any appreciable extent. Rather, the vast majority of Order entry and Order execution volume is attributable to a small number of simple combinations: IOC Orders designed to access posted liquidity and various forms of priced limit Orders designed to access available liquidity and thereafter post to the PSX Book to provide liquidity, which promote price discovery by offering displayed liquidity at a price that may narrow the bid/offer spread on PSX and/or provide price improvement to subsequent Orders. The inclusion of an ISO Order Attribute on Orders is done in full compliance with Regulation NMS and serves to provide notice to the Exchange that liquidity has been accessed liquidity on other markets at a given price level in order to allow it to post liquidity on PSX at that price. While the Exchange does not believe that its Order Type offerings are excessively complex, given the relatively limited usage of certain Order Types and Order Attributes, the Exchange is continuing to analyze whether changes may be made to eliminate any Order Types, Order Attributes, or permissible combinations in a manner that would further promote the goals of transparency and ease of use for Participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Most of the System functionality described in the proposed rule change has already been described in previous proposed rule changes by the Exchange and approved or permitted to take effect on an immediate basis by the Commission. However, the Exchange believes that the reiteration of several principles underlying its Order Types and Order Attributes might be helpful in promoting a fuller understanding of these rules' operation and their consistency with the Act.
The functionality underlying Price to Comply Orders and Price to Display Orders provides a means by which Participants may enter a displayed limit order in compliance with Regulation NMS without the Participant definitively ascertaining whether the price of the Order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation. In the absence of the repricing functionality associated with the Order, PSX would need to reject the Order if it locked or crossed a Protected Quotation.
By accepting a Price to Comply Order with a locking, non-displayed price and displayed price that is one minimum increment inferior to the locking price, the Exchange allows this Order Type to achieve several purposes. First, the displayed price of the Order promotes price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or adding to liquidity available at the NBBO. Second, the non-displayed price of the Order allows the Order to provide price improvement when the Order is executed. A Price to Display Order similarly promotes price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or adding liquidity available at the NBBO. It also provides one of the Order Types through which a Market Maker may offer displayed liquidity that is Attributable to its MPID. Notably, given the price adjustment functionality of the Order, it allows a Market Maker to offer Attributable liquidity at the NBBO.
In addition, the repricing functionality associated with Price to Comply Orders and Price to Display Orders, whereby an Order that has been repriced by the System upon entry may be cancelled or reentered if a previously unavailable price level becomes available, promotes price discovery and provision of greater liquidity by facilitating the display of an Order at its chosen limit price. Because a reentered Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover, the functionality does not present fairness concerns that might arise if an Order that was not displayed became displayed at a different price level while retaining the timestamp that it received when originally entered.
The Non-Displayed Order provides a means by which Participants may access and/or offer liquidity without signaling to other Participants the extent of their trading interest. Moreover, because the Non-Displayed Order may lock a Protected Quotation, it provides a means by which a Participant may provide price improvement. For example, if the Best Bid was $11 and the Best Offer was $11.01, a Non-Displayed Order to buy at $11.01 would provide $0.01 price improvement to an incoming sell Order priced at the Best Bid.
In addition, the repricing functionality associated with Non-Displayed Order promotes provision of greater liquidity and eventual price discovery (via reporting of Order executions) because it facilitates the
The primary purpose of Post-Only Orders is to “provide displayed liquidity to the market and thereby contribute to public price discovery—an objective that is fully consistent with the Act.”
In addition, the processing of Post-Only Orders with respect to locking or crossing Protected Quotations serves the same purposes as the processing discussed above with respect to Price to Comply Orders and Price to Display Orders. By accepting a Non-Attributable Post-Only Order that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation with a locking, non-displayed price and displayed price that is one minimum increment inferior to the locking price, the Exchange allows the displayed price of the Order to promote price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or adding to liquidity available at the NBBO, while also allowing the non-displayed price of the Order to provide price improvement when the Order is executed. An Attributable Post-Only Order similarly promotes price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or adding liquidity available at the NBBO.
The repricing functionality associated with Post-Only Orders, whereby an Order that has been repriced by the System upon entry may be cancelled or reentered if a previously unavailable price level becomes available, promotes price discovery and provision of greater liquidity by facilitating the display of an Order at its chosen limit price. Because a reentered Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover, the functionality does not present fairness concerns that might arise if an Order that was not displayed became displayed at a different price level while retaining the timestamp that it received when originally entered.
A Post-Only Order may be designated as an ISO and accepted at a price that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation, since such designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Post-Only Order would lock or cross.
Market Maker Peg Orders allow a Market Maker to maintain a continuous two-sided quotation at a price that is compliant with the requirements for Market Makers set forth in Rule 4613(a)(2). Thus, the Order Type serves the function of ensuring that Market Makers offer Displayed and Attributable liquidity at prices that bear a reasonable relation to the NBBO. Of course, Market Makers may also provide liquidity at prices closer to the NBBO than those established by the Market Maker Peg Order, but the Order Type enables the Market Maker to provide a backstop of liquidity at prices that are not unreasonably distant from the NBBO.
Several of the available Order Attributes merely provide means to designate the basic parameters of any Order: these include price, size, Time-in-Force, Attribution, and Display. The proposed rules clearly state limitations applicable to each of these parameters, such as available Times-in-Force and limitations on the permissible prices and sizes of Orders.
The Pegging Order Attribute allows a Participant to have the System adjust the price of the Order continually in order to keep the price within defined parameters. Thus, the System performs price adjustments that would otherwise be performed by the Participant through cancellation and reentry of Orders. The fact that a new timestamp is created for a Pegged Order whenever it has its price adjusted allows the Order to seek additional execution opportunities and ensures that the Order does not “jump the queue” with respect to any Orders that were previously at the Pegged Order's new price level. Thus, while the Order Attribute may be seen as introducing additional complexity with respect to the operation of the Exchange, it is in effect merely a process for removing and entering Orders at new prices based on changed market conditions.
The Minimum Quantity Order Attribute allows a Participant that may wish to buy or sell a large amount of a security to avoid signaling its trading interest unless it can purchase a certain minimum amount. Thus, the Order Attribute supports the interest of institutional investors and others in being able to minimize the impact of their trading on the price of securities.
The Routing Order Attribute, which is thoroughly described in existing Rule 3315, provides an optional means by which a Participant may direct the Exchange to seek opportunities to execute an Order at other market centers. The System is designed to pursue execution opportunities on behalf of Participants in an aggressive manner by, in most instances, first obtaining shares available on the PSX Book, then routing to other market centers in accordance with the strategy designated by the Participant, then returning the PSX Book as if a new Order before posting to the PSX Book. In addition, to maximize execution opportunities, the System will, as appropriate and in accordance with Regulation NMS, designate a Routable Order as an Intermarket Sweep Order.
The Discretion Order Attribute allows a Participant to expand opportunities for an Order to access liquidity by
The Reserve Size Order Attribute allows a Participant to display trading interest at a given price while also posting additional non-displayed trading interest. The functionality assists the Participant in managing this trading interest by eliminating the need for the Participant to enter additional size following the execution of the displayed trading interest. Thus, the functionality achieves a balance between promoting price discovery through displayed size and allowing a Participant to guard against price impact by hiding the full extent of its trading interest. The random reserve feature of the Order further assists a Participant in not revealing the extent of its trading interest because it diminishes the likelihood that other Participants will conclude that the Order is a Reserve Size Order if they repeatedly view it being replenished at the same size. Similarly, the manner in which the Exchange disseminates data regarding the execution and replenishment of a Reserve Size Order ensures that the process is indistinguishable to other Participants from the execution of an Order without Reserve Size followed by the entry of a new Order; this processing also ensures that only the displayed portion of the Reserve Size Order is treated as a Protected Quotation.
The Intermarket Sweep Order attribute is a function of Regulation NMS, which provides for an Order to execute without respect to Protected Quotations if it is designated as an ISO and if one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation with a price that is superior to the price of the Order identified as an ISO. As recently reaffirmed by the Commission, Regulation NMS allows such additional orders to be routed by an exchange or by the Participant that enters the ISO.
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. As previously stated, the Exchange is not proposing substantively to modify the operation of any of its current Order Types or Order Attributes or the operation of the System; rather, the proposed rule change is intended to provide more detail regarding the System's functionality. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to provide additional specificity and transparency to Participants and the investing public regarding PSX's Order Types, Order Attributes, and System functionality. Since the Exchange does not proposed substantively to modify the operation of Order Types, Order Attributes, or System functionality, the proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), 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 17f-6 (17 CFR 270.17f-6) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) permits registered investment companies (“funds”) to maintain assets (
The rule requires a written contract that contains certain provisions designed to ensure important safeguards and other benefits relating to the custody of fund assets by FCMs. To protect fund assets, the contract must require that FCMs comply with the segregation or secured amount requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and the rules under that statute. The contract also must contain a requirement that FCMs obtain an acknowledgment from any clearing organization that the fund's assets are held on behalf of the FCM's customers according to CEA provisions.
Because rule 17f-6 does not impose any ongoing obligations on funds or FCMs, Commission staff estimates there are no costs related to
Thus, Commission staff estimates that any burden of the rule would be borne by funds and FCMs entering into
Based on conversations with fund representatives, Commission staff understands that fund complexes typically enter into contracts with FCMs on behalf of all funds in the fund complex that engage in commodities transactions. Funds covered by the contract are typically listed in an attachment, which may be amended to encompass new funds. Commission staff estimates that the burden for a fund complex to enter into a contract with an FCM that contains the contract requirements of rule 17f-6 is one hour, and further estimates that the burden to add a fund to an existing contract between a fund complex and an FCM is 6 minutes.
Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that funds and FCMs spend 39 burden hours annually complying with the information collection requirements of rule 17f-6.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is 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 burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days after this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify NASDAQ Rule 7001(c) concerning market maker participant identifier
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NASDAQ is proposing to increase the fee assessed under Rule 7001(c) for MPIDs. MPIDs are special alphabetical identifiers assigned to certain broker-dealers to identify the firms' transaction and quoting activity. NASDAQ administers the assignment of MPIDs, which may be requested by a broker-dealer for use on NASDAQ systems, reporting to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), or a combination of the two. NASDAQ member firms must subscribe to at least one MPID upon gaining NASDAQ membership, but may also request additional MPIDs. Member firms are not assessed a fee for an MPID used exclusively for reporting information to facilities of FINRA, such as the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility.
In December 2014, NASDAQ modified how the fee under Rule 7001(c) is assessed by reducing the fee, but applying the fee to all MPIDs subscribed.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it has reviewed the impact of the prior change to the fee and is now proposing to modestly increase the fee to ensure that NASDAQ is able to realize a reasonable profit in addition to covering costs. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to adjust fees from time to time so that it can continue to make a profit on the products and services it offers. Ensuring that its products and services provide the Exchange with a profit allows it continue to offer and enhance such products and services, such as MPIDs. Moreover, the Exchange notes that its membership fees will continue to remain substantially lower than the analogous fees assessed by the New York Stock Exchange for membership.
NASDAQ 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.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736.
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 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.
The federal securities laws generally prohibit an issuer, underwriter, or dealer from delivering a security for sale unless a prospectus meeting certain requirements accompanies or precedes the security. Rule 154 (17 CFR 230.154) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (the “Securities Act”) permits, under certain circumstances, delivery of a single prospectus to investors who purchase securities from the same issuer and share the same address (“householding”) to satisfy the applicable prospectus delivery requirements.
Under rule 154, a prospectus is considered delivered to all investors at a shared address, for purposes of the federal securities laws, if the person relying on the rule delivers the prospectus to the shared address, addresses the prospectus to the investors as a group or to each of the investors individually, and the investors consent to the delivery of a single prospectus. The rule applies to prospectuses and prospectus supplements. Currently, the rule permits householding of all prospectuses by an issuer, underwriter, or dealer relying on the rule if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in the rule, the issuer, underwriter, or dealer has obtained from each investor written or implied consent to householding.
The rule allows issuers, underwriters, or dealers to household prospectuses if certain conditions are met. Among the conditions with which a person relying on the rule must comply are providing notice to each investor that only one prospectus will be sent to the household
Although rule 154 is not limited to mutual funds, the Commission believes that it is used mainly by mutual funds and by broker-dealers that deliver prospectuses for mutual funds. The Commission is unable to estimate the number of issuers other than mutual funds that rely on the rule.
The Commission estimates that, as of March 2015, there are approximately 1,640 mutual funds, approximately 410 of which engage in direct marketing and therefore deliver their own prospectuses. Of the approximately 410 mutual funds that engage in direct marketing, the Commission estimates that approximately half of these mutual funds (205) (i) do not send the implied consent notice requirement because they obtain affirmative written consent to household prospectuses in the fund's account opening documentation; or (ii) do not take advantage of the householding provision because of electronic delivery options which lessen the economic and operational benefits of rule 154 when compared with the costs of compliance. Therefore, the Commission estimates that each direct-marketed fund will spend an average of 20 hours per year complying with the notice requirement of the rule, for a total of 4,100 hours. Of the 410 mutual funds that engage in direct marketing, the Commission estimates that approximately seventy-five percent (308) of these funds will each spend 1 hour complying with the annual explanation of the right to revoke requirement of the rule, for a total of 308 hours. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 200 broker-dealers that carry customer accounts and, therefore, may be required to deliver mutual fund prospectuses. The Commission estimates that each affected broker-dealer will spend, on average, approximately 20 hours complying with the notice requirement of the rule, for a total of 4,000 hours. Each broker-dealer will also spend 1 hour complying with the annual explanation of the right to revoke requirement, for a total of 200 hours. Therefore, the total number of respondents for rule 154 is 507 (307 mutual funds plus 200 broker-dealers), and the estimated total hour burden is approximately 8,608 hours (4,408 hours for mutual funds plus 4,200 hours for broker-dealers).
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
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 burden of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
BX proposes to amend and restate certain BX rules that govern the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market in order to provide a clearer and more detailed description of certain aspects of its functionality. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, BX 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. BX 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 and restate certain Exchange rules that govern the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market in order to provide a clearer and more detailed description of certain aspects of its functionality. The proposed rule change is responsive to the request of Commission Chair White that each self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) conduct a comprehensive review of each order type offered to members, and how it operates in practice.
At present, most of the rules governing Order Types and Order Attributes are found in Rule 4751 (Definitions). The Exchange is proposing to restate Rule 4751 as Rule 4701, which is currently not in use, with certain amended definitions being adopted therein. The Exchange is also proposing to remove definitions pertaining to Order Types and Order Attributes and adopt them as separate new Rules 4702 (Order Types) and 4703 (Order Attributes). While the Exchange is also proposing certain conforming changes to other rules, in subsequent proposed rule changes the Exchange plans to restate the remainder of the rules numbered 4752 through 4780 so that they appear sequentially following Rule 4703.
New Rule 4701 will adopt revised definitions applicable to the Rule 4000 Series of the Exchange rules:
• The terms “Best Bid”, “Best Offer”, “National Best Bid and National Best Offer”, “Protected Bid”, “Protected Offer”, “Protected Quotation”, and “Intermarket Sweep Order” shall have the meanings assigned to them under Rule 600 under SEC Regulation NMS;
• The term “NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market,” or “System”, which defines the components of the securities execution and trade reporting system owned and operated by the Exchange, is being modified to state that the System includes a montage for “Quotes” and “Orders”, referred to as the “Exchange Book”, that collects and ranks all Quotes and Orders submitted by “Participants”.
• The term “Quote” is being modified to make it clear that a Quote is an Order with Attribution (as defined in Rule 4703) entered by a Market Maker or Equities ECN for display (price and size) next to the Participant's MPID in the Exchange Book. Accordingly, all Quotes are also Orders.
• The definition of the term “Order” is being amended to mean an instruction to trade a specified number of shares in a specified System Security
• The term “ET” means Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Time, as applicable.
• The term “Market Hours” is being defined to mean the period of time beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET and ending at 4 p.m. ET (or such earlier time as may be designated by the Exchange on a day when the Exchange closes early). The term “System Hours” means the period of time beginning at 7 a.m. ET and ending at 7 p.m. ET (or such earlier time as may be designated by the Exchange on a day when the Exchange closes early). The term “Pre-Market Hours” means the period of time beginning at 7 a.m. ET and ending immediately prior to the commencement of Market Hours. The term “Post-Market Hours” means the period of time beginning immediately after the end of Market Hours and ending at 7 p.m. ET.
• The term “marketable” with respect to an Order to buy (sell) means that, at the time it is entered into the System, the Order is priced at the current Best Offer or higher (at the current Best Bid or lower).
• The term “market participant identifier” or “MPID” means a unique four-letter mnemonic assigned to each Participant in the System. A Participant may have one or more than one MPID.
• The term “minimum price increment” means $0.01 in the case of a System Security priced at $1 or more per share, and $0.0001 in the case of a System Security priced at less than $1 per share.
• The definition of the term “System Book Feed”, which means a data feed for System Securities, is being amended to clarify that it is the data feed generally known as the BX TotalView ITCH feed.
Proposed Rule 4702 provides that Participants may express their trading interest in the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market by entering Orders. The NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market offers a range of Order Types that behave in the manner specified for each particular Order Type. Each Order Type may be assigned certain Order Attributes that further define its behavior. All Order Types and Order Attributes operate in a manner that is reasonably designed to comply with the requirements of Rules 610 and 611 under Regulation NMS. Specifically, Orders are reasonably designed to
Proposed Rule 4702 further provides that the Exchange maintains several communications protocols for Participants to use in entering Orders and sending other messages to the System:
• OUCH is an Exchange proprietary protocol.
• RASH is an Exchange proprietary protocol.
• FLITE is an Exchange proprietary protocol.
• FIX is a non-proprietary protocol.
Except where otherwise stated, all protocols are available for all Order Types and Order Attributes.
Upon entry, an Order is processed to determine whether it may execute against any contra-side Orders on the Exchange Book in accordance with the parameters applicable to the Order Type and Order Attributes selected by the Participant and in accordance with the priority for Orders on the Exchange Book provided in Rule 4757.
Thereafter, as detailed in proposed Rules 4702 and 4703, and current Rule 4758 (Order Routing), there are numerous circumstances in which the Order on the Exchange Book may be modified and receive a new timestamp. The sole instances in which the modification of an Order on the Exchange Book will not result in a new timestamp are: (i) A decrease in the size of the Order due to execution or modification by the Participant or by the System, and (ii) a redesignation of a sell Order as a long sale, a short sale, or an exempt short sale.
The Exchange is amending Rule 4756 to make it clear that the redesignation of a sell Order as a long sale, short sale, or exempt short sale can be done only with respect to Orders entered through OUCH or FLITE; Orders entered through RASH or FIX would have to be cancelled and reentered to change their designation. Similarly, Rule 4756 is being amended to clarify that modification of an Order by the Participant to decrease its size is not possible with respect to a Pegged Order (including a Discretionary Order that is Pegged). Such an Order would have to be cancelled and reentered by the Participant to reduce its size.
In addition, the proposed rule notes that all Orders are also subject to cancellation and/or repricing and reentry onto the Exchange Book in the circumstances described in Rule 4120(a)(13) (providing for compliance with Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility) and Rule 4763 (providing for compliance with Regulation SHO). In all circumstances where an Order is repriced pursuant to those provisions, it is processed by the System as a new Order with respect to potential execution against Orders on the Exchange Book, price adjustment, routing, reposting to the Exchange Book, and subsequent execution against incoming Orders. If multiple Orders at a given price are repriced, the Order in which they are reentered is random, based on the respective processing time for each such Order;
Proposed Rule 4702 further describes the behavior of each Order Type. Except where otherwise stated, each Order Type is available to all Participants, although certain Order Types and Order Attributes may require the use of a specific protocol. As a result, a Participant would be required to use that protocol in order to use Order Types and Order Attributes available through it. Moreover, a small number of Order Types and Order Attributes are available only to registered Market Makers in the security for which they are registered.
The Price to Comply Order is an Order Type designed to comply with Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS by having its price and display characteristics adjusted to avoid the display of quotations that lock or cross any Protected Quotation in a System Security during Market Hours. The Price to Comply Order is also designed to provide potential price improvement. The Exchange does not have a “plain vanilla” limit order that attempts to execute at its limit price and is then posted at its price or rejected if it cannot be posted; rather, the Price to Comply Order, with its price and display adjustment features, is one of the primary Order Types used by Participants to access and display liquidity in the System. The price and display adjustment features of the Order Type enhance efficiency and investor protection by offering an Order Type that first attempts to access available liquidity and then to post the remainder of the Order at prices that are designed to maximize their opportunities for execution.
When a Price to Comply Order is entered, the Price to Comply Order will be executed against previously posted Orders on the Exchange Book that are priced equal to or better than the price of the Price to Comply Order, up to the full amount of such previously posted Orders, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation. Any portion of the Order that cannot be executed in this manner will be posted on the Exchange Book (and/or routed if it has been designated as Routable).
During Market Hours, the price at which a Price to Comply Order is posted is determined in the following manner. If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation and the Price to Comply Order could not execute against an Order on the Exchange Book at a price equal to or better than the price of the Protected Quotation, the Price to Comply Order will be displayed on the Exchange Book at a price one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for a Price to Comply Order to buy) or higher than the current Best Bid (for a Price to Comply Order to sell) but will also be ranked on the Exchange Book with a non-displayed price equal to the current Best Offer (for a Price to Comply Order to buy) or to the current Best Bid (for a Price to Comply Order to sell). The posted Order will then be available for execution at its non-displayed price, thus providing opportunities for price improvement to incoming Orders.
For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer of $11, the Price to Comply Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. An incoming Order to sell at a price of $11 or lower would execute against the Price to Comply Order at $11.
During Pre-Market Hours and Post-Market Hours, a Price to Comply Order will be ranked and displayed at its entered limit price without adjustment. This is the case because the Exchange's rule with respect to locked and crossed markets, as adopted pursuant to Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS and approved by the Commission, applies only during Market Hours.
Depending on the protocol used to enter a Price to Comply Order, Participants have different options with respect to adjustment of the Price to Comply Order following its initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book. Specifically, if a Price to Comply Order is entered through RASH or FIX, during Market Hours the price of the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book (unless the Order is assigned a Routing Order Attribute that would cause it to be routed to another market center rather than remaining on the Exchange Book):
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes, the displayed and non-displayed price of the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO; provided, however, that if the quotation of another market center moves in a manner that would lock or cross the displayed price of a Price to Comply Order, the prices of the Price to Comply Order will not be adjusted. For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. If the Best Offer then moves to $11.01, the displayed price will be changed to $11 and the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11.01. However, if another market center then displays an offer of $11 (thereby locking the previously displayed price of the Price to Comply Order, notwithstanding Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS), the price of the Price to Comply Order will not be changed.
• If the original entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order would no longer lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the Price to Comply Order will be ranked and displayed at that price and will receive a new timestamp, and will not thereafter be adjusted under this provision.
If a Price to Comply Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, during Market Hours the price of the Price to Comply Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book:
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes so that the Price to Comply Order could be displayed at a price at or closer to its entered limit price without locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, the Price to Comply Order may either remain on the Exchange Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. If the Best Offer changes to $11.01, the Order will not be repriced, but rather will either remain with a displayed price of $10.99 but ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Price to Comply Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Comply Order locked a Protected Quotation, the price of the Price to Comply Order will be adjusted after initial entry only as follows. If the entered limit price would no longer lock
With regard to the foregoing options, it is important to emphasize that the Price to Comply Order receives a new timestamp whenever its price is changed, and also receives a new timestamp if the Price to Comply Order would no longer lock a Protected Quotation and is therefore displayed at its original entered limit price. Thus, there are no circumstances under which a Price to Comply Order that originally locked or crossed a Protected Quotation would “jump the queue” and be displayed at its original entered limit price while retaining its original time priority. In fact, as discussed throughout this filing, the Exchange does not offer any functionality that enables a Participant to “jump the queue” by displaying a previously entered non-displayed Orders without also receiving a new timestamp.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Price to Comply Order. The effect of each Order Attribute is discussed in detail below with respect to proposed new Rule 4703.
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, and may include a displayed price as well as a non-displayed price.
• Size.
• Reserve Size (available through RASH and FIX only).
• A Time-in-Force other than “Immediate or Cancel” (“IOC”).
• Designation as an “ISO”. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Price to Comply Order designated as an ISO would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Price to Comply Order would lock or cross.
• Routing (available through RASH and FIX only).
• “Primary Pegging” and “Market Pegging” (available through RASH and FIX only).
• “Discretion” (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Display. A Price to Comply Order is always displayed, although, as provided above, it may also have a non-displayed price and/or Reserve Size.
A “Price to Display Order” is an Order Type designed to comply with Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS by avoiding the display of quotations that lock or cross any Protected Quotation in a System Security during Market Hours. Price to Display Orders are available solely to Participants that are Market Makers and are always Attributable.
When a Price to Display Order is entered, if its entered limit price would lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the Price to Display Order will be repriced to one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for a Price to Display Order to buy) or higher than the current Best Bid (for a Price to Display Order to sell). For example, if a Price to Display Order to buy at $11 would cross a Protected Offer of $10.99, the Price to Display Order will be repriced to $10.98. The Price to Display Order (whether repriced or not repriced) will then be executed against previously posted Orders on the Exchange Book that are priced equal to or better than the adjusted price of the Price to Display Order, up to the full amount of such previously posted Orders, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation. Any portion of the Order that cannot be executed in this manner will be posted on the Exchange Book (and/or routed if it has been designated as Routable).
During Market Hours, the price at which a Price to Display Order is displayed and ranked on the Exchange Book will be its entered limit price if the Price to Display Order was not repriced upon entry, or the adjusted price if the Price to Comply Order was repriced upon entry, such that the price will not lock or cross a Protected Quotation. During Pre-Market Hours and Post-Market Hours, a Price to Display Order will be displayed and ranked at its entered limit price without adjustment.
As is the case with a Price to Comply Order, a Price to Display Order may be adjusted after initial entry.
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Display Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes, the price of the Order will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO; provided, however, that if the quotation of another market center moves in a manner that would lock or cross the price of a Price to Display Order, the price of the Price to Display Order will not be adjusted.
• If the original entered limit price of the Price to Display Order would no longer lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the Price to Display Order will be displayed and ranked at that price and will receive a new timestamp, and will not thereafter be adjusted under this provision.
If a Price to Display Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, during Market Hours the Price to Display Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book:
• If the entered limit price of the Price to Display Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes so that the Price to Display Order could be ranked and displayed at a price at or closer to its original entered limit price without locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, the Price to Display Order may either remain on the Exchange Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on the Participant's choice. For example, if a Price to Display Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked and displayed at $10.99. If the Best Offer changes to $11.01, the Price to Display Order will not be repriced, but rather will either remain at its current price or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Price to Display Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Price to Display Order:
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid locking or crossing a Protected Quotation.
• Size.
• Reserve Size (available through RASH and FIX only).
• A Time-in-Force other than IOC.
• Designation as an ISO. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Price to Display Order designated as an ISO would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Price to Display Order would lock or cross.
• Routing (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Primary Pegging and Market Pegging (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Discretion (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Attribution. All Price to Display Orders are Attributable Orders.
• Display. A Price to Display Order is always displayed (but may also have Reserve Size).
A “Non-Displayed Order” is an Order Type that is not displayed to other Participants, but nevertheless remains available for potential execution against incoming Orders until executed in full or cancelled. Thus, the Order Type provides a means by which Participants may access and/or offer liquidity without signaling to other Participants the extent of their trading interest. The Order may also serve to provide price improvement vis-à-vis the NBBO. Under Regulation NMS, a Non-Displayed Order may lock a Protected Quotation and may be traded-through by other market centers.
When a Non-Displayed Order is entered, the Non-Displayed Order will be executed against previously posted Orders on the Exchange Book that are priced equal to or better than the price of the Non-Displayed Order, up to the full amount of such previously posted Orders, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation. Any portion of the Non-Displayed Order that cannot be executed in this manner will be posted to the Exchange Book (unless the Non-Displayed Order has a Time-in-Force of IOC) and/or routed if it has been designated as Routable.
During Market Hours, the price at which a Non-Displayed Order is posted is determined in the following manner. If the entered limit price of the Non-Displayed Order would lock a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be placed on the Exchange Book at the locking price. If the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be repriced to a price that would lock the Protected Quotation and will be placed on the Exchange Book at that price.
As is the case with a Price to Comply Order, a Non-Displayed Order may be adjusted after initial entry.
• If the original entered limit price of a Non-Displayed Order is higher than the Best Offer (for an Order to buy) or lower than the Best Bid (for an Order to sell) and the NBBO moves toward the original entered limit price of the Non-
• If, after being posted to the Exchange Book, the NBBO changes so that the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be repriced at a price that would lock the new NBBO and receive a new timestamp.
If a Non-Displayed Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, during Market Hours the Non-Displayed Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book:
• If the original entered limit price of the Non-Displayed Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation and the NBBO changes so that the Non-Displayed Order could be posted at a price at or closer to its original entered limit price without crossing a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order may either remain on the Exchange Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. For example, if a Non-Displayed Order to buy at $11.02 would cross a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be priced at $11. If the Best Offer changes to $11.01, the Order will not be repriced, but rather will either remain at its current $11 price or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Non-Displayed Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
• If, after a Non-Displayed Order is posted to the Exchange Book, the NBBO changes so that the Non-Displayed Order would cross a Protected Quotation, the Non-Displayed Order will be cancelled back to the Participant. For example, if a Non-Displayed Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer of $11, the Non-Displayed Order will be posted at $11. If the Best Offer then changes to $10.99, the Non-Displayed Order will be cancelled back to the Participant.
• If a Non-Displayed Order entered through OUCH or FLITE is assigned a Midpoint Pegging Order Attribute,
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Non-Displayed Order:
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid crossing a Protected Quotation.
• Size.
• “Minimum Quantity”.
• Time-in-Force.
• Designation as an ISO. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Non-Displayed Order designated as an ISO would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Non-Displayed Order would cross. As discussed above, a Non-Displayed Order would be accepted at a price that locked a Protected Quotation, even if the Order was not designated as an ISO, because the non-displayed nature of the Order allows it to lock a Protected Quotation under Regulation NMS. Accordingly, the System would not interpret receipt of a Non-Displayed Order marked ISO that locked a Protected Quotation as the basis for determining that the Protected Quotation had been executed for purposes of accepting additional Orders at that price level.
• Routing (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Primary Pegging and Market Pegging (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Pegging to the Midpoint.
• Discretion (available through RASH and FIX only).
A “Post-Only Order” is an Order Type designed to have its price adjusted as needed to post to the Exchange Book in compliance with Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS by avoiding the display of quotations that lock or cross any Protected Quotation in a System Security during Market Hours, or to execute against locking or crossing quotations in circumstances where economically beneficial to the Participant entering the Post-Only Order. Post-Only Orders are always displayed, although as discussed below, they may also have a non-displayed price in circumstances similar to a Price to Comply Order. Post-Only Orders are thus designed to allow Participants to help control their trading costs, while also “provid[ing] displayed liquidity to the market and thereby contribut[ing] to public price discovery—an objective that is fully consistent with the Act.”
During Market Hours, a Post-Only Order is evaluated at the time of entry
• If a Post-Only Order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation, the price of the Order will first be adjusted. If the Order is Attributable, its adjusted price will be one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for bids) or higher than the current Best Bid (for offers). If the Order is not Attributable, its adjusted price will be equal to the current Best Offer (for bids) or the current Best Bid (for offers). However, the Order will not post or execute until the Order, as adjusted, is evaluated with respect to Orders on the Exchange Book.
○ If the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross an Order on the Exchange Book, the Order will be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order (if it is not Attributable) or a Price to Display Order (if it is Attributable). Specifically, if the Post-Only Order is not Attributable, it will be displayed on the Exchange Book at a price one minimum price increment lower than the current Best Offer (for bids) or higher than the current Best Bid (for offers) but will be ranked on the Exchange Book with a non-displayed price equal to the current Best Offer (for bids) or to the current Best Bid (for offers). For example, if a Post-Only Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer of $11, the Order will be ranked at a non-displayed price of $11 but will be displayed at $10.99. If the Post-Only Order is Attributable, it will be ranked and displayed on the Exchange Book at a price one minimum increment lower than the current Best Offer (for bids) or higher than the current Best Bid (for offers). Thus, in the preceding example, the Post-Only Order to buy would be ranked and displayed at $10.99.
○ If the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross an Order on the Exchange Book, the Post Only Order will be repriced, ranked, and displayed at one minimum price increment below the current best-priced Order to sell on the Exchange Book (for bids) or above the current best-priced Order to buy on the Exchange Book (for offers); provided, however, the Post-Only Order will execute if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more,
• If the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation but would lock or cross an Order on the Exchange Book, the Post Only Order will be repriced, ranked, and displayed at one minimum price increment below the current best-priced Order to sell on the Exchange Book (for bids) or above the current best-priced Order to buy on the Exchange Book (for offers); provided, however, the Post-Only Order will execute if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more,
• If a Post-Only Order is entered with a Time-in-Force of IOC, the price of an Order to buy (sell) will be repriced to the lower of (higher of) (i) one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Order or (ii) the current Best Offer (Best Bid). The Order will execute against any Order on the Exchange Book with a price equal to or better than the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order. If the Post-Only Order cannot execute, it will be cancelled. For example, if a Post-Only Order to buy at $11 with a Time-in-Force of IOC was entered and the current Best Offer was $11.01, the Order would be repriced to $10.99; however, if the Best Offer was $10.98, the Order would be repriced to $10.98.
• If a Post-Only Order would not lock or cross an Order on the Exchange Book or any Protected Quotation, it will be posted on the Exchange Book at its entered limit price.
During Pre-Market and Post-Market Hours, a Post-Only Order will be processed in a manner identical to Market Hours with respect to locking or crossing Orders on the Exchange Book, but will not have its price adjusted with respect to locking or crossing the quotations of other market centers.
If a Post-Only Order is entered through RASH or FIX, during System Hours the Post-Only Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book:
• If the original entered limit price of the Post-Only Order is not being displayed, the displayed (and non-displayed price, if any) of the Order will be adjusted repeatedly in accordance with changes to the NBBO or the best price on the Exchange Book, as applicable; provided, however, that if the quotation of another market center moves in a manner that would lock or cross the displayed price of a Post-Only Order, the price(s) of the Post-Only Order will not be adjusted.
If a Post-Only Order is entered through OUCH or FLITE, the Post-Only Order may be adjusted in the following manner after initial entry and posting to the Exchange Book:
• During Market Hours, if the original entered limit price of the Post-Only Order locked or crossed a Protected Quotation, the Post-Only Order may be adjusted after initial entry in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order (or a Price to Display Order, if it is Attributable). Thus, in the case of a Non-Attributable Post-Only Order that crossed a Protected Quotation, if the NBBO changed so that the Post-Only Order could be ranked and displayed at a price at or closer to its original entered limit price without locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, the Post-Only Order may either remain on the Exchange Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on its choice. In the case of a Non-Attributable Post-Only Order that locked a Protected Quotation, if the limit price would no longer lock a Protected Quotation, the Post-Only Order may either remain on the Exchange Book unchanged, may be cancelled back to the Participant, or may be ranked and displayed at its original entered limit price, depending on the Participant's choice, and will not thereafter be adjusted under this provision.
• During System Hours, if the original entered limit price of the Post-Only Order locked or crossed an Order on the Exchange Book and did not execute, and the Exchange Book changes so that the original entered limit price would no longer lock or cross an Order on the Exchange Book, the Post-Only Order may either remain on the Exchange Book unchanged or may be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on the Participant's choice. For example, if a Post-Only Order to buy at $0.98 would lock an Order on the Exchange Book priced at $0.98, the Post-Only Order will be ranked and displayed at $0.9799. If the Order at $0.98 is cancelled or executed, the Post-Only Order may either remain with a displayed price of $0.9799 or be cancelled back to the Participant, depending on the Participant's choice. A Participant's choice with regard to maintaining the Post-Only Order or cancelling it is set in advance for each port through which the Participant enters Orders.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Post-Only Order:
• Price. As described above, the price of the Order may be adjusted to avoid locking or crossing a Protected Quotation, and may include a displayed price as well as a non-displayed price.
• Size.
• Time-in-Force.
• Designation as an ISO. In accordance with Regulation NMS, a Post-Only Order designated as an ISO that locked or crossed a Protected Quotation would be processed at its entered limit price, since such a designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Post-Only Order would lock or cross. However, as described above, a Post-Only Order designated as an ISO that locked or crossed an Order on the Exchange Book would either execute at time of entry or would have its price adjusted prior to posting. Accordingly, the System would not interpret receipt of a Post-Only Order marked ISO that had its price adjusted prior to posting as the basis for determining that any Protected Quotation at the Order's original entered limit price level had been executed for purposes of accepting additional Orders at that price level. However, if the Post-Only Order is ranked and displayed at its adjusted price, the System would consider the adjusted price level to be open for purposes of accepting additional Orders at that price level. For example, assume that there is a Protected Offer at $0.98 and a Participant enters a Post-Only Order marked ISO to buy at $0.98. If there are no Orders to sell at $0.98 on the Exchange Book, the Order to buy will be displayed and ranked at $0.98, since the designation of the Order as an ISO reflects the Participant's representation that it has routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Post-Only Order would lock or cross. However, if there was also an Order to sell at $0.98 on the Exchange Book, the Post-Only Order may be repriced, ranked, and displayed at $0.9799. In that case, the mere fact that the Post-Only Order was designated as an ISO would not allow the Exchange to conclude that the $0.98 price level was “open” for receiving orders to buy at that price; the $0.98 price level would be considered open only if market data received by the System demonstrated that the Protected Offer at $0.98 had been removed or if a subsequent Displayed Order marked ISO was received and ranked at that price.
• Attribution.
• Display. A Post-Only Order is always displayed, although, as provided above, it may also have a non-displayed price.
A “Retail Price Improving Order” or “RPI Order” is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute that is held on the Exchange Book in order to provide liquidity at a price at least $0.001 better than the NBBO through a special execution process described in Rule 4780. A Retail Price Improving Order may be entered in price increments of $0.001. RPI Orders collectively may be referred to as “RPI Interest.”
An RPI Order will be posted to the Exchange Book regardless of its price, but an RPI Order may execute only against a Retail Order, and only if its price is at least $0.001 better than the NBBO.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to an RPI Order:
• Price. The price of an RPI Order must be at least $0.001 better than the NBBO in order to execute.
• Size.
• A Time-in-Force other than IOC.
• Primary Pegging (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Midpoint Pegging (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Non-Display. All RPI Orders are Non-Displayed.
A “Retail Order” is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization (as defined in Rule 4780). A Retail Order must be an agency Order, or riskless principal Order that satisfies the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail Order must reflect trading interest of a natural person with no change made to the terms of the underlying order of the natural person with respect to price (except in the case of a market order that is changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market and that does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
A Retail Order may be designated as either a Type-1 Retail Order or a Type-2 Retail Order. Upon entry, a Type-1 Retail Order will attempt to execute against RPI Orders and any other Orders on the Exchange Book with a price that is (i) equal to or better than the price of the Type-1 Retail Order and (ii) at least $0.001 better than the NBBO. A Type-1 Retail Order is not Routable and will thereafter be cancelled.
Upon entry, a Type-2 Retail Order will first attempt to execute against RPI Orders and any other Orders on the Exchange Book with a price that is (i) equal to or better than the price of the Type-2 Retail Order and (ii) at least $0.001 better than the NBBO and will then attempt to execute against any other Order on the Exchange Book with a price that is equal to or better than the price of the Type-2 Retail Order, unless such executions would trade through a Protected Quotation. A Type-2 Retail Order may be designated as Routable.
The following Order Attributes may be assigned to a Retail Order:
• Price.
• Size.
• A Time-in-Force of IOC.
• Routing (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Midpoint Pegging (available through RASH and FIX only).
• Non-Display. All Retail Orders are Non-Displayed.
Proposed Rule 4702 lists the Order Attributes that may be assigned to specific Order Types. Proposed Rule 4703 details the parameters of each Order Attribute.
The “Time-in-Force” assigned to an Order means the period of time that the System will hold the Order for potential execution. Participants specify an Order's Time-in-Force by designating a time at which the Order will become active and a time at which the Order will cease to be active. The available times for activating Orders are:
• The time of the Order's receipt by the System;
• the beginning of Market Hours;
• the end of Market Hours;
• the resumption of trading, in the case of a security that is the subject of a trading halt.
The available times for deactivating Orders are:
• “Immediate” (
• the end of Market Hours;
• the end of System Hours;
• one year after entry; or
• a specific time identified by the Participant; provided, however, that an Order specifying an expire time beyond the current trading day will be cancelled at the end of the current trading day.
Notwithstanding the Time-in-Force originally designated for an Order, a Participant may always cancel an Order after it is entered.
The following Times in Force are referenced elsewhere in the Exchange's Rules by the designations noted below:
• An Order that is designated to deactivate immediately after determining whether the Order is marketable may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “Immediate or Cancel” or “IOC”. Any Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC entered between 9:30 a.m. ET and 4 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “Market Hours Immediate or Cancel” or “MIOC”. An Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC that is entered at any time between 7 a.m. ET and 7 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “System Hours Immediate or Cancel” or “SIOC”.
• An Order that is designated to deactivate at 7 p.m. may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “System Hours Day” or “SDAY”.
• An Order that is designated to deactivate one year after entry may be referred to as a “Good-till-Cancelled” or “GTC” Order. If a GTC Order is designated as eligible for execution during Market Hours only, it may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “Market Hours Good-till-Cancelled” or “MGTC”. If a GTC is designated as eligible for execution during System Hours, it may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “System Hours Good-till-Cancelled” or “SGTC”.
• An Order that is designated to deactivate at the time specified in advance by the entering Participant may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “System Hours Expire Time” or “SHEX”.
• An Order that is designated to activate at any time during Market Hours and deactivate at 4 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time-in-Force of “Market Hours Day” or “MDAY”. An Order entered with a Time-in-Force of MDAY after 4 p.m. ET will be accepted but given a Time-in-Force of IOC.
• An Order that is designated to activate when entered and deactivate at 4 p.m. ET may be referred to as having a Time in Force of “Good-till-Market Close” or “GTMC”. GTMC Orders entered after 4 p.m. ET will be treated as having a Time-in-Force of SIOC.
Except as otherwise provided, an Order may be entered in any whole share size between one share and 999,999 shares. Orders for fractional shares are not permitted. The following terms may be used to describe particular Order sizes:
• “normal unit of trading” or “round lot” means the size generally employed by traders when trading a particular security, which is 100 shares in most instances;
• “mixed lot” means a size of more than one normal unit of trading but not a multiple thereof; and
• “odd lot” means a size of less than one normal unit of trading.
With limited exceptions, all Orders must have a price, such that they will execute only if the price available is equal to or better than the price of the Order. The maximum price that the System will accept is $199,999.99. Certain Orders have a price that is determined by the System based on the NBBO or other reference prices, rather than by the Participant. As described below with respect to the Pegging Order Attribute, an Order may have a price that is pegged to the opposite side of the market, in which case the Order will behave like a “market order” or “unpriced order” (
Pegging is an Order Attribute that allows an Order to have its price automatically set with reference to the NBBO; provided, however, that if the Exchange is the sole market center at the Best Bid or Best Offer (as applicable), then the price of any Displayed Order with Pegging will be set with reference to the highest bid or lowest offer disseminated by a market center other than the Exchange.
• Primary Pegging means Pegging with reference to the Inside Quotation on the same side of the market. For example, if the Inside Bid was $11, an Order to buy with Primary Pegging would be priced at $11.
• Market Pegging means Pegging with reference to the Inside Quotation on the opposite side of the market. For example, if the Inside Offer was $11.06, an Order to buy with Market Pegging would be priced at $11.06.
• Midpoint Pegging means Pegging with reference to the midpoint between the Inside Bid and the Inside Offer (the “Midpoint”). Thus, if the Inside Bid was $11 and the Inside Offer was $11.06, an Order with Midpoint Pegging would be priced at $11.03. An Order with Midpoint Pegging is not displayed. An Order with Midpoint Pegging may be executed in sub-pennies if necessary to obtain a midpoint price.
Pegging is available only during Market Hours. An Order with Pegging may specify a limit price beyond which they Order may not be executed; provided, however, that if an Order has been assigned a Pegging Order Attribute and a Discretion Order Attribute, the Order may execute at any price within the discretionary price range, even if beyond the limit price specified with respect to the Pegging Order Attribute. If an Order with Pegging is priced at its limit price, the price of the Order may nevertheless be changed to a less aggressive price based on changes to the Inside Quotation.
Primary Pegging and Market Pegging are available through RASH and FIX only. An Order entered through OUCH or FLITE with Midpoint Pegging will have its price set upon initial entry to the Midpoint, unless the Order has a limit price that is lower than the Midpoint for an Order to buy (higher than the Midpoint for an Order to sell), in which case the Order will be ranked on the Exchange Book at its limit price. Thereafter, if the NBBO changes so that the Midpoint is lower than (higher than) the price of an Order to buy (sell), the Pegged Order will be cancelled back to the Participant.
An Order entered through RASH or FIX with Pegging will have its price set upon initial entry and will thereafter have its price reset in accordance with changes to the relevant Inside Quotation. An Order with Pegging receives a new timestamp whenever its price is updated and therefore will be evaluated with respect to possible execution (and routing, if it has been assigned a Routing Order Attribute) in the same manner as a newly entered Order. If the price to which an Order is pegged is not available, the Order will be rejected.
Pegging functionality allows a Participant to have the System adjust the price of the Order continually in order to keep the price within defined parameters. Thus, the System performs price adjustments that would otherwise be performed by the Participant through cancellation and reentry of Orders. The fact that a new timestamp is created for a Pegged Order whenever it has its price adjusted allows the Order to seek additional execution opportunities and ensures that the Order does not “jump the queue” with respect to any Orders that were previously at the Pegged Order's new price level.
If an Order with Primary Pegging is updated 1,000 times, it will be cancelled; if an Order with other forms of Pegging is updated 10,000 times, it will be cancelled. This restriction is designed to conserve System resources by limiting the persistence of Orders that update repeatedly without any reasonable prospect of execution.
Minimum Quantity is an Order Attribute that allows a Participant to provide that an Order will not execute unless a specified minimum quantity of shares can be obtained. Thus, the functionality serves to allow a Participant that may wish to buy or sell a large amount of a security to avoid signaling its trading interest unless it can purchase a certain minimum amount. An Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute may be referred to as a “Minimum Quantity Order.” For example, a Participant could enter an Order with a Size of 1000 shares and specify a Minimum Quantity of 500 shares. In that case, upon entry, the System would determine whether there were posted Orders executable against the incoming Order with a size
Upon entry, an Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute must have a size of at least one round lot. An Order entered through OUCH or FLITE may have a minimum quantity condition of any size of at least one round lot. An Order entered through RASH or FIX must have a minimum quantity of one round lot or any multiple thereof, and a mixed lot minimum quantity condition will be rounded down to the nearest round lot. In the event that the shares remaining in the size of an Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute following a partial execution thereof are less than the minimum quantity specified by the Participant entering the Order, the minimum quantity value of the Order will be reduced to the number of shares remaining. An Order with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute may not be displayed; if a Participant marks an Order with both a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute and a Display Order Attribute, the System will accept the Order but will give a Time-in-Force of IOC, regardless of the Time-in-Force marked by the Participant. An Order marked with a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute and a Routing Order Attribute will be rejected.
Routing is an Order Attribute that allows a Participant to designate an Order to employ one of several Routing Strategies offered by the Exchange, as described in Rule 4758; such an Order may be referred to as a “Routable Order.” Upon receipt of an Order with the Routing Order Attribute, the System will process the Order in accordance with the applicable Routing Strategy. In the case of a limited number of Routing Strategies, the Order will be sent directly to other market centers for potential execution. For most other Routing Strategies, the Order will attempt to access liquidity available on the Exchange in the manner specified for the underlying Order Type and will then be routed in accordance with the applicable Routing Strategy. Shares of the Order that cannot be executed are then returned to the Exchange, where they will (i) again attempt to access liquidity available on the Exchange and (ii) post to the Exchange Book or be cancelled, depending on the Time-in-Force of the Order. Under certain Routing Strategies, the Order may be routed again if the System observes an accessible quotation of another market center, and returned to the Exchange again for potential execution and/or posting to the Exchange Book.
In connection with the trading of securities governed by Regulation NMS, all Orders shall be routed for potential execution in compliance with Regulation NMS. Where appropriate, Routable Orders will be marked as Intermarket Sweep Orders.
Discretion is an Order Attribute under which an Order has a non-displayed discretionary price range within which the entering Participant is willing to trade; such an Order may be referred to as a “Discretionary Order.”
Under the circumstances described below, the System processes an Order with Discretion by generating a Non-Displayed Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC (a “Discretionary IOC”) that will attempt to access liquidity available within the discretionary price range. The Discretionary IOC will not be permitted to execute, however, if the price of the execution would trade through a Protected Quotation. If more than one Order with Discretion satisfies conditions that would cause the generation of a Discretionary IOC simultaneously, the order in which such Discretionary IOCs are presented for execution is random, based on the respective processing time for each such Order. Whenever a Discretionary IOC is generated, the underlying Order with Discretion will be withheld or removed from the Exchange Book and will then be routed and/or placed on the Exchange Book if the Discretionary IOC does not exhaust the full size of the underlying Order with Discretion, with its price determined by the underlying Order Type and Order Attributes selected by the Participant.
• If an Order has been assigned a Discretion Order Attribute, but has not been assigned a Routing Order Attribute, upon entry of the Order, the System will automatically generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the highest price for an Order with Discretion to buy (lowest price for an Order with Discretion to sell) within the discretionary price range and a size equal to the full size of the underlying Order to determine if there are any Orders within the discretionary price range on the Exchange Book. If the Discretionary IOC does not exhaust the
• After the Order posts to the Exchange Book, the System will examine whether at any time there is an Order on the Exchange Book with a price in the discretionary price range against which the Order with Discretion could execute. In doing so, the System will examine all Orders (including Orders that are not Displayed). If the System observes such an Order, it will generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the highest price for an Order to buy (lowest price for an Order to sell) within the discretionary price range and a size equal to the full size of the Order.
• If an Order that uses a passive routing strategy (
• If an Order that uses a reactive routing strategy (
• If an Order that uses a passive routing strategy has been assigned a Discretion Order Attribute and does have a pegged discretionary price range, upon entry of the Order, the System will examine all Orders (including Orders that are not Displayed) on the Exchange Book to determine if there is an Order on the Exchange Book with a price in the discretionary price range against which the Order with Discretion could execute. If the System observes such an Order, it will generate a Discretionary IOC with a price equal to the price of the Order on the Exchange Book and a size equal to the applicable size of the Order on the Exchange Book. The System will also determine if there are any accessible quotations with prices that are within the discretionary price range at destinations on the applicable routing table for the selected routing strategy. If there are such quotations, the System will generate one or more Discretionary IOCs to route to such destinations, with a price and size that match the price and size of the market center's quotation. If necessary to maximize execution opportunities and comply with Regulation NMS, the System may mark such Discretionary IOCs as Intermarket Sweep Orders. If the Discretionary IOC(s) do not exhaust the full size of the Order with Discretion, the remaining size of the Order with Discretion will post to the Exchange Book in accordance with the parameters that apply to the underlying Order Type. Thereafter, the Order will not generate further Discretionary IOCs unless the Order is updated in a manner that causes it to receive a new timestamp, in which case the Order will behave in the same manner as a newly entered Order.
• If an Order that uses a reactive routing strategy has been assigned a Discretion Order Attribute and does have a pegged discretionary price range,
Reserve Size is an Order Attribute that permits a Participant to stipulate that an Order Type that is displayed may have its displayed size replenished from additional non-displayed size. An Order with Reserve Size may be referred to as a “Reserve Order.” At the time of entry, the displayed size of such an Order selected by the Participant must be one or more normal units of trading; an Order with a displayed size of a mixed lot will be rounded down to the nearest round lot. A Reserve Order with displayed size of an odd lot will be accepted but with the full size of the Order displayed. Reserve Size is not available for Orders that are not displayed; provided, however, that if a Participant enters Reserve Size for a Non-Displayed Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC, the full size of the Order, including Reserve Size, will be processed as a Non-Displayed Order.
Whenever a Participant enters an Order with Reserve Size, the System will process the Order as two Orders: A Displayed Order (with the characteristics of its selected Order Type) and a Non-Displayed Order. Upon entry, the full size of each such Order will be processed for potential execution in accordance with the parameters applicable to the Order Type. For example, a Participant might enter a Price to Display Order with 200 shares displayed and an additional 3,000 shares non-displayed. Upon entry, the Order would attempt to execute against available liquidity on the Exchange Book, up to 3,200 shares. Thereafter, unexecuted portions of the Order would post to the Exchange Book as a Displayed Price to Display Order and a Non-Displayed Order; provided, however, that if the remaining total size is less than the display size stipulated by the Participant, the Displayed Order will post without Reserve Size. Thus, if 3,050 shares executed upon entry, the Price to Display Order would post with a size of 150 shares and no Reserve Size.
When an Order with Reserve Size is posted, if there is an execution against the Displayed Order that causes its size to decrease below a normal unit of trading, another Displayed Order will be entered at the level stipulated by the Participant while the size of the Non-Displayed Order will be reduced by the same amount. Any remaining size of the original Displayed Order will remain on the Exchange Book. The new Displayed Order will receive a new timestamp, but the Non-Displayed Order (and the original Displayed Order, if any) will not; although the new Displayed Order will be processed by the System as a new Order in most respects at that time, if it was designated as Routable, the System will not automatically route it upon reentry.
A Participant may stipulate that the Displayed Order should be replenished to its original size. Alternatively, the Participant may stipulate that the original and subsequent displayed size will be an amount randomly determined based on factors selected by the Participant.
When the Displayed Order with Reserve Size is executed and replenished, applicable market data disseminated by the Exchange will show the execution and decrementation of the Displayed Order, followed by replenishment of the Displayed Order. In all cases, if the remaining size of the Non-Displayed Order is less than the fixed or random amount stipulated by the Participant, the full remaining size of the Non-Displayed Order will be displayed and the Non-Displayed Order will be removed.
Attribution is an Order Attribute that permits a Participant to designate that the price and size of the Order will be displayed next to the Participant's MPID in market data disseminated by the Exchange. An Order with Attribution is referred to as an “Attributable Order” and an Order without attribution is referred to as a “Non-Attributable Order.”
Designation of an Order as an Intermarket Sweep Order, or ISO, is an Order Attribute that allows the Order to be executed within the System by Participants at multiple price levels without respect to Protected Quotations of other market centers within the meaning of Rule 600(b) under Regulation NMS. ISOs are immediately executable within the System against Orders against which they are marketable. An Order designated as an ISO may not be assigned a Routing Order Attribute.
Simultaneously with the routing of an ISO to the System, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed by the entering Participant to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation with a price that is superior to the price of the Order identified as an Intermarket Sweep Order (as defined in Rule 600(b) under Regulation NMS). These additional routed orders must be identified as Intermarket Sweep Orders.
Upon receipt of an ISO, the System will consider the stated price of the ISO to be available for other Orders to be entered at that price, unless the ISO is not itself accepted at that price level (for example, a Post-Only Order that has its price adjusted to avoid executing against an Order on the Exchange Book) or the ISO is not Displayed.
In addition, as described with respect to various Order Types, such as the Price to Comply Order, Orders on the Exchange Book that had their price adjusted may be eligible to be reentered at the stated price of the ISO. For example, if a Price to Comply Order to buy at $11 would lock a Protected Offer at $11, the Price to Comply Order will be posted with a non-displayed price of $11 and a displayed price of $10.99. If the System then receives an ISO to buy at $11, the ISO will be posted at $11 and the Price to Comply Order will be reentered at $11 (if the Participant opted to have its Orders reentered). The respective priority of such reentered Orders will be maintained among multiple repriced Orders; however, other new Orders may also be received after receipt of the ISO but before the repricing of the Price to Comply Order is complete; accordingly, the priority of an Order on the Exchange Book vis-à-vis a newly entered Order is not guaranteed.
Display is an Order Attribute that allows the price and size of an Order to be displayed to market participants via market data feeds. All Orders that are Attributable are also displayed, but an Order may be displayed without being Attributable. As discussed in Rule 4702, a Non-Displayed Order is a specific Order Type, but other Order Types may also be non-displayed if they are not assigned a Display Order Attribute; however, depending on context, all Orders that are not displayed may be referred to as “Non-Displayed Orders.” An Order with a Display Order Attribute may be referred to as a “Displayed Order.”
Although the Exchange, like many exchanges, offers a wide range of possible combinations of Order Types and Order Attributes in order to provide options that support of a range of legitimate trading strategies, the Exchange believes that an analysis of the extent of usage of particular Order Type permutations is important to promoting a deeper understanding of current market structure. Based on analysis of a month of data for the period from August 26, 2013 through September 29, 2013, the Exchange offers the following observations about the usage of different Order Types on its market:
• 38.63% of entered Order volume was Price to Comply Orders with no Order Attributes other than price and size. Such Orders were involved in 28.38% of execution volume.
• 0.02% of entered Order volume was Post-Only Orders with no Order Attributes other than price and size. Such Orders were involved in 0.69% of execution volume.
• Non-Displayed Orders with a Time-in-Force of IOC and no special Order Attributes accounted for 9.84% of entered Order volume and 21.58% of execution volume. Non-Displayed Orders with a Time-in-Force of IOC marked as ISOs but with no other special Order Attributes accounted for 1.44% of entered Order volume and 25.02% of execution volume.
• Non-Displayed Orders with a Time-in-Force longer than IOC but no special Order Attributes accounted for 25.58% of entered Order volume and 3.25% of execution volume.
• Use of Post-Only Orders marked ISO but with no other special Order Attributes accounted for less than 0.01% of entered Order volume and execution volume. Price to Comply Orders marked ISO but with no other special Order Attributes accounted for 17.8% of entered Order volume and 13.42% of execution volume.
• All other Order Type and Order Attribute combinations accounted for 6.68% of entered Order volume and 7.66% of execution volume.
Thus, while a range of combinations of Order Types and Order Attributes can exist on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that these data support the conclusion that many of these possible combinations are not used to any appreciable extent. Rather, the vast majority of Order entry and Order execution volume is attributable to a small number of simple combinations: IOC Orders designed to access posted liquidity and various forms of priced limit Orders designed to access available liquidity and thereafter post to the Exchange Book to provide liquidity, which promote price discovery by offering displayed liquidity at a price that may narrow the bid/offer spread on the Exchange and/or provide price improvement to subsequent Orders. The inclusion of an ISO Order Attribute on Orders is done in full compliance with Regulation NMS and serves to provide notice to the Exchange that liquidity has been accessed liquidity on other markets at a given price level in order to allow it to post liquidity on the Exchange at that price. While the Exchange does not believe that its Order Type offerings are excessively complex, given the relatively limited usage of certain Order Types and Order Attributes, the Exchange is continuing to analyze whether changes may be made to eliminate any Order Types, Order Attributes, or permissible combinations in a manner that would further promote the goals of transparency and ease of use for Participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Most of the System functionality described in the proposed rule change has already been described in previous proposed rule changes by the Exchange and approved or permitted to take effect on an immediate basis by the Commission. However, the Exchange believes that the reiteration of several principles underlying its Order Types and Order Attributes might be helpful in promoting a fuller understanding of these rules' operation and their consistency with the Act.
The functionality underlying Price to Comply Orders and Price to Display Orders provides a means by which Participants may enter a displayed limit order in compliance with Regulation NMS without the Participant definitively ascertaining whether the price of the Order would lock or cross a Protected Quotation. In the absence of the repricing functionality associated with the Order, the Exchange would need to reject the Order if it locked or crossed a Protected Quotation.
By accepting a Price to Comply Order with a locking, non-displayed price and displayed price that is one minimum increment inferior to the locking price, the Exchange allows this Order Type to achieve several purposes. First, the displayed price of the Order promotes price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or adding to liquidity available at the NBBO. Second, the non-displayed price of the Order allows the Order to provide price improvement when the Order is executed. A Price to Display Order similarly promotes price discovery by establishing a new NBBO or adding liquidity available at the NBBO. It also provides one of the Order Types through which a Market Maker may offer displayed liquidity that is Attributable to its MPID. Notably, given the price adjustment functionality of the Order, it allows a Market Maker to offer Attributable liquidity at the NBBO.
In addition, the repricing functionality associated with Price to Comply Orders and Price to Display Orders, whereby an Order that has been repriced by the System upon entry may be cancelled or reentered if a previously unavailable price level becomes available, promotes price discovery and provision of greater liquidity by facilitating the display of an Order at its chosen limit price. Because a reentered Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover, the functionality does not present fairness concerns that might arise if an Order that was not displayed became displayed at a different price level while retaining the timestamp that it received when originally entered.
The Non-Displayed Order provides a means by which Participants may access and/or offer liquidity without signaling to other Participants the extent of their trading interest. Moreover, because the Non-Displayed Order may lock a Protected Quotation, it provides a means by which a Participant may provide price improvement. For example, if the Best Bid was $11 and the Best Offer was $11.01, a Non-Displayed Order to buy at $11.01 would provide $0.01 price improvement to an incoming sell Order priced at the Best Bid.
In addition, the repricing functionality associated with Non-Displayed Order promotes provision of greater liquidity and eventual price discovery (via reporting of Order executions) because it facilitates the posting of a Non-Displayed Order at its chosen limit price. In addition, the functionality that cancels Non-Displayed Orders when crossed by a Protected Quotation helps to prevent trade-throughs by ensuring that a Non-Displayed Order will not execute at a price inferior to the Price of a Protected Quotation. Because a reentered Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover, the functionality does not present fairness concerns that might arise if an Order was able to move price while retaining an earlier timestamp.
The primary purpose of Post-Only Orders is to “provide displayed liquidity to the market and thereby contribute to public price discovery—an objective that is fully consistent with the Act.”
In addition, the processing of Post-Only Orders with respect to locking or crossing Protected Quotations serves the same purposes as the processing discussed above with respect to Price to Comply Orders and Price to Display
The repricing functionality associated with Post-Only Orders, whereby an Order that has been repriced by the System upon entry may be cancelled or reentered if a previously unavailable price level becomes available, promotes price discovery and provision of greater liquidity by facilitating the display of an Order at its chosen limit price. Because a reentered Order always receives a new timestamp, moreover, the functionality does not present fairness concerns that might arise if an Order that was not displayed became displayed at a different price level while retaining the timestamp that it received when originally entered.
A Post-Only Order may be designated as an ISO and accepted at a price that locks or crosses a Protected Quotation, since such designation reflects a representation by the Participant that it has simultaneously routed one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotations that the Post-Only Order would lock or cross.
Retail Orders and RPI Order provide a mechanism for all Participants to offer, and Participants representing retail customers to receive, price improvement of at least $0.001. The Exchange believes that the Order Types may therefore reduce trading costs for such retail customers and encourage the interaction of their Orders in an exchange-trading environment.
Several of the available Order Attributes merely provide means to designate the basic parameters of any Order: These include price, size, Time-in-Force, Attribution, and Display. The proposed rules clearly state limitations applicable to each of these parameters, such as available Times-in-Force and limitations on the permissible prices and sizes of Orders.
The Pegging Order Attribute allows a Participant to have the System adjust the price of the Order continually in order to keep the price within defined parameters. Thus, the System performs price adjustments that would otherwise be performed by the Participant through cancellation and reentry of Orders. The fact that a new timestamp is created for a Pegged Order whenever it has its price adjusted allows the Order to seek additional execution opportunities and ensures that the Order does not “jump the queue” with respect to any Orders that were previously at the Pegged Order's new price level. Thus, while the Order Attribute may be seen as introducing additional complexity with respect to the operation of the Exchange, it is in effect merely a process for removing and entering Orders at new prices based on changed market conditions.
The Minimum Quantity Order Attribute allows a Participant that may wish to buy or sell a large amount of a security to avoid signaling its trading interest unless it can purchase a certain minimum amount. Thus, the Order Attribute supports the interest of institutional investors and others in being able to minimize the impact of their trading on the price of securities.
The Routing Order Attribute, which is thoroughly described in existing Rule 4758, provides an optional means by which a Participant may direct the Exchange to seek opportunities to execute an Order at other market centers. The System is designed to pursue execution opportunities on behalf of Participants in an aggressive manner by, in most instances, first obtaining shares available on the Exchange Book, then routing to other market centers in accordance with the strategy designated by the Participant, then returning the Exchange Book as if a new Order before posting to the Exchange Book. In addition, to maximize execution opportunities, the System will, as appropriate and in accordance with Regulation NMS, designate a Routable Order as an Intermarket Sweep Order.
The Discretion Order Attribute allows a Participant to expand opportunities for an Order to access liquidity by allowing it to execute at any price within a specified range. Thus, while there is some complexity associated with the processing of Discretionary Orders, the Order Attribute merely allows the System to ascertain whether, under the conditions provided for in the rule, the Participant could access liquidity at a price within the range that the Participant has designated. If so, the Order Attribute generates an IOC Order to access the liquidity. Moreover, it should be noted that although in some circumstances, the System will examine Orders on the Exchange Book that are not Displayed to ascertain the existence of execution opportunities, the System would convey information to the Participant regarding such Orders only by executing against them. Thus, the discretionary price range reflects an actionable commitment by the Participant to trade at prices in that range. As a result, the Order Attribute promotes price discovery through executions that occur in the price range. Finally, it should be noted that Discretionary IOCs access liquidity. Because the Exchange has a “taker/maker” pricing structure under which liquidity accessing Orders receive a rebate, the Order Attribute does allow a Participant to obtain a rebate with respect to executions against previously posted Orders; however, this aspect of the Order Attribute is fully consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing structure.
The Reserve Size Order Attribute allows a Participant to display trading interest at a given price while also posting additional non-displayed trading interest. The functionality assists the Participant in managing this trading interest by eliminating the need for the Participant to enter additional size following the execution of the displayed trading interest. Thus, the functionality achieves a balance between promoting price discovery through displayed size and allowing a Participant to guard against price impact by hiding the full extent of its trading interest. The random reserve feature of the Order further assists a Participant in not revealing the extent of its trading interest because it diminishes the likelihood that other Participants will conclude that the Order is a Reserve Size Order if they repeatedly view it being replenished at the same size. Similarly, the manner in which the Exchange disseminates data regarding
The Intermarket Sweep Order attribute is a function of Regulation NMS, which provides for an Order to execute without respect to Protected Quotations if it is designated as an ISO and if one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation with a price that is superior to the price of the Order identified as an ISO. As recently reaffirmed by the Commission, Regulation NMS allows such additional orders to be routed by an exchange or by the Participant that enters the ISO.
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. As previously stated, the Exchange is not proposing substantively to modify the operation of any of its current Order Types or Order Attributes or the operation of the System; rather, the proposed rule change is intended to provide more detail regarding the System's functionality. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to provide additional specificity and transparency to Participants and the investing public regarding the Exchange's Order Types, Order Attributes, and System functionality. Since the Exchange does not proposed substantively to modify the operation of Order Types, Order Attributes, or System functionality, the proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
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 490(b)(1)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, I hereby determine and certify that the top five exporting and importing countries and economies of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine (China, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, India,
This determination and certification shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its findings on the Noise Compatibility Program Update submitted by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501
The effective date of the FAA's approval of the Key West International Airport Noise Compatibility Program Update is March 11, 2015.
Allan Nagy, Environmental Program Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Orlando, Florida 32822, phone number: (407) 812-6331. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location by appointment with the above contact.
This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program Update for Key West International Airport, effective March 11, 2015.
Under Section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport Sponsor for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.
Each airport Noise Compatibility Program developed in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport Sponsor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of each specific measure proposed by an airport Sponsor in a Record of Approval (ROA) is determined by applying approval criteria prescribed in 14 CFR 150.35(b).
The Administrator approves programs under this part, if:
(1) It is found that the program measures to be implemented would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce (including any unjust discrimination) and are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport and of preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses;
(2) The program provides for revision if made necessary by the revision of the Noise Exposure Map (NEM); and
(3) Those aspects of programs relating to the use of flight procedures for noise control can be implemented within the period covered by the program and without:
(i) Reducing the level of aviation safety provided;
(ii) Derogating the requisite level of protection for aircraft, their occupants and persons and property on the ground;
(iii) Adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the Navigable Airspace and Air Traffic Control Systems; or
(iv) Adversely affecting any other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law or any other program, standard, or requirement established in accordance with law.
Approval of a first time NCP or NCP Update is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental review of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Orlando, Florida.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners submitted to the FAA on October 29, 2013, the Noise Exposure Maps for the Key West International Airport. The Noise Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on December 19, 2013. Notice of this determination was published in the
On September 15, 2014, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners submitted to the FAA the descriptions of the Sponsor's proposed noise compatibility measures and other documentation produced during the Noise Compatibility Program Update study conducted from November, 2011 through February 11, 2015.
The Key West International Airport study contains a proposed Noise Compatibility Program Update comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from September 15, 2014 beyond the year 2015. It was requested that FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program Update as described in Section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the Noise Compatibility Program Update on September 15, 2014, and was required by provisions of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days
The submitted program Update contained twenty-five (25) proposed actions for noise mitigation both on and off the Airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and 14 CFR part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by the FAA effective March 11, 2015.
Outright approval was granted for thirteen (13) the specific program elements. No FAA action was requested or given for twelve (12) of the twenty-five (25) specific program elements.
These elements are the sole responsibility of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners to both implement and fund.
These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval signed by the FAA on March 11, 2015. When a measure is disapproved by the FAA, airport Sponsors are encouraged to work with their local communities, governments and the FAA, outside of the formal Part 150 process as necessary, to implement initiatives that provide noise benefits for the surrounding community.
The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative office of the Key West International Airport. The Record of Approval will also be available on-line at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Charter renewal.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the renewal of the RTCA Charter (FAA Order 1110.77V) for two years, effective April 1, 2015. The administrator is the sponsor of the committee. The FAA and seven other government agencies use RTCA as a federal advisory committee. On January 2, 1976, the FAA, the major government user of RTCA products, assumed sponsorship on behalf of all government agencies. RTCA brings together representatives of the government and industry to form special committees and steering committees to provide advice and recommendations on key operational and technological issues that impact the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) implementation and the Air Traffic Management System. The Secretary of Transportation has determined that that information and use of committee are necessary in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Steering Committee and Special Committee meetings are open to the public and announced in the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Federal notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an EIS will be prepared for a proposed freeway interchange improvement project on I-39/90 from the County N interchange in the south to the I-39/90/94/WIS 30 interchange (Badger Interchange) in the north and on US 12/18 from the West Broadway interchange in the west to the County AB intersection in the east in Dane County in south-central Wisconsin. Along US 12/18, improvements at the US 51 (Stoughton Road) interchange will also be evaluated from the Voges Rd./Terminal Dr. intersection in the south and to the Broadway intersection at the north.
Tracey Blankenship, Major Projects Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, Wisconsin, 53717-2157, Telephone: (608) 829-7510.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), will prepare an EIS for proposed improvements at the I-39/90/US 12/18 interchange (Beltline Interchange) and adjacent local road systems, a distance of approximately 13.2 miles. The purpose of the project is to provide efficient transportation system linkages, address substandard geometrics, accommodate future traffic to an acceptable level, and improve overall safety. The EIS will evaluate a range of alternatives for the Beltline Interchange, adjacent roads, and connections to the local road network. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139, 23 CFR 771, and 40 CFR 1500-1508. Completion of the Draft EIS (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS) are expected in 2016.
Public involvement is a critical component of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will occur throughout the development of the DEIS and FEIS. All environmental documents will be made available for review by federal and state resource agencies and the public. Specific efforts to encourage involvement by, and solicit comments from, minority and low-income populations in the project study area will be made, with public involvement meetings held throughout the environmental document process. Public notice will be given as to the time and place of public involvement meetings. A public hearing will be held after the completion of the DEIS.
Inquiries about the EIS can be sent to
Projects receiving Federal funds must comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and E. O. 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, sex, or country of national origin in the implementation of this project. It is also Federal policy to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption from the Federal commercial driver's license (CDL) requirements for drivers who deliver certain newly manufactured motorhomes and recreational vehicles (RVs) to dealers or trade shows before retail sale (driveaway operations). The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requested the exemption because compliance with the CDL requirements prevents its members from implementing more efficient operations due to a shortage of CDL drivers. The exemption covers employees of all U.S. driveaway companies, RV manufacturers, and RV dealers transporting RVs between manufacturing sites and dealer locations and for movements prior to first retail sale. Drivers engaged in driveaway deliveries of RVs with gross vehicle weight
This exemption is effective April 6, 2015 and expires on April 6, 2017.
Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325, Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The RVIA is the national trade association representing RV manufacturers and their component parts suppliers who together build more than 98 percent of all RVs produced in the United States. An RV is a vehicle designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel and seasonal use. RVs may be motorized (motorhomes) or towable (travel trailers, fifth wheel trailers, folding camping trailers and truck campers).
The RVIA requested an exemption from the CDL requirements under 49 CFR 383.91(a)(1)-383.91(a)(2) when transporting RVs with an actual vehicle weight not exceeding 26,000 pounds, or a combination of RV trailer/tow vehicle with the actual weight of the towed unit not exceeding 10,000 pounds and the gross combined weight not exceeding 26,000 pounds. In other words, RVIA requested that CDLs not be required for driveaway operations of single or combination vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
In its application, RVIA contended that a shortage of drivers with CDLs is having a significant impact on the RV industry, which is just recovering from the 2008-2009 economic downturn. A large percentage of RV sales occur during the spring buying season. The jump in RV shipments trends stronger each month, increasing consistently from February through June. These excess units regularly accumulate in RV
RVIA stated that the exemption would apply to all individuals who are employees of driveaway-towaway companies, RV manufacturers, and RV dealers. RVIA contended that, due to the class nature and the number of parties that will be affected by the exemption, it is not feasible or practicable to provide the names of individuals or transporters responsible for use or operation of these CMVs. RVIA asserted that exempting drivers delivering a subset of newly manufactured RVs from the Class A and B CDL requirements would likely result in the level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption. RVIA noted that a CDL is not required to operate these RVs when they are in personal use.
RVIA contended that, if the exemption were granted, the level of safety associated with transportation of RVs from manufacturers to dealers would likely be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety obtained by complying with the CDL requirements for the following reasons:
• On average, drivers employed by RV manufacturers and dealers to deliver RVs have substantially more experience operating RVs than a typical driver operating an RV for recreational purposes.
• A thorough analysis using the FMCSA Safety Measurement System revealed that the RV driveaway-towaway companies' record of 0.234 recordable accidents per million miles traveled in 2012 is far less than the national average of 0.747 recordable accidents per million miles traveled that was used as a benchmark by the FMCSA in fiscal years 1994-1996 when developing criteria for ”Factor 6, Accident” of the “safety rating process.”
• FMCSA established an “unsatisfactory rating” threshold for all carriers operating outside of a 100 air-mile radius with a recordable accident rate greater than 1.5 accidents per million miles traveled. Accordingly RVIA claims that the, RV driveaway-towaway accident frequency is approximately 640% less than the FMCSA unsatisfactory rating threshold for 2012, the most recent year for which data is available. [In fact, RVIA's data shows that the accident frequency of RVs in 2012 (.234 per million miles) was only 15.6% of FMCSA's threshold for an unsatisfactory rating (1.5 accidents per million miles) (.23 ÷ 1.5−15.6%)]
• Compared to drivers using RVs for recreational purposes, RV manufacturers and driveaway-towaway companies have substantially greater economic incentive to systematically train, monitor and evaluate their RV drivers with respect to safe operation of RVs because of substantially greater exposure to liability for any traffic accidents.
• As with any new motor vehicle, newly manufactured RVs are much less likely to present a safety concern due to mechanical failures.
• Travel distances between the manufacturing sites and dealer locations are on average much shorter than typical distances which RVs travel when in recreational use and the highway presence of RVs transported from manufacturers to dealers is negligible even during the peak spring delivery season.
RVIA asserted that without the exemption, drivers making one-time deliveries of new RVs with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) exceeding 26,000 pounds, or a gross combination weight rating exceeding 26,000 inclusive of a towed vehicle with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or higher, will remain subject to CDL requirements even though end-users of RVs purchasing them from dealers in the same States would not be subject to those requirements and regulations. This anomalous situation would continue to materially curb the growth of the RV industry without countervailing safety or other benefit to the public. In particular, RV manufacturers and dealers would continue to experience a shortage of CDL operators during the busy spring season.
On October 1, 2014, FMCSA published notice of this application, and asked for public comment (79 FR 59343). Twelve comments were received to the public docket.
One respondent, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), recommended that the exemption not be granted. The Advocates concluded that “the RVIA application does not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for the exemption. Advocates argue that the application fails to consider practical alternatives, justify the need for the exemption, provide information on the specific countermeasures to be undertaken to ensure that the exemption will achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved absent the exemption.”
Ten respondents supported the exemption: Campers Inn; Class Transport, Inc.; Florida RV Trade Association; Horizon Transport, Inc.; Pennsylvania Recreation Vehicle and Camping Association; Quality Drive-Away Inc.; Foremost Transport, Inc.; Recreation Vehicle Indiana Council; National RV Dealers Association; and Star Fleet Trucking, Inc.
The American Truck Dealers Division of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADD) also supported the exemption and urged FMCSA to expand the requested exemption so that it applies to
All comments are available for review in the docket for this notice.
The FMCSA has evaluated RVIA's application for exemption and the public comments, and has decided to grant the exemption. The RVs covered by the exemption all have gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) above the 26,001-pound threshold for a CDL, but their actual weights,
This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 383.91(a)(1)—383.91(a)(2) is effective during the period of April 6, 2015 through April 6, 2017. The exemption will expire on April 6, 2017, 11:59 p.m. local time, unless renewed.
The exemption is restricted to employees of driveaway-towaway companies, RV manufacturers, and RV dealers transporting RVs between the manufacturing site and dealer location and for movements prior to first retail sale. Drivers covered by the exemption will not be required to hold a CDL when transporting RVs with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 26,000 pounds, or a combination of RV trailer/tow vehicle with the gross weight of the towed unit not exceeding 10,000 pounds and the gross combined weight not exceeding 26,000 pounds. These drivers must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.
The RVIA must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carriers' CMVs operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
a. Date of the accident,
b. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
c. Driver's name and driver's license number and State of issuance,
d. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
e. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
f. Number of fatalities,
g. The police-reported cause of the accident,
h. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws or motor carrier safety regulations, and
i. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to the accident.
FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency approval under 5 U.S.C. 1320.13. FMCSA requests approval of this ICR by 30 days from the publication of this notice. The purpose of this information collection is to inform the public of the Agency's development of a mandatory driver-training program primarily for individuals applying for their first commercial driver's license (CDL). FMCSA is not aware of any other source for this data. The Agency has attempted to obtain this information for many years. In its search, the Agency has explored several other avenues for finding this information. For example, the Agency considered asking various trade groups representing private and public truck driving schools for their cooperation, but soon realized that these entities generally did not have the desired information either. This ICR would allow State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) to furnish this critical data and thereby inform the design of the CDL driver training program to be proposed by the Agency for public comment. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and FMCSA will also use this data to inform future commercial-driving safety initiatives.
Please send your comments by May 6, 2015. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2015-0041. 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/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Robert F. Schultz, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, West
On July 6, 2012, the President signed legislation titled “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).” Section 32304 of MAP-21 (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)) provides that the Secretary of Transportation must issue final regulations establishing minimum entry-level training requirements for individuals before obtaining a CDL for the first time or prior to upgrading from one class of CDL to another. The Agency is required to develop instruction and behind-the-wheel training that will be effective in providing entry-level CDL drivers the knowledge and skills they need to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.
On September 18, 2014, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways sued FMCSA and DOT in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case no. 14-1183). The plaintiffs petitioned for an order of mandamus compelling DOT to publish a final rule on entry-level driver training within 180 days. While as of this date the court has not ruled on the petition, the court could order that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final rule be drafted according to a highly expedited schedule. Obtaining this data would help address this urgent legal issue in a timely manner.
FMCSA has taken numerous steps toward satisfying the section 32304 mandate. The Agency has conducted two public listening sessions in conjunction with industry trade shows and engaged its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee to provide recommendations to support the rulemaking. FMCSA learned that there is not agreement among stakeholders about how to satisfy the statutory mandate.
Next, FMCSA commissioned a neutral convener to analyze the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking (Reg Neg) to develop the regulations (5 U.S.C. 581-590). Based upon the convener's recommendation, FMCSA, on December 10, 2014, published notice of its intent to establish an Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC) to negotiate proposed regulations to implement section 32304. On February 12, 2015, the Agency published notice of the first meeting of the ELDTAC, which was held on February 26-27, 2015 (80 FR 7814). The FMCSA is currently engaged in regular negotiations with the ELDTAC expected to go through May 2015 with a target date for publication of an NPRM of October 15, 2015 (
Despite these efforts and the urgent nature and schedule of the negotiations, FMCSA lacks certain data that is crucial to its efforts to satisfy the MAP-21 mandate—for example, the number of individuals who would require entry-level CDL driver training annually. Given that this rulemaking will likely be considered “significant” within the meaning of E. O. 12988, obtaining this data is crucial to developing an NPRM and the required cost-benefit analysis. The data, combined with other data in the Agency's possession, will also be central to the ability of ELDTAC to build consensus among the various stakeholders.
The only known source of the number of individuals who obtain their first and upgraded CDL each year is the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The only way the Agency can obtain this information is by asking the SDLAs to report it to FMCSA.
The Agency requests emergency processing of this information request valid for 180 days (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(2)) based on its determination as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act and its implementing regulations as follows: The information collection is “essential” to FMCSA's safety mission: to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)(A)(ii), 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(1)(ii)). Expedited review is necessary to minimize public harm that is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance processes are followed resulting from the operation of trucks and motor coaches by individuals lacking appropriate driver training that would be required by this rulemaking (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)(B)(i), 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(i)). In addition, use of the normal clearance process is reasonably likely to cause a “court-ordered deadline to be missed” (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)(B)(iii), 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(iii)). This ICR is narrowly focused and practical steps have been taken to obtain this information in the past, as described in this notice above to minimize its burden on the SDLAs it would apply to (5 CFR 1320.13(c)).
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for projects in the Cities of San Bernardino and Redlands, CA, and the Cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, CA. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject projects and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Terence Plaskon, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-0442. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the projects to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the projects. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information on each project. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
1.
2.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Announcement of Research Program Project Selections.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration announces the selection of research projects funded in support of three Notice of Funding Availability, as authorized under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, and prior legislation.
On January 9, 2014, FTA published a NOFA (79 FR 1668) announcing the availability of funding for the LONO program. The main purpose of the LONO Program is to deploy the cleanest and most energy efficient U.S.-made transit buses that have been largely proven in testing and demonstrations but are not yet widely deployed in transit agency fleets. The LONO Program provides funding for transit agencies for capital acquisitions and leases of zero-emission and low-emission transit buses, including acquisition, construction, and leasing of required supporting facilities such as recharging, refueling, and maintenance facilities.
The FTA Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation (TRI) and/or FTA Regional Office will reach out to successful applicants regarding to the next steps in applying for the funds or program-specific information (see Tables 1-3, below).
Unsuccessful SRER program applicants may contact Roy Chen, Office of Technology at email address
Unsuccessful LONO Program applicants may contact Sean Ricketson, Office of Mobility Innovation at email address
Unsuccessful BEERD program applicants may contact Marcel Belanger, Office of Mobility Innovation at email address
In response to the SRER NOFA, FTA received 72 proposals requesting $160,000,000 in Federal funds. Project proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's responsiveness to the program evaluation criteria as detailed in the NOFA. The FTA is funding 13 SRER projects, as shown in Table 1, for a total of $29,000,000.
In response to the LONO NOFA, FTA received 50 project proposals requesting $200,000,000 in Federal funds. Project proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's responsiveness to the program evaluation criteria as detailed in the NOFA. The FTA is funding 10 LONO Program projects, as shown in Table 2, for a total of $54,469,249.
In response to the BEERD RFP, FTA received 13 project proposals requesting $14,600,000 in Federal funds. Project proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's responsiveness to the program evaluation criteria as detailed in the RFP. The FTA is funding five BEERD Program projects, as shown in Table 3, for a total of $3,000,000.
Applicants selected for competitive discretionary research funding for the SRER and BEERD Programs should work with FTA's TRI staff identified in the contacts section of this notice to finalize electronic awards in FTA's Transportation Electronic Awards Management System (TEAM) or its successor system, so that Federal funds can be obligated expeditiously. Applicants selected for the LONO Program should work with TRI staff identified in the contacts section of this notice and/or FTA Regional Office staff to finalize its electronic award in TEAM or its successor system, so that Federal funds can be obligated expeditiously.
Electronics awards must only include eligible activities applied for in the original project application. Federal funds must be used consistent with the competitive proposal and for the eligible purposes established in the NOFA and described in the FTA
Selected projects may be eligible for pre-award authority for each of the programs, so long as all required conditions for pre-award authority have been met and the activities undertaken in advance of Federal funding are contained in the approved statement of work. The FTA may grant pre-award authority for costs incurred after the project selections were announced. The dates of announcement, which are the earliest dates for which pre-award authority can be granted, are as follows: February 12, 2015 for SRER; February 5, 2015 for LONO; and January 16, 2015 for BEERD. The FTA's policy for pre-award authority, including the required conditions, can be found in the FY 2015 Annual Apportionments, Allocations, and Program Information Notice, published on February, 9, 2015.
Post electronic award reporting requirements include submission of the Federal Financial Report and Milestone reports in TEAM as appropriate (FTA
The FTA emphasizes that grantees must follow all third-party procurement guidance, as described in FTA
On March 17, 2015, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to discontinue rail service over approximately 1.5 miles of rail line between milepost KN 4.0 and milepost KN 5.5, located on NSR's LeMoyne Industrial Track in Chicago, Cook County, Ill. The line includes no stations and traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Code 60632.
NSR states that the line does not contain any federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in NSR's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by July 2, 2015.
Because this is a discontinuance proceeding and not an abandonment proceeding, trail use/rail banking and public use conditions are not appropriate.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) to subsidize continued rail service will be due no later than July 15, 2015, or 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption, whichever occurs sooner. Each offer must be accompanied by a $1,600 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 290 (Sub-No. 365X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037. Replies to the petition are due on or before April 27, 2015.
Persons seeking further information concerning discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment and discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to reinstate a previously approved Information Collection Request (OMB Control Number 2105-0563) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The previous approval granted the Department of Transportation authority to collect information involving National Infrastructure Investments or “TIGER” Discretionary Grants pursuant to Title I of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010 (the “FY 2010 Appropriations Act”). The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (“OST”) is referring to these grants as “TIGER Discretionary Grants.” The original collection of information was necessary in order to receive applications for grant funds pursuant to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 (“FY 2010 Appropriations Act”), Title I—Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, National Infrastructure Investments, Public Law 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034. The purpose of the TIGER Discretionary Grants program is to advance projects that will have a significant impact on the Nation, Metropolitan area or a region.
This request for reinstatement advances the previously approved request of an information collection. The information to be collected will be used to, receive applications for grant funds, to evaluate the effectiveness of projects that have been awarded grant funds and to monitor project financial conditions and project progress in support of the National Infrastructure Investments, referred to by the Department as “Grants for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery”, or “TIGER” Discretionary Grants program authorized and implemented pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Recovery Act”) (OMB Control Number: 2105-0563) and the grants for National Infrastructure Investments under the FY 2010 Appropriations Act or TIGER Discretionary Grant programs include promoting economic recovery and supporting projects that have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
Written comments should be submitted by June 5, 2015.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0061] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert Mariner, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, at 202-366-8914 or
OMB Control Number: 2105-0563.
This request reinstates the existing PRA clearance to cover the requests for information from grantees that is necessary to receive grant applications, negotiate the grant agreements, and cover the reporting requirements agreed to by recipients of TIGER Discretionary Grants.
The reporting requirements for the program are as follows:
Grantees will submit reports on the financial condition of the project and the project's progress. Grantees will submit progress reports and the Federal Financial Report (SF-425) to the Government on a quarterly basis, beginning on the 20th of the first month of the calendar-year quarter following the execution of a grant agreement, and on the 20th of the first month of each calendar-year quarter thereafter until completion of the project. The initial report will include a detailed description, and, where appropriate, drawings, of the items funded.
Grantees will also submit an Annual Budget Review and Program Plan to the Government via email 60 days prior to the end of each Agreement year that they are receiving grant funds. The Annual Budget Review and Program Plan will provide a detailed schedule of activities, estimate of specific performance objectives, include forecasted expenditures, and schedule of milestones for the upcoming year. If there is an actual or projected project cost increase, the Annual Budget Review will include a written plan for providing additional sources of funding to cover the project budget shortfall or supporting documentation of committed funds to cover the cost increase.
This information will be used to monitor grantees' use of Federal funds, ensuring accountability and financial transparency in the TIGER programs.
Grantees will also submit reports on the performance (or projected performance) of the project on performance measures that the grantee and the Government select through negotiations. The Grantees will submit a Pre-project Report that will consist of current baseline data for each of the performance measures specified in the Performance Measurement Table in the grant agreement negotiated between the grantee and the Government. The Pre-project Report will include a detailed description of data sources, assumptions, variability, and the estimated level of precision for each measure. The Grantees will submit interim Project Performance Measurement Reports to the Government for each of the performance measures specified in the Performance Measurement Table in the grant agreement negotiated between the grantee and the Government. Grantees will submit reports at each of the intervals identified for the duration of
This information collected will be used to evaluate and compare projects and the monitor results that grant funds achieve, ensuring that grant funds achieved the outcomes targeted by the TIGER Discretionary Grant program.
The Department's estimated burden for this information collection is the following:
Target Audience: Eligible Applicants” for TIGER Discretionary Grants are State, local, and tribal governments, including U.S. territories, transit agencies, port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), other political subdivisions of State or local governments, and multi-State or multi-jurisdictional groups applying through a single lead applicant (for multi-jurisdictional groups, each member of the group, including the lead applicant, must be an otherwise eligible applicant as described in this paragraph).
The following is detailed information and instructions regarding the specific reporting requirements for each report identified above:
TIGER Discretionary Grant program grantees will submit a Project Progress and Monitoring Report and the Federal Financial Report (SF-425) to the Government on a quarterly basis. Grantees should use the following structure when preparing the quarterly Project Progress and Monitoring Report.
•
○
○
○
○
○
1.
• Current total project cost (forecast) vs. latest budget vs. baseline budget. Include an explanation of the reasons for any deviations from the approved budget.
• Current overall project completion percentage vs. latest plan percentage.
• Any delays or exposures to milestone and final completion dates. Include an explanation of the reasons for the delays and exposures.
• A summary of the projected and actual dates for notices to proceed for significant contracts, start of construction, start of expenditure of TIGER Discretionary Grant funds, and project completion date. Include an explanation of the reasons for any discrepancies from the corresponding project milestone dates included in the Agreement.
• Any Federal obligations and/or TIFIA disbursements occurring during the month versus planned obligations or disbursements.
• Any significant contracts advertised, awarded, or completed.
• Any significant scope of work changes.
• Any significant items identified as having deficient quality.
• Any significant safety issues.
• Any significant Federal issues such as environmental compliance, Buy America/Buy American (whichever is applicable to this Project), Davis Bacon Act Prevailing Wage requirements,
2.
3.
4.
• Current overall project completion percentage vs. latest plan percentage.
• Completion percentages vs. latest plan percentages for major activities such as right-of-way, major or critical design contracts, major or critical construction contracts, and significant force accounts or task orders. A schedule status description should also be included for each of these major or critical elements.
• Any delays or potential exposures to milestone and final completion dates. The delays and exposures should be quantified and overall schedule impacts assessed. The reasons for the delays and exposures should be explained, and initiatives being analyzed or implemented in order to recover the schedule should be detailed.
5.
• Reasons for each line item deviation from the approved budget, impacts resulting from the deviations, and initiatives being analyzed or implemented in order to recover any cost overruns.
• Transfer of costs to and from contingency line items, and reasons supporting the transfers.
• Speculative cost changes that potentially may develop in the future, a quantified dollar range for each potential cost change, and the current status of the speculative change. Also, a comparison analysis to the available contingency amounts should be included, showing that reasonable and sufficient amounts of contingency remain to keep the project within the latest approved budget.
• Detailed cost breakdown of the general engineering consultant (GEC) services (if applicable), including such line items as contract amounts, task orders issued (amounts), balance remaining for tasks, and accrued (billable) costs.
• Federal obligations and/or TIFIA disbursements for the project, compared to planned obligations and disbursements.
6.
7.
8.
TIGER Discretionary Grant program grantees will submit an Annual Budget Review and Program Plan to the Government 60 days prior to the end of each Agreement year that they are receiving grant funds. Grantees should use the following structure when preparing the Annual Budget Review Report.
•
○
○
○
○
○
1.
2.
3.
4.
If there are no proposed deviations from the Approved Detailed Project Budget, the Annual Budget Review shall contain a statement stating such. The grantee will meet with the Government to discuss the Annual Budget Review and Program Plan. If there is an actual or projected project cost increase, the annual submittal should include a written plan for providing additional sources of funding to cover the project budget shortfall or supporting documentation of committed funds to cover the cost increase. To the extent the annual budget update deviates from the approved project budget by more than 10 percent, then work proposed under the Annual Budget Review and Program Plan shall not commence until written approval from the Government is received.
TIGER Discretionary Grant program grantees will submit Performance Measure Reports on the performance (or projected performance) of the project using the performance measures that the grantee and the Government selected through negotiations.
•
○
○
○
○
○
1.
2.
3.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA); correction.
This notice corrects a provision requiring grantees to have spent a certain amount of their previous grant award by a certain date, as stated in the Department of Veterans Affairs' February 3, 2015 NOFA, as amended on March 17, 2015,
Applications made in response to this amendment are due April 10, 2015.
Mr. John Kuhn, Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Office, National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, 4100 Chester Avenue, Suite 201, Philadelphia, PA 19104; (877) 737-0111 (this is a toll-free number);
In the
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |