| Page Range | 18773-19005 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 18842 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18855 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases;. Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18873 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18923 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Affidavit of Relationship | |
| 80 FR 18828 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18809 - Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent To Rescind in Part; Calendar Year 2013 | |
| 80 FR 18811 - Frontseating Service Valves From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 18812 - Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part | |
| 80 FR 18807 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 202-Los Angeles, California; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; syncreon Logistics (USA), LLC (Camera and Accessories Kitting); Torrance, California | |
| 80 FR 18816 - Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
| 80 FR 18829 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18830 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18839 - Notice of Decision To Issue A Clean Air Act Permit Modification For Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, LLC | |
| 80 FR 18806 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New York Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 18806 - State Advisory Committees | |
| 80 FR 18784 - Geographic-Based Hiring Preferences in Administering Federal Awards | |
| 80 FR 18841 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 18935 - Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP14-002 | |
| 80 FR 18937 - Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc.-Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption-in Broome County, N.Y., Essex, Union, Somerset, Hunterdon, and Warren Counties, N.J., Luzerne, Perry, York, Lancaster, Northampton, Lehigh, Carbon, Berks, Montgomery, Northumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon, and Philadelphia Counties, Pa., Harford, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Prince George's Counties, Md., the District of Columbia, and Arlington County, Va | |
| 80 FR 18937 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Waukesha County, Wis. | |
| 80 FR 18801 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications | |
| 80 FR 18870 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License | |
| 80 FR 18869 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive License | |
| 80 FR 18870 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License. | |
| 80 FR 18820 - Pacific Island Fisheries; Marine Conservation Plan for American Samoa | |
| 80 FR 18858 - Tribal Government To Government Consultation Policy: Solicitation of Public Comment | |
| 80 FR 18797 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Regulatory Amendment 20 | |
| 80 FR 18796 - Notice of Availability of Proposed Interim Policy Guidance for the Capital Investment Grant Program | |
| 80 FR 18926 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 18872 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests: Museum Locator Tool | |
| 80 FR 18838 - Defense Programs Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 18863 - Indian Gaming | |
| 80 FR 18839 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Background Checks for Contractor Employees (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 18823 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the South Atlantic States; Amendment 36 | |
| 80 FR 18821 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 80 FR 18858 - Notice of a Federal Advisory Committee Meeting: Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee General Subcommittee Teleconference | |
| 80 FR 18781 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #1 and #2 | |
| 80 FR 18928 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 80 FR 18924 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 18782 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 meters) Length Overall Using Jig or Hook-and-Line Gear in the Bogoslof Pacific Cod Exemption Area in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 80 FR 18867 - Public Availability of FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory Analysis, FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory, and FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory Planned Analysis | |
| 80 FR 18852 - Solicitation of Written Comments on the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 18939 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds-Change in State of Incorporation Arch Reinsurance Company | |
| 80 FR 18842 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 18842 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 18842 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 80 FR 18938 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Bondex Insurance Company | |
| 80 FR 18939 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company (NAIC #25615); Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (NAIC #25674); The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (NAIC #25682); The Travelers Indemnity Company of America (NAIC #25666) | |
| 80 FR 18867 - Controlled Substances: Proposed Adjustments to the Aggregate Production Quotas for Difenoxin, Diphenoxylate (for conversion), and Marijuana | |
| 80 FR 18865 - Final Environmental Impact Statement for Wilderness Stewardship Plan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Fresno and Tulare Counties, California | |
| 80 FR 18830 - Meeting of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel | |
| 80 FR 18922 - Interest Rates | |
| 80 FR 18938 - Surety Companies Acceptable On Federal Bonds: Termination Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company | |
| 80 FR 18938 - Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Termination; American Service Insurance Company, Inc. | |
| 80 FR 18864 - Notice of Meetings, Rio Grande Natural Area Commission | |
| 80 FR 18940 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Provo River Delta Restoration Project | |
| 80 FR 18855 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
| 80 FR 18862 - Receipt of Incidental Take Permit Applications for Participation in the Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma | |
| 80 FR 18827 - Determination Under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provision of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (“CAFTA-DR Agreement”) | |
| 80 FR 18848 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 18846 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 18844 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 80 FR 18773 - New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Change of Sponsor; Change of Sponsor's Name; Change of Sponsor's Address | |
| 80 FR 18777 - Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Application; Fomepizole | |
| 80 FR 18898 - John Hancock Exchange-Traded Fund Trust, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 18877 - Amplify Investments LLC and Amplify ETF Trust; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 18850 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Experiential Learning Program | |
| 80 FR 18856 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Naturalization, Form N-400; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 80 FR 18857 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322, Form N-600K; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 80 FR 18819 - Request for Information on Quantum Information Science and the Needs of U.S. Industry | |
| 80 FR 18831 - Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities-Research and Development Center To Advance the Use of New and Emerging Technologies to Ensure Accessibility | |
| 80 FR 18865 - Public Land Order No. 7832 Extension of Public Land Order No. 7133; Washington | |
| 80 FR 18866 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 80 FR 18843 - Commission To Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities; Announcement of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18843 - Information Collection; Federal Management Regulation; State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Property, GSA Form 3040 | |
| 80 FR 18863 - Proposed Renewal of Information Collection: OMB Control Number 1084-0010, Claim for Relocation Payments-Residential, DI-381 and Claim for Relocation Payments-Nonresidential, DI-382 | |
| 80 FR 18846 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 18848 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 18777 - Response to Vacaturs of the Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule | |
| 80 FR 18854 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18852 - Office of the Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of Biotechnology Activities; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 18853 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18873 - Amendment to Postal Product | |
| 80 FR 18913 - Janus ETF Trust, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 18883 - Trust for Professional Managers and William Blair & Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 18896 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price List To Specify That a Member Organization May Request That the Exchange Aggregate Its Eligible Activity With Activity of the Member Organization's Affiliates for Purposes of Charges or Credits Based on Volume | |
| 80 FR 18873 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending its Price List To Specify That a Member Organization May Request That the Exchange Aggregate its Eligible Activity With Activity of the Member Organization's Affiliates for Purposes of Charges or Credits Based on Volume | |
| 80 FR 18889 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Addendum A (Fee Structure) With Respect to the Alternative Investment Product Services | |
| 80 FR 18890 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4751(h) | |
| 80 FR 18907 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Postpone Implementation of Changes to Rule 4751(h)(5) | |
| 80 FR 18884 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 923NY To Refine the Appointment Process Utilized by the Exchange | |
| 80 FR 18909 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 6.35 To Refine the Appointment Process Utilized by the Exchange | |
| 80 FR 18881 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rulebook Provisions Establishing Decision-Making and Emergency Authority Over Clearing House Matters | |
| 80 FR 18894 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule | |
| 80 FR 18892 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule | |
| 80 FR 18875 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Move the Rule Text of Current Rule 1070, Customer Complaints, Into Rule 1028, Confirmations, To Accommodate an Upcoming Rulebook Reorganization | |
| 80 FR 18784 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Definitions for Residential Water Heaters | |
| 80 FR 18871 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
| 80 FR 18808 - Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 18814 - Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent To Rescind, in Part; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 18840 - Notice of Receipt of Requests for Amendments To Terminate Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations; Correction | |
| 80 FR 18780 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List: Deletion of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site | |
| 80 FR 18820 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
| 80 FR 18824 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
| 80 FR 18795 - Petition Requesting Rulemaking To Amend the Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles | |
| 80 FR 18840 - Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 18944 - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan |
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
National Nuclear Security Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Fiscal Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect application-related actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during January and February 2015. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable. The animal drug regulations are also being amended to reflect several non-substantive changes. These technical amendments are being made to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This rule is effective April 8, 2015, except for the amendment to 21 CFR 522.1004, which is effective April 20, 2015.
George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9019,
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during January and February 2015, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room:
In addition during January and February 2015, ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following approved applications have been transferred as follows:
At this time, the regulations are being amended to reflect these changes of sponsorship.
In addition, Paladin Labs (USA), Inc., 160 Greentree Dr., Suite 101, Dover, DE 19904 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of NADA 141-075 for ANTIZOL-VET (fomepizole) Injection. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Following these changes of sponsorship and withdrawal of approval, Hemoglobin Oxygen Therapeutics, LLC is now the sponsor of an approved application while OPK Biotech, LLC and Paladin Labs (USA), Inc., are no longer the sponsor of an approved application. Also, Merial Ltd., 3239 Satellite Blvd., Bldg. 500, Duluth, GA 30096-4640, has informed FDA that it has changed its name to Merial, Inc., and Intervet, Inc., 556 Morris Ave., Summit, NJ 07901, has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 2 Giralda Farms, Madison, NJ 07940. Accordingly, § 510.600 (21 CFR 510.600) is being amended to reflect these changes.
In addition, FDA is amending the tables in § 510.600(c) to remove listings for International Nutrition, Inc.; NutriBasics Co.; Seeco Inc.; Southern Micro-Blenders, Inc.; and Wellmark International because these firms are no longer the sponsor of an approved application. These technical amendments are being made to improve the accuracy of the regulations.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, 529, and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(c) * * *
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1) No. 058198 for use as in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A), (d)(1)(ii)(A), and (d)(2) of this section.
(2) No. 051311 for use as in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(B) and (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(b) * * *
(3) No. 026637 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) as in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(b) * * *
(2) No. 054771 for use as in paragraph (c) of this section.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(3)
21 U.S.C. 360b.
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
(e) * * *
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of withdrawal.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of a new animal drug application (NADA) for a fomepizole injectable solution used as an antidote for ethylene glycol poisoning in dogs. This action is being taken at the sponsor's request because this product is no longer manufactured or marketed.
Withdrawal of approval is effective April 20, 2015.
Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9075,
Paladin Labs (USA), Inc., 160 Greentree Dr., suite 101, Dover, DE 19904 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of NADA 141-075 for ANTIZOL-VET (fomepizole) Injection because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.
Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116
Elsewhere in this issue of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising regulations associated with the comparable fuels exclusion and the gasification exclusion, originally issued by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These revisions implement vacaturs ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), on June 27, 2014.
Effective April 8, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0118. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Tracy Atagi, at (703) 308-8672, (
Today's final rule applies to generators, transporters, and facilities treating, storing, disposing or otherwise managing hazardous wastes previously excluded from RCRA regulation under the comparable fuels rule or previously excluded from RCRA regulation under the gasification rule. EPA has not identified any entities currently operating under the gasification rule, but has identified 31 facilities that appear to be managing previously-excluded comparable fuels. A list of these facilities is available in the docket for today's rule (Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0118).
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the Agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for removing these provisions without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because these revisions are consistent with court orders vacating these rules. As a matter of law, the orders issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 27, 2014, vacated the “comparable fuels rule” and the gasification rule issued by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901,
These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3006, 3007, 3010, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6921, 6922, 6923, and 6924. This statute is commonly referred to as “RCRA.”
EPA is removing provisions at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) and 40 CFR 261.38 related to comparable fuels, and revising 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i) by removing gasification from the list of specific petroleum refining processes into which oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials may be inserted. The effect of the removal of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) and 261.38 will be to make comparable fuels that were previously excluded from the RCRA definition of solid waste subject to regulation under RCRA subtitle C. The removal of gasification from 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i) will prevent hazardous secondary materials generated at petroleum refineries from being inserted into gasifiers at refineries without being deemed hazardous wastes and therefore being subject to hazardous waste regulations under RCRA subtitle C. As a result of these previously excluded materials now being identified as hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.3, facilities burning these materials will be subject to regulation as Hazardous Waste Combustors under 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE, as well as applicable regulations under RCRA subtitle C.
EPA promulgated the Comparable Fuels Rule in 1998.
The Agency took the position that comparable fuels were not being “discarded” within the meaning of the definition of solid waste in RCRA section 1004(27), 42 U.S.C. 6903(27). RCRA defines solid wastes, for relevant purposes, as materials that have been discarded in the plain sense of the term, meaning that the material has been thrown away, disposed of or abandoned. Under RCRA a material regulated as a hazardous waste must first be a solid waste—that is, a discarded material. Thus, even though the comparable fuels were derived from materials that are listed hazardous wastes, EPA had concluded that fuels that met specified comparability criteria were not solid wastes because they looked no different from commercial fuels.
The comparable fuels rule was vacated by United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), on June 27, 2014 (
On November 3, 2014, the court granted EPA's motion to stay the issuance of the mandate for the comparable fuels rule until March 30, 2015, in order to allow affected facilities time to come into compliance with applicable subtitle C regulations.
Under the gasification rule, which was promulgated in 2008,
The gasification rule was vacated by United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), on June 27, 2014. (
The court issued its mandate for the vacatur of the gasification rule on November 3, 2014.
The removal of the comparable fuels exclusion and the revisions removing gasification as an exclusion are effective immediately.
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified state to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the state in lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the state. A state may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR 271.21 (see 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for authorization). EPA continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An authorized state also continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law.
After a state receives initial authorization, new federal requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new federal requirements and prohibitions imposed under subtitle C pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. As such, EPA carries out the HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so.
Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the existing federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than those in the federal program (see also 40 CFR 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt federal regulations that are considered less stringent than previous federal regulations or that narrow the scope of the RCRA program. Previously authorized hazardous waste regulations would continue to apply in those states.
On March 30, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its mandate, effectuating the vacatur of the comparable fuels rule, as described earlier in this document. The mandate for the gasification rule was issued on November 3, 2014. The court's vacaturs mean that these federal rules are legally null and void. Therefore, the court's mandates reinstate the regulatory status of the materials previously in effect as if the vacated rules never existed. Because excluded comparable fuels and gasified hazardous waste were, or would have been, previously regulated as discarded solid waste, these materials, if hazardous, must be handled as hazardous waste in compliance with requirements applicable to the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste after March 30, 2015. At the federal level, because the effect of the vacaturs means, in essence, that these rules should not have been promulgated, this document simply removes them from the exclusions in the federal regulations. At the state level, because no state rules were challenged in the litigation, the court decision does not affect any state exclusions. However, the vacaturs do have an impact on the authorization status of states. The multiple scenarios that exist in the states are discussed below.
For states that have no RCRA authorization status (Iowa, Alaska), the vacaturs simply mean that the federal rules will no longer be in effect in those states and by this document, EPA is alerting interested parties of the removal of the vacated rules from the Code of Federal Regulations. The subject materials are federally regulated and EPA may bring enforcement actions under RCRA Section 3008 at facilities that do not comply with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. The state programs are completely unaffected by the vacaturs and these states do not have to modify their programs in any way regardless of how they currently regulate the materials.
For states that have been authorized under RCRA but did not adopt rules similar to the comparable fuels and gasification rules (and therefore were not authorized for them), there were no federal comparable fuels and gasification rules in effect prior to vacatur because the federal comparable fuels and gasification rules were less stringent than the federal hazardous waste regulations and states were not required to adopt or become authorized for these rules. Therefore, these vacaturs will have no effect on the authorization status in these states. The subject materials remain regulated under the authorized state hazardous waste program and EPA may continue to bring enforcement actions under RCRA Section 3008 at facilities that do not comply with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. These states do not have to modify their programs.
For states that have adopted similar rules but have not yet been authorized for them, the vacatur of the federal rules will not change the authorization status of the state programs. The authorization status that was established prior to the adoption of the state counterpart rules remains in effect and EPA may continue to bring enforcement actions under RCRA Section 3008 at facilities that do not comply with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. The vacaturs and subsequent removal of the federal rules will result in state programs that are less stringent than the federal program as long as state provisions that exclude the subject materials from regulation remain in effect in the state programs. EPA encourages these states to expeditiously remove these rules from their programs.
For states that have previously been authorized for the comparable fuels and gasification rules, the effect of the vacaturs is that the previously authorized comparable fuels and gasification rules from the state program will no longer be considered part of the federally authorized program. Thus, EPA may bring enforcement actions under RCRA Section 3008 at facilities that do not comply with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. In other words, the authorization status of the state program that was in place prior to authorization of the state comparable fuels and gasification rules is reinstated with regard to these rules. EPA strongly
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Solid Waste.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939 and 6974.
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 6938.
(a) * * *
(12)(i) Oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials (
(16) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces the deletion of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site (Site), located in Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all
This action is effective April 8, 2015.
Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region 8, Mail code: 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129; Phone: (303) 312-6762; Email:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Midvale Slag Superfund Site (Site), located in Salt Lake County, Utah. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was March 9, 2015. One public comment was received. The comment requested that the Site not be deleted over concerns that water quality in the Jordan River would not be protected from the potential release of hazardous substances from the Kennecott North and Kennecott South Sites. The EPA believes the deletion action is appropriate as the remediation goals for this Site have been met and the water monitoring data shows that the Jordan River is not being adversely affected by this Site. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND EPA-HQ-SFUND-1991-0006, on
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580. 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Modification of fishing seasons; request for comments.
NMFS announces two inseason actions in the ocean salmon fisheries. These inseason actions modified the commercial salmon fisheries in the area from the Cape Falcon, OR, to Point Arena, CA.
The effective dates for the inseason actions are set out in this document under the heading Inseason Actions. Comments will be accepted through April 23, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0005, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.
In the 2014 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (79 FR 24580, May 1, 2014), NMFS announced the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2014, and 2015 salmon seasons opening earlier than May 1, 2015. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR
Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The inseason actions reported in this document affect fisheries south of Cape Falcon. Within the south of Cape Falcon area, the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) extends from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Humboldt South Jetty, CA, and is divided at the Oregon/California border into the Oregon KMZ to the north and California KMZ to the south. All times mentioned refer to Pacific daylight time.
All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2014 ocean salmon fisheries and 2015 fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2015 (79 FR 24580, May 1, 2014).
The RA determined that the best available information indicated that Chinook salmon abundance forecasts and estimates of fishery impacts supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states of Oregon and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (79 FR 24580, May 1, 2014), the West Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (Salmon FMP), and regulations implementing the Salmon FMP, 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon abundance forecasts and catch and effort projections were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information, ensuring that conservation objectives and ESA consultation standards are not exceeded. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the Salmon FMP and the current management measures.
These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using jig or hook-and-line gear in the Bogoslof Pacific cod
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 3, 2015, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2015.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
In accordance with § 679.22(a)(7)(i)(C)(
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishery closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using jig or hook-and-line gear in the Bogoslof Pacific cod exemption area. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of April 2, 2015.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.22 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Extension of comment period on proposed rule.
This action extends the comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend the DOT's implementation of the Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards to permit recipients and subrecipients to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute. This NPRM was published in the
Comments must be received by May 6, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2015-0013 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
Michael Harkins, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for General Law (OST-C10), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-0590.
On March 6, 2015, the Department published a NPRM proposing to amend the DOT's implementation of the Government-wide Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards to permit recipients and subrecipients to impose geographic-based hiring preferences whenever not otherwise prohibited by Federal statute. On March 13, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) posted a comment requesting DOT extent the comment period for this NPRM by 30 days to May 6. With this notice, the DOT is granting this request by further extending the comment period to May 6.
The DOT has also received a comment to the docket asking whether this proposed rule applies to rolling stock. The DOT specifically requests comments on this issue and whether the DOT should clarify the proposed rule's application to the procurement of rolling stock.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR).
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential water heaters. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more stringent amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. Accordingly, DOE established amended energy conservation standards for several classes of residential water heaters in an April 2010 final rule. In this notice, DOE proposes to amend its definitions pertaining to residential water heaters and to clarify the applicability of energy conservation standards for residential water heaters that are utilized as a secondary back-up heat source in solar-thermal water heating systems. Specifically, DOE is proposing to create a definition for “solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heater” and “solar-assisted electric storage water heater” and clarify that water heaters meeting these definitions are not subject to the amended energy
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later than May 8, 2015. See section V, “Public Participation” for details.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Water Heaters, and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0045 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD48. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).
Docket: The docket, which includes
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying DOE's standards for residential water heaters and this NOPR, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for residential water heaters.
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended
Under EPCA, energy conservation programs generally consist of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) establishing Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling consumer products, and DOE implements the remainder of the program.
EPCA contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for residential water heaters (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(1)) and directed DOE to conduct rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(4)) DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next review that
On January 17, 2001, DOE published a final rule prescribing the Federal energy conservation standards for residential water heaters that are currently in effect for units manufactured on or after January 20, 2004. 66 FR 4474 (“January 2001 Final Rule”). The January 2001 Final Rule set minimum energy factors (EFs) that vary based on the storage volume of the water heater, the type of energy it uses (
On April 16, 2010, DOE published a final rule in the
Table I.2 presents the amended Federal energy conservation standards for residential water heaters, which are also set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(d).
On October 21, 2014, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI) in the
1. Solar water heating technologies that utilize a secondary heating source that are currently available to the consumer.
2. Design differences between water heaters that are designed to be part of a solar water heating system compared to those meant for typical residences without a solar water heating system.
3. Heating rates and the amount of hot water that can be supplied by water heaters meant to serve as a secondary heat source for a solar collector compared to the heating rates and hot water supply capacity water heaters.
4. The fractions of single tank and dual tank solar water heating systems, and whether the secondary water heaters used include design features that differ from conventional residential water heaters.
5. The manufacturers of water heaters used in solar thermal installations, the market share of each manufacturer, and whether any of them are small businesses.
6. The total annual shipments of the market for solar water heating systems that utilize secondary heat sources, the fractions of water heaters that are used to provide secondary water heating by rated volume, input capacity, and fuel type.
7. Any other attributes of solar water heating tanks which distinguish them from conventional storage or instantaneous water heaters. 79 FR 62891, 62893-94 (Oct. 21, 2014).
After considering the comments on the RFI and the characteristics and applications of hot water storage tanks used in solar thermal systems and having a backup gas, oil, or electric heat source, DOE has tentatively concluded that the analysis conducted for the April 2010 final rule did not adequately consider such applications and the accompanying backup tanks. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to add clarifying text to 10 CFR 430.32(d) indicating that the energy conservation standards for residential water heaters
As stated in section I.B, compliance with an amended energy conservation standard for residential water heaters will be required beginning on April 16, 2015. 75 FR 20111. DOE has tentatively concluded that hot water storage tanks used in solar thermal systems that have a backup gas, oil, or electric heat source were not adequately considered in the analysis for the April 2010 rule. Therefore, DOE is undertaking this rulemaking to clarify the scope of DOE's existing energy conservation standards for residential water heaters.
In response to the October 2014 RFI, DOE received 4 written comments from the following interested parties: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),
Generally, the ACEEE joint comment recommended that DOE not consider a rulemaking to adopt a new minimum efficiency standard for residential solar-thermal water heaters because the extremely small sales volume of these products does not justify the effort to set a standard. The ACEEE joint comment argued that customers of these expensive systems would buy only from reputable manufacturers and installers and use either the ENERGY STAR brand or a high rating under the SRCC program to guide their purchasing decision. (ACEEE joint comment, No. 2 at p. 1-2) The ACEEE joint comment also recommended that DOE not consider a rulemaking to adopt a new test method for residential solar-thermal water heating systems because a widely accepted non-federal test method and rating program for solar water heaters built around OG-300 solar system ratings already exists. (ACEEE joint comment, No. 2 at p. 1) The SEIA joint comment recommended an exemption be established for backup water heaters which prioritize solar heating over the secondary heat source and that the volume heated by the secondary heat source be less than or equal to 55 gallons. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 6) Similarly, Rheem commented that the residential water heater standard for conventional water heaters should not be applied to solar water heaters because they are different systems and not direct substitutes. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 2)
DOE generally agrees with these commenters' points and notes that the purpose of this NOPR is not to consider new energy conservation standards or test methods for solar water heating systems, but rather to clarify the scope of DOE's existing standards. Specifically, DOE is proposing amendments to clarify that DOE's standards for residential water heaters are not applicable to water heaters that are used as a backup heat source in solar thermal water heating systems.
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
Existing energy conservation standards divide residential water heaters into product classes based on primary energy source (
Residential water heaters that use solar energy only are not covered by DOE regulations for residential water heaters since they do not utilize gas, oil, or electricity as required by the definition of a “water heater” under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6291(27)) However, residential water heaters that use solar energy but that are combined with storage tanks with secondary or backup energy sources that use electricity, gas, or oil are covered, provided that they meet all other requirements to be considered a “water heater”. This rule considers only solar-thermal tanks designed for residential use; therefore, the water heater must be described by the fuel type and volumes specified in Table I.2 and reiterated in Table III.1 and meet the input capacity limitations set forth in EPCA and shown below in Table III.1. (42 U.S.C. 6291(16))
Solar water heating systems that are the subject of this NOPR generally consist of a solar collector to capture heat from the sun and a storage tank that stores the potable water that has been heated by the solar collector for use on demand. These systems typically require a secondary heat source for times when solar energy is not sufficient to provide adequate hot water. In the October 2014 RFI, DOE requested
Both Rheem's comment and the SEIA joint comment stated that all solar water heating systems sold in the U.S. today are paired with a conventional backup heating source (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 2, Rheem, No. 4 at p. 2). Furthermore, the SEIA joint comment specified that a single-tank electric/solar water heating system consists of a single tank which serves as both a solar storage tank and a conventional water heater (when adequate solar energy is unavailable). In these tanks, a 4.5 kW electric element is commonly located in the upper part of the tank, leaving one-half to two-thirds of the tank unheated by the electric element due to temperature stratification, which causes the heated water to remain mostly in the upper part of the tank. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 2)
In the October 2014 RFI, DOE requested comment on any other attributes of solar water heating systems that utilize secondary heating tanks, which distinguish them from conventional storage or instantaneous water heaters. 79 FR 62891, 62893 (Oct. 21, 2014).
The SEIA joint comment stated that solar water heating systems offer advantages over conventional water heating equipment that are overlooked or not understood. For example, solar water heating systems provide lower peak load requirements (which can be beneficial to utility companies), are not sensitive to flow rates, and have lower maintenance requirements than instantaneous heating systems. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 8) The commenters also noted that solar water heating systems have several advantages over heat pump water heaters, including better performance in cold climate, no air circulation considerations, and no special skills required to install and maintain. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 9)
In the October 2014 RFI, DOE specifically sought comment on the design differences between water heaters that are designed to be part of a solar water heating system compared to those meant for typical residences without a solar water heating system. DOE also requested comment on the heating rates and the amount of hot water that can be supplied by water heaters meant to serve as a secondary heat source for a solar collector compared to the heating rates and hot water supply capacity of other water heaters, and whether there are any other attributes of solar water heating systems that utilize secondary heating tanks that distinguish them from conventional storage or instantaneous water heaters. 79 FR 62891, 62893 (Oct. 21, 2014).
AHRI's comment, Rheem's comment, and the SEIA joint comment stated that generally solar water heaters that use secondary heating tanks are fairly similar to conventional water heaters. (AHRI, No. 3 at p. 2, Rheem, No. 4 at p. 5)
In noting the design differences between conventional water heaters and those used in solar-thermal water heating systems, AHRI, Rheem and the joint SEIA comment stated that there is a range of design differences in water heaters intended to be part of a solar thermal installation and those intended for a conventional installation. Water heaters intended for use in solar-thermal systems typically have two extra threaded ports as well as specifically designed controls. Other features may include special heat exchangers or additional backup heating elements. (AHRI, No. 3 at p. 1, Rheem, No. 4 at p. 3, SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 4) On the other hand, the ACEEE joint commenters stated that they would be surprised to find many products specifically designed as auxiliary heat sources for solar thermal water heating systems, and that the only special features for a solar storage tank by itself would be a double-wall water-to-water heat exchanger for indirect systems employing non-potable antifreeze in the primary loop. (ACEEE joint comment, No. 2 at p. 2)
Several commenters stated that solar water heaters are sized differently than conventional water heaters. The SEIA joint comment stated that the solar component of a typical 80 gallon solar/electric system can heat between 40 and 80 gallons depending on the level of solar radiation and the rate of use, where up to 40 gallons is heated by the electric element. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 6)
Rheem also stated that their 80 and 120 gallon storage water heaters can provide up to 40 gallons of backup element water heating capacity regardless of the tank volume. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI's comment and the SEIA joint comment stated that the performance characteristics of solar water heaters can be less than a standard water heater. (AHRI, No. 3 at p. 2, SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 6)
Another design difference that was noted by commenters centered around the location and number of the plumbing connections on the storage tank that are used in solar thermal systems. Rheem commented that the cold water inlet connections on solar water heating storage tanks are located at the bottom to prevent mixing with heated water as compared to the cold water inlet being typically located at the top of a traditional storage tank. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 4) Rheem also commented that the features of its solar storage water heater increase the manufacturing complexity and cost of the heaters, and therefore it is not anticipated that the heaters would be substituted for a standard water heater in an installation without a solar collector. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 5)
DOE considered all of the above comments when developing its tentative conclusions regarding solar-assisted electric storage water heaters and solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heaters (see section III.D).
DOE has conducted preliminary research to investigate the solar water heating equipment market. Based on a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), DOE distinguished between two distinct periods of solar water heater installations. From 1985 to 2005, when there were no tax incentives for solar water heaters, the number of installations ranged from approximately 5,000 to 10,000 annually. Federal and State tax incentives were instituted in 2006. Between 2006 and 2010, there were between approximately 18,000 and 33,500 solar thermal water heater systems installed annually in the U.S.
In the October 2014 RFI, DOE requested comments on various topics related to the market for solar water heating systems. Specifically, DOE requested information on the fractions of single tank and dual tank solar water heating systems. DOE also sought comments on the manufacturers of water heaters used in solar thermal installations, as well as the market share of each manufacturer, and whether any of them are small businesses. Lastly, DOE sought input regarding the total annual shipments of solar water heating systems that utilize secondary heat sources, the fractions of water heaters that are used to provide secondary water heating by rated volume, input capacity, and fuel type. 79 FR 62891, 62893 (Oct. 21, 2014).
The SEIA joint comment stated that dual tank systems are normally only used when the end use is heating water with natural gas, propane, or fuel oil, and that most dual tank systems are located in areas with strong financial incentives. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 6) The following market distribution of systems is currently certified by the SRCC: 43 percent of systems are dual tank, 45 percent are single tank, and 12 percent are tankless. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 6 n.13) For dual tank systems, the distribution by fuel type certified by the SRCC is as follows: 54 percent use natural gas as backup, 45 percent use electricity, and 1 percent use oil. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 7) Regarding the number of units actually installed, the SEIA joint comment estimated that the ratio of single tank to dual tank systems installed is 4 to 1. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 7)
Rheem commented that it sells solar thermal systems with a single storage tank. Rheem noted that some installers have the opportunity to install multiple small tanks or combinations of tanks to store heat collected when sunlight is available, and that specific designs are based on the hot water requirement of the dwelling and the solar capacity available from the collectors. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 3)
The SEIA joint comment provided the market share of water heater manufacturers for the entire market as follows: A.O. Smith represents about half of the total U.S. market for water heaters (50 percent), Rheem approximately one third (33 percent), and Bradford White holds about 13 percent market share; the remaining 4 percent is comprised of other brands. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 7) Rheem stated that solar thermal water heating systems are a low sales volume product for Rheem, and that it is a major manufacturer of storage water heaters. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 3)
Regarding annual shipments of solar water heating systems, the SEIA joint comment stated that in 2013, 2,200 solar water heating systems using 80 or 120 gallon tanks received a rebate for installation in Hawaii (excluding Kauai County). In addition, solar water heating systems installed on new single-family home construction with tanks in the 65 to 120 gallon range can be estimated at 1,500 per year. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 7) Based on a report from International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Programme, the SEIA joint comment estimates that 22,500 new solar domestic water heating systems are being installed in the U.S. annually. (SEIA joint comment, No. 5 at p. 8) Rheem commented that its annual sales of thermal storage water heaters is less than one day of production of conventional storage water heaters. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 3)
DOE has considered the comments discussed in sections III.B and III.C and has tentatively determined that solar-assisted electric storage water heaters and solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heaters are distinguishable from other categories of storage water heaters. Even though solar-assisted water heaters use electricity or fossil fuel to heat water without the use of solar thermal panels, DOE notes that the heating capacity of the tank with a comparable rated storage volume is reduced based on the design difference of the heating element or the fossil fuel burner. The plumbing configuration of the tank is also different in order for the storage tank to utilize the solar heated water in an optimized manner. DOE further notes that purchasers of these solar-assisted water heating systems may not be considering the economic criteria of the storage water heater tank alone, given that a significant portion of the installed cost of these systems is attributable to the solar thermal portion of the system and that a substantial portion of the water heating load may be provided by solar energy, as opposed to marketed fuels such as electricity, gas, or oil. These purchasers, therefore, may place an added value on owning a “green” system, which could provide different economic and performance benefits to these consumers when compared to an electric or fossil fuel storage water heater. For these reasons, DOE has determined that the minimum efficiency standard levels promulgated in the April 16, 2010 final rule do not apply to these categories of water heaters.
In order to clarify the applicability of DOE's regulations to solar-assisted water heaters, DOE proposes to define the terms “solar-assisted electric storage water heater” and “solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heater” at 10 CFR 430.2 and clarify that products meeting these definitions are not subject to DOE's current or amended standards for residential water heaters at 10 CFR 430.32(d). In addition to the data and comments received in response to the request for information, DOE also used the certified ratings from DOE's Compliance Certification Data base, as of February 2015, to gather information such as average first hour ratings for basic models being distributed in commerce for various storage volumes.
Based on the comments discussed in section II.B, DOE proposes to define a solar-assisted electric storage water heater as a product that utilizes electricity to heat potable water for use outside the heater upon demand and—
(A) stores water at a thermostatically controlled temperature with an input of 12 kilowatts or less;
(B) has at least two threaded ports in addition to those used for introduction and delivery of potable water for the supply and return of water or a heat transfer fluid heated externally by solar panels;
(C) does not have electric resistance heating elements located in the lower half of the storage tank;
(D) has the temperature sensing device that controls the auxiliary electric heat source located in the upper half of the storage tank; and
(E) has a certified first hour rating less than 63 gallons.
Similarly, DOE proposes to define a solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heater at 10 CFR 430.2 as a product that utilizes oil or gas to heat potable water for use outside the heater upon demand and—
(A) stores water at a thermostatically controlled temperature, including gas storage water heaters with an input of 75,000 Btu per hour or less and oil storage water heaters with an input of 105,000 Btu per hour or less;
(B) has at least two threaded ports in addition to those used for introduction and delivery of potable water for the supply and return of water or a heat transfer fluid heated externally by solar panels;
(C) has the burner located in the upper half of the storage tank;
(D) has the temperature sensing device that controls the auxiliary gas or oil heat source located in the upper half of the storage tank; and
(E) has a certified first hour rating less than 69 gallons for gas storage water heaters and has a certified first hour rating less than 128 gallons for oil storage water heaters.
DOE is specifically seeking comment on one element of its proposed definition of solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heaters that would limit solar-assisted water heaters to only those with the burner located in the upper half of the storage tank. DOE is aware of solar backup water heaters that have burners located in the upper portion of the tank but acknowledges that there are others that have burners located at the bottom of the water heater. The Department is concerned that water heaters with burners located at the bottom of the tank can be used as a household's main water heater without solar backup and should, therefore, be treated in the same manner as conventional water heaters with regards to standards. Thus, DOE seeks comment on the merits of this proposal.
DOE also requests comment on other ways to define solar-assisted water heaters, including both definitional criteria not listed in the proposed definitions above and any performance-based criteria that might involve tests to determine whether the definition is met.
Although water heaters meeting the definition of “solar-assisted electric storage water heater” or “solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heater” remain covered products as water heaters, DOE proposes to clarify at 10 CFR 430.32(d) that these water heaters are not subject to the energy conservation standards currently specified in 10 CFR 430.32(d). DOE also proposes to clarify that the test methods described in 10 CFR 430.23(e) are applicable to solar-assisted water heaters for purposes of representing their performance when described as a stand-alone item (
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The problems that the proposed standards address are as follows:
(1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
(2) In some cases the benefits of more efficient equipment are not realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An example of such a case is when the equipment purchase decision is made by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy costs.
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of appliances that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to public health, environmental protection, and national security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global warming.
In addition, this regulatory action is not an “economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, DOE is not required under section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on this rule and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is not required to review this rule.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that this NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For manufacturers of residential water heaters, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13
To estimate the number of companies that could be small business manufacturers of solar-assisted water heaters covered by this rulemaking, DOE constructed a list of residential water heater manufacturers by conducting a market survey using publicly available information. DOE's research involved industry trade association membership directories (including AHRI), information from previous rulemakings, individual company Web sites, SBA's database, and market research tools (
DOE initially identified eight manufacturers of solar-assisted water heaters sold in the United States. After reviewing publicly available information on these potential residential water heater manufacturers, DOE determined that five were either large manufacturers or manufacturers that were completely foreign owned and operated. Based on these efforts, DOE estimated that there are three small business manufacturers of water heaters that meet the definition of solar-assisted electric storage water heater or solar-assisted fossil fuel water heater, as proposed in this NOPR.
DOE is not proposing any amended standards for residential water heater manufacturers in this NOPR. Rather, the Department proposes to define solar-assisted electric storage water heaters and solar-assisted fossil fuel-fired storage water heaters, and to clarify that current residential water heater standards do not apply to such products. As a result, DOE certifies that this NOPR will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and therefore, has not prepared an IRFA. DOE will transmit this certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) for review under 5 U.S.C 605(b).
A statement of the objectives of, and reasons and legal basis for, the proposed rule are set forth elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
Manufacturers of residential water heaters must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for residential water heaters, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including residential water heaters. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This proposal clarifies the applicability of the amended energy conservation standards to solar-assisted water heaters and thus, also clarifies the certification requirements. If the proposal is finalized as proposed, those water heaters meeting the definition of solar-assisted in DOE's regulations would not have to be certified with the Department because they would not be subject to standards.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The proposed rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that clarifies the applicability of energy conservation standards for consumer products, and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule. DOE's CX determination for this proposed rule is available at
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, and will not require expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. Accordingly, no further action is required under the UMRA.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which clarifies applicability of the energy conservation standards for residential water heaters, is not a significant energy action because the proposed clarifications are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The “Energy Conservation
DOE welcomes all interested parties to submit in writing by May 8, 2015 comments, data, and other information on matters addressed in this proposal and on other matters relevant to consideration of definitions for residential water heaters.
After the closing of the comment period, DOE will consider all timely-submitted comments and additional information obtained from interested parties, as well as information obtained through further analyses. Afterward, DOE will publish either supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking or a final rule amending these definitions and clarifying the applicability of standards. The final rule would include definitions for the products covered by the rulemaking.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. Are the criteria proposed to define solar-assisted water heaters sufficient to describe these types of water heaters?
2. Are there alternative ways to define solar-assisted water heaters including additional prescriptive design criteria or performance-based criteria that might involve tests to determine whether the definition is met?
3. Should a criterion be added to the definition of solar-assisted fossil fuel-fired water heaters that requires the burner to be located in the upper half of the tank?
4. Is the uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of water heaters appropriate for representing the performance of solar-assisted electric and fossil fuel-fired storage water heaters?
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, and Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(1) stores water at a thermostatically controlled temperature with an input of 12 kilowatts or less;
(2) has at least two threaded ports in addition to those used for introduction and delivery of potable water for the supply and return of water or a heat transfer fluid heated externally by solar panels;
(3) does not have electric resistance heating elements located in the lower half of the storage tank;
(4) has the temperature sensing device that controls the auxiliary electric heat source located in the upper half of the storage tank;
(5) has a certified first hour rating less than 63 gallons.
(1) stores water at a thermostatically controlled temperature, including gas storage water heaters with an input of 75,000 Btu per hour or less and oil storage water heaters with an input of 105,000 Btu per hour or less;
(2) has at least two threaded ports in addition to those used for introduction and delivery of potable water for the supply and return of water or a heat transfer fluid heated externally by solar panels;
(3) has the burner located in the upper half of the storage tank;
(4) has the temperature sensing device that controls the auxiliary heat source located in the upper half of the storage tank; and
(5) has a certified first hour rating less than 69 gallons for gas storage water heaters and has a certified first hour rating less than 128 gallons for oil storage water heaters.
(d)
(i) gas-fired, oil-fired, and electric water heaters at or above 2 gallons storage volume and below 20 gallons storage volume;
(ii) gas-fired water heaters above 100 gallons storage volume;
(iii) oil-fired water heaters above 50 gallons storage volume;
(iv) electric water heaters above 120 gallons storage volume;
(v) gas-fired instantaneous water heaters at or below 50,000 Btu/h;
(vi) solar-assisted electric storage water heaters; and
(vii) solar-assisted fossil fuel storage water heaters.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of Petition for Rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) has received a petition requesting amendments to the test procedure in the
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by June 8, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0007, by any of the following methods:
Rocky Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD, 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833, email:
On February 4, 2015, CPSC's Office of the Secretary received a petition to the Commission to initiate rulemaking to amend the test procedure in 16 CFR part 1610,
By this notice, the Commission seeks comments concerning this petition. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833. The petition is also available at
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of availability of proposed interim policy guidance; request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) invites public comment on interim policy guidance the agency is proposing for the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. The proposed interim guidance has been placed in the docket and posted on the FTA Web site. If adopted, this proposed interim policy guidance will complement FTA's regulations that govern the CIG program by providing a deeper level of detail about the methods for applying the project justification and local financial commitment criteria for rating and evaluating New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvement projects, and the procedures for getting through the steps in the process required by law.
Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2015. Any comments received beyond this deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments to DOT docket number FTA-2015-0007 by any of the following methods:
All comments received will be posted, without charge and including any personal information provided, to
Elizabeth Day, FTA Office of Planning and Environment, telephone (202) 366-5159 or
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(g)(5), FTA is obliged to publish policy guidance on the review and evaluation process and criteria for projects eligible for Federal funding under the CIG program each time the agency makes significant changes to the process and criteria, and in any event, at least once every two years. Also, FTA is obliged to invite public comment on the guidance, and to publish its response to comments. In brief, the policy guidance that FTA periodically issues for the discretionary Capital Investment Grant (“CIG”) program complements the FTA regulations that govern the CIG program, codified at 49 CFR part 611. The regulations set forth the process that grant applicants must follow to be considered eligible for discretionary funding under the CIG program, and the procedures and criteria FTA uses to rate and evaluate the projects eligible for that discretionary funding. The policy guidance provides a greater level of detail about the methods FTA uses to apply the criteria for both project justification and local financial commitment, and the sequential steps a sponsor must follow in developing a project.
The interim policy guidance FTA is proposing today is available in its entirety on the agency's public Web site at
Most importantly, the guidance proposed today addresses four subjects not addressed in either the regulations or previous policy guidance for the CIG program. These are, specifically: (1) The measures and breakpoints for the congestion relief criterion applicable to New Starts and Small Starts projects; (2) the evaluation and rating process for Core Capacity Improvement projects, including the measures and breakpoints for all the project justification and local financial commitment criteria applicable to those projects; (3) the prerequisites for entry into each phase of the CIG process for each type of project in the CIG program, and the requirements for completing each phase of that process; and (4) ways in which certain New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity Improvement projects can qualify for “warrants” entitling them to automatic ratings on some of the evaluation criteria. Readers should please direct their comments to these four subjects. All the other material in this guidance document has been developed through public notice-and-comment for the regulations at 49 CFR part 611 or the previous policy guidance for the CIG program. The newly proposed requirements are clearly identified in the text of each chapter, and in an accompanying table, for easy reference.
This proposed policy guidance is characterized as “interim” in that, in the near future, FTA will initiate a rulemaking to amend the regulations at 49 CFR part 611 to fully carry out the authorization statute for the CIG program, 49 U.S.C. 5309, as amended by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012) (“MAP-21”). The information gained through the public comment
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Regulatory Amendment 20 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Regulatory Amendment 20), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would revise the snowy grouper annual catch limits (ACLs), commercial trip limit, and recreational fishing season. The purpose of this rule is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) and prevent overfishing of snowy grouper while enhancing socio-economic opportunities within the snapper-grouper fishery in accordance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2015.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0003” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the regulatory amendment, which includes an environmental assessment and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
Snowy grouper is in the snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to achieve on a continuing basis the OY from federally-managed fish stocks. This mandate is intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
This proposed rule would revise the snowy grouper ACLs for both the commercial and recreational sectors, revise the commercial trip limits, and revise the recreational fishing season. All weights described in the preamble of this proposed rule are in gutted weight.
In 2013, a standard stock assessment for snowy grouper was conducted using the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) process (SEDAR 36). SEDAR 36 indicates the snowy grouper stock is no longer undergoing overfishing, remains overfished, and is rebuilding.
Snowy grouper is in a rebuilding plan and catch levels are currently being held constant as the stock rebuilds. While the amendment states that it is changing the rebuilding strategy, the effect of the action is to adopt the acceptable biological catch (ABC) chosen by the Council as recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) based upon the stock assessment. The Council's SSC recommended an ABC equal to the yield at 75 percent of the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F
The current ABC is 87,254 lb (39,578 kg), which equals the total allowable catch specified by the rebuilding strategy in Amendment 15A to the FMP. As described in Regulatory Amendment 20, the ABC would increase to 139,098 lb (63,094 kg) in 2015; 151,518 lb (68,727 kg) in 2016; 163,109 lb (73,985 kg) in 2017; 173,873 lb (78,867 kg) in 2018; and 185,464 lb (84,125 kg) in 2019 and subsequent fishing years.
SEDAR 36 updated the historical landings data for snowy grouper from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS) to the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Additionally, recreational landings from Monroe County, Florida, which encompasses the islands of the Florida Keys, were included in the SEDAR 36 stock assessment. The recreational landings data from Monroe County were not included in the first stock assessment conducted for snowy grouper in 2004 (SEDAR 4) because it was not possible at that time to separate out the data from Monroe County from the landings data for the rest of the west coast of Florida. However, in 2013, a method was developed for extracting and separating the recreational landings from Monroe County from the rest of the west coast of Florida and therefore, the Monroe County recreational data were included in SEDAR 36. When applying the existing allocation formula for snowy grouper to the change in landings from the SEDAR 36 assessment, a shift results in the sector ACLs from 95 percent commercial and 5 percent recreational
The proposed rule would increase the ACLs for snowy grouper based on the ABC chosen by the Council, as recommended by their SSC based on the results of SEDAR 36. The current snowy grouper commercial ACL is 82,900 lb (37,603 kg). This proposed rule would revise the commercial ACL to 115,451 lb (52,368 kg) in 2015; 125,760 lb (57,044 kg) in 2016; 135,380 lb (61,407 kg) in 2017; 144,315 lb (65,460 kg) in 2018; and 153,935 lb (69,824 kg) in 2019, and subsequent fishing years. The current snowy grouper recreational ACL is 523 fish. This proposed rule would revise the snowy grouper recreational ACL to 4,152 fish in 2015; 4,483 fish in 2016; 4,819 fish in 2017, 4,983 fish in 2018; and 5,315 fish in 2019, and subsequent fishing years.
This proposed rule would revise the snowy grouper commercial trip limit from the current 100 lb (45 kg) to 200 lb (91 kg). With an increased trip limit, the expected length of the fishing season may decrease. However, the Council determined that since the commercial ACL would be increasing yearly from 2015 to 2019, a relatively small increase in the commercial trip limit to 200 lb (91 kg) would help to maintain a longer fishing season when combined with the commercial ACL increase. Furthermore, because the fishing year for snowy grouper begins on January 1, the Council felt that a higher trip limit for snowy grouper at the beginning of the year could enhance profits for commercial snapper-grouper fishermen because shallow-water grouper species are closed during January-April, leaving snowy grouper as one of few options for purchase by dealers and fish houses. Additionally, with a May harvest opening for many snapper-grouper species, other fish would be available to target if snowy grouper closes in the summer.
The current snowy grouper fishing season is year-round with a recreational bag limit of one snowy grouper per vessel per day. This proposed rule would revise the recreational fishing season to one snowy grouper per vessel per day from May through August, with no retention of snowy grouper during the rest of the year. Snowy grouper recreational landings exceeded the recreational ACL by approximately 400 percent in both 2012 and 2013, and as a result of the accountability measures, the recreational sector closed on May 31 in 2013, and on June 7 in 2014. The Council determined that reducing the current year-round recreational fishing season to a 4-month season would help minimize the risk of exceeding the recreational ACL. The months of May through August are when recreational fishermen throughout the South Atlantic generally have equal access to the resource due to good weather conditions. The fishing season dates and bag limit for the snowy grouper recreational sector would match those proposed for a co-occurring species, blueline tilefish, through Amendment 32 to the FMP. Thus, this approach could help reduce discard mortality for snowy grouper, which can be targeted along with blueline tilefish, another co-occurring deep-water species. The Council determined that similar recreational management measures and fishing seasons for snowy grouper and blueline tilefish would be beneficial to both fish stocks as they are caught at the same depths and have similar high release mortality rates.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 20, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this rule. Accordingly, this rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect federally permitted commercial fishers harvesting for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic. The Small Business Administration established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesters and for-hire operations. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all of its affiliated operations worldwide.
Charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels) sell fishing services, which include the harvest of any species considered in this proposed rule, to recreational anglers. These vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species, though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision to purchase these services. Changing the allowable harvest of a species, including a fishery closure, only defines what species may be kept and does not explicitly prevent the continued offer of for-hire fishing services. In response to a change in the allowable harvest of a species, including a zero-fish possession limit or fishery closure, catch and release fishing for a target species could continue, as could fishing for other species. Because the proposed changes to management measures for species considered in this proposed rule would not directly alter the services sold by these vessels, this proposed rule would not directly apply to or regulate their operations. For-hire vessels would continue to be able to offer their primary product, which is an attempt to “put anglers on fish,” provide the opportunity for anglers to catch whatever their skills enable them to catch, and keep those fish that they desire to keep and are legal to keep. Any changes in demand for these fishing services, and associated economic affects as a result of changing an ACL or establishing fishery closures, would be a consequence of behavioral change by anglers, secondary to any direct effect on anglers, and, therefore, an indirect effect of the proposed regulatory action. Because the effects on for-hire vessels would be indirect, they fall outside the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA). Recreational anglers, who may be directly affected by the changes in this proposed rule, are not small entities under the RFA.
NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule.
The snapper-grouper fishery is a multi-species fishery and vessels
Because all entities expected to be affected by this rule are small entities, NMFS has determined that this rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.
The effect of the action to modify the rebuilding strategy for snowy grouper is to adopt the ABC chosen by the Council, as recommended by their SSC based upon the recent stock assessment. Modifying the rebuilding strategy for snowy grouper would have no direct economic effects on small entities, because it would not alter the current use or access to the snowy grouper resource. NMFS notes that the ABC resulting from the modification of the rebuilding strategy would be higher than the status quo ABC for snowy grouper.
Setting the snowy grouper ACL equal to ABC implies that the ACL would increase as a result of the proposed ABC increase. The method for allocating the ACL between the commercial and recreational sectors would remain the same. The change in the commercial and recreational percentage allocation results from the use of the updated landings of snowy grouper from SEDAR 36. Relative to the 2014 ACL, the proposed commercial ACLs will increase by 39 percent in 2015 and continue to increase annually through 2019 to a point where the proposed ACL in 2019 will be 86 percent greater than it was in 2014. Compared to the 2014 ACL, the proposed recreational ACL will increase by 442 percent in 2015 and continue to increase annually through 2019 to a point where the proposed ACL in 2019 will be 623 percent greater than it was in 2014. In principle, the increases in the snowy grouper sector ACLs would be expected to result in revenue and profit increases to commercial vessels. The actual results would partly depend on the relationship to the management measures proposed for the commercial sector, as discussed below. As noted, for-hire vessels would only be indirectly affected by this action.
Increasing the snowy grouper commercial trip limit from 100 lb (45 kg), to 200 lb (90 kg), would tend to increase the profit per trip of commercial vessels. This higher trip limit would complement the proposed commercial ACL increase in potentially increasing the annual profits of commercial vessels. Given the proposed ACL increase, the commercial fishing season is expected to extend from January 1 through July 19 under the higher trip limit, or January 1 through December 26 under the status quo (No Action) trip limit. Therefore, the proposed commercial trip limit increase would result in a higher profit per trip but shorter commercial fishing season; whereas the status quo trip limit would be associated with lower profit per trip but a longer fishing season. Which of these two scenarios would result in higher annual profit for commercial vessels cannot be ascertained. What is less uncertain, however, is that the proposed commercial ACL increase would result in higher annual revenues and profits. As noted, the commercial fishing season is projected to last until July 19 under the proposed trip limit and ACL increases. Without the ACL increase, the commercial fishing season is projected to last until June 6 under the proposed trip limit increase. Thus, the commercial ACL increase would allow for about 6 extra weeks of commercial fishing for snowy grouper under the proposed trip limit increase. Given a longer fishing season and higher profit per trip, revenues and profits of commercial vessels that target snowy grouper are likely to increase.
The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council. Only actions that would have direct economic effects on small entities merit inclusion in the following discussion.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative (as fully described in the preamble), were considered for adjusting the ACLs. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current (lower) commercial and recreational ACLs. This alternative would maintain the same economic benefits for commercial vessels but at levels lower than those afforded by the preferred alternative. The second alternative, which has three sub-alternatives, would set ACLs as some percentage of the ABC. The three sub-alternatives are setting the ACL at 95 percent, 90 percent, and 85 percent of the ABC. All three sub-alternatives would have lower positive effects on the profits of commercial vessels than the preferred alternative.
Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative (as fully described in the preamble), were considered for modifying the management measures for the snowy grouper commercial sector. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the commercial trip limit of 100 lb (45 kg). Compared to the preferred alternative, the no action alternative would have a lower profit per trip but would also leave the commercial fishing season open almost year-round. Which of these two alternatives would result in higher annual vessel profits for commercial vessels cannot be ascertained. NMFS notes that, if the trip limit is maintained at 100 lb (45 kg), commercial vessels may not take full advantage of the proposed ACL that would annually increase until at least 2019.
The second alternative would split the snowy grouper commercial ACL into two quotas: 50 percent to the first period (January 1-April 30) and 50 percent to the second period (May 1-December 31). Any remaining commercial quota from the first period would carry over into the second period; any remaining commercial quota from the second period would not carry over into the next fishing year. The following three sub-alternatives on trip limits would apply to each period: 100 lb (45 kg), 150 lb (47.5 kg), or 200 lb (90 kg). Given the proposed commercial ACL increase, the first period would likely remain open under any of the alternative trip limits, but the second period would close early with the highest trip limit resulting in the shortest fishing season. This alternative, with the trip limit of 200 lb (90 kg), would have the same effects on commercial vessel profits as the preferred alternative, because both alternatives would have the same trip limits and the same fishing season length. At lower trip limits, this alternative would allow a longer fishing season but also lower profit per trip than the preferred alternative. It cannot be determined if this alternative, with lower trip limits and a longer fishing season, would result in higher annual profits than the preferred alternative. In an effort to address the accessibility to the snowy grouper resource, the Council considered implementing a commercial split season that would essentially spread out effort over time and allow for more equitable access to snowy grouper
The third alternative would split the snowy grouper commercial ACL into two quotas: 40 percent to the first period (January 1-April 30) and 60 percent to the second period (May 1-December 31). Any remaining commercial quota from the first period would carry over into the second period; any remaining commercial quota from the second period would not carry over into the next fishing year. This alternative would maintain the current commercial trip limit of 100 lb (45 kg), for the first period and establish one of the following trip limits for the second period: 100 lb (45 kg), 150 lb (47.5 kg), 200 lb (90 kg), 250 lb (112.5 kg), or 300 lb (135 kg). Under this alternative and given the proposed ACL increases, commercial fishing would likely remain open throughout the first period but would close early in the second period, with the highest trip limit resulting in the shortest fishing season. As with the second alternative, this alternative, when combined with lower trip limits would provide longer fishing seasons but lower profit per trip than the preferred alternative. Similarly, this alternative, when combined with higher trip limits, would allow for a higher profit per trip but result in shorter fishing seasons. It cannot be determined if this alternative, with either lower or higher trip limits, would result in greater annual profits than the preferred alternative. Similar to the second alternative, the Council considered a split season to address the accessibility to the resource. For similar reasons mentioned above, this third alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative by the Council.
The fourth alternative is similar to the preferred alternative but would establish a trip limit of either 300 lb (135 kg), or 150 lb (47.5 kg). This alternative would result in a longer fishing season but a lower profit per trip under a trip limit of 150 lb (47.5 kg), or a shorter fishing season and a higher profit per trip under a trip limit of 300 lb (135 kg), than the preferred alternative. The differential impacts on the annual profits of commercial vessels between this alternative and the preferred alternative cannot be determined. However, the preferred alternative appears to provide a better balance between season length and profit per trip than this alternative with trip limits of either 150 lb (47.5 kg), or 300 lb (135 kg).
The fifth alternative would modify the snowy grouper commercial trip limit to 150 lb (47.5 kg), all year or until the commercial ACL is met or projected to be met, except for the period of May through August from Florida's Brevard/Indian River County line northward when the trip limit will be one of the following: 200 lb (90 kg), 250 lb (112.5 kg), or 300 lb (135 kg). This alternative would provide for a lower trip limit than the preferred alternative, except in May through August when an equal or higher trip limit would be allowed in certain areas. This alternative would likely benefit commercial vessels in areas north of Indian River County, Florida, more than vessels in other areas, at least during the period when vessels in the northern areas are allowed higher trip limits. Whether total profits from all vessels would be higher under this alternative than under the preferred alternative cannot be determined. Although this alternative was not chosen as the preferred alternative, the Council acknowledged that fishermen in North Carolina have historically had limited access to snowy grouper at the beginning of the fishing year due to poor winter weather conditions. However, some milder winters in recent years have benefitted fishermen through some increased access to snowy grouper.
Fisheries, Fishing, South Atlantic, Snapper-Grouper, Snowy grouper.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(8)
(a) * * * The quotas are in gutted weight, that is eviscerated but otherwise whole, except for the quotas in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), (5), and (6) of this section which are in both gutted weight and round weight.
(1)
(ii) For the 2016 fishing year—125,760 lb (57,044 kg), gutted weight; 148,397 lb (67,312 kg), round weight.
(iii) For the 2017 fishing year—135,380 lb (61,407 kg), gutted weight; 159,749 lb (72,461 kg), round weight.
(iv) For the 2018 fishing year—144,315 lb (65,460 kg), gutted weight; 170,291 lb (77,243 kg), round weight.
(v) For the 2019 and subsequent fishing years—153,935 lb (69,824 kg), gutted weight; 181,644 lb (82,392 kg), round weight.
(a) * * *
(3)
(b) * * *
(2)
(ii) The recreational ACL for snowy grouper is 4,152 fish for 2015; 4,483 fish for 2016; 4,819 fish for 2017, 4,983 fish for 2018; 5,315 fish for 2019 and subsequent fishing years.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
The purpose of this action is to set the small-mesh multispecies specifications for the 2015-2017 fishing years, clarify what measures can be modified in a specifications package, and to correct the northern red hake accountability measure trigger rate. This action is necessary to implement the Council's recommended measures intended to reduce the risk of continuing overfishing of northern red hake and set catch and possession limits for the 2015-2017 fishing years. The proposed specifications are designed to help achieve sustainable yield and to inform the public of these measures.
Public comments must be received by April 23, 2015.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0170, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
• Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Whiting Specifications.”
New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the small-mesh multispecies specifications that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides a thorough analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was also prepared for this action. The IRFA is contained in the EA prepared for this action, but also is summarized in the Classification section of this proposed rule. Copies of the specifications EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following internet addresses:
Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9177.
The New England Fishery Management Council manages the small-mesh multispecies fishery primarily through a series of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The small-mesh multispecies fishery is composed of five stocks of three species of hakes (northern and southern silver hake, northern and southern red hake, and offshore hake). It is managed separately from the other stocks of groundfish such as cod, haddock, and flounders, primarily because the fishing is prosecuted with much smaller mesh and does not generally result in the catch of these other stocks. Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP (April 4, 2013; 78 FR 20260) established a process and framework for setting the small-mesh multispecies catch specifications, as well as set the specifications for the 2012-2014 fishing years.
The purpose of this action is to set the specifications for the 2015-2017 fishing years, based on the New England Fishery Management Council's recommendation. In 2012 and 2013, northern red hake catch rates exceeded the annual catch limits (ACL) and the acceptable biological catch (ABC). As a result, northern red hake was determined to be experiencing overfishing. To reduce the risk of continued overfishing of northern red hake and constrain catch within the proposed ACL, this action proposes to adopt the Council's recommended measures to adjust the northern red hake possession limits per trip and trigger points at which possession limits are reduced in-season.
This proposed rule also includes a correction to the small-mesh accountability measures and clarifies what measures can be modified in a small-mesh multispecies specifications action.
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met on August 26, 2014, to discuss the specifications and to recommend ABCs for the 2015-2017 small-mesh fishery. The FMP's implementing regulations require the involvement of an SSC in the specification process. Following the SSC, the Whiting Oversight Committee met on September 9 and October 30, 2014, to discuss and recommend small-mesh specifications. The Council approved the final specifications on November 17, 2014.
This action proposes new specifications for the 2015-2017 fishing years, derived from a stock assessment update for northern and southern red
This action proposes to reduce the northern red hake possession limit from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg). This reduction in possession limit is intended to delay the in-season accountability measure (AM) until later in the year and to reduce the potential for northern red hake catches to exceed the ACL (as occurred in fishing years 2012 and 2013). Lowering the possession limit is expected to discourage the targeting of red hake and to encourage fishing in areas, seasons, or ways that avoid catching excess red hake. Compared to starting the fishing year with a 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) possession limit, it is expected that the in-season AM would be delayed, possibly increasing revenue for trips taken later in the year to target silver hake, and reducing discarding. This measure is intended to be combined with the proposed northern red hake possession limit reduction trigger to effectively constrain catch of northern red hake to the ACL and to slow catch rates to extend the fishing season.
This measure would implement an additional possession limit reduction trigger for northern red hake of 1,500 lb (680 kg) when 45 percent of the TAL is reached. When the in-season possession limit reduction triggers were initially implemented, the trigger was set at 90 percent of the TAL. When landings reach the 90-percent trigger, the red hake possession limit would be reduced to the incidental level of 400 lb (181 kg). In both 2012 and 2013, the 90-percent trigger was reached and the ACL was still exceeded. As a result, in 2014, the 90-percent trigger was reduced to 45 percent in accordance with the AM regulations. However, this rule's proposed regulatory correction would increase the 45-percent trigger to 62.5 percent. Because this trigger did not function as well as intended to ensure that the ACL is not exceeded, this rule proposes a second, earlier possession limit reduction trigger of 1,500 lb (680 kg) when 45 percent of the TAL is reached. For clarity, as a result of these proposed specifications, there would be two in-season possession limit triggers for northern red hake: At 45 percent of the TAL, the per-trip possession limit would be decreased from 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) to 1,500 lb (680 kg); and then when 62.5 percent of the TAL is reached, the per-trip possession limit would be decreased from 1,500 lb (680 kg) to 400 lb (181 kg).
As previously discussed, this additional possession limit trigger is intended to slow catch of northern red hake and to reduce the potential for northern red hake catch from exceeding the ACL.
When developing the rulemaking for this action, we determined that the current regulations governing the specifications process as recommended in Amendment 19 do not fully reflect the Council's intent regarding the scope of measures that can be implemented pursuant to the specifications process. Amendment 19 specified that the Council shall specify on at least a 3-year basis the OFL, ABC, ACLs, and TALs for each small-mesh multispecies stock as well as the corresponding possession limits, including in-season possession limit triggers to be consistent with the revised specification recommendations and estimates of scientific and management uncertainty from the SSC. However, the implementing regulations for Amendment 19 inadvertently failed to specify that adjustments to possession limits and the in-season possession limit triggers were among the items that could be modified in a specifications action. This rule proposes to correct this problem by including possession limits and in-season possession limit triggers in small-mesh multispecies specifications regulations. The Magnuson-Stevens Act at section 305(d) grants the agency the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out any FMP or amendment to an FMP.
When the specifications were being developed, the Whiting Plan Development Team identified an error in the previous set of specifications (
Currently, the northern red hake accountability measure trigger is 45 percent, which would reduce the possession limit to 400 lb (181 kg) when 45 percent of the TAL is landed. This correction would increase the 400-lb
Future AMs for fishing years in which the catch exceeds the ACL would be deducted from the corrected 62.5-percent trigger, pursuant to the small-mesh AM regulations at § 648.90.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not significant for the purpose of E.O. 12866.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.
A description of the action and why it is being considered are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the
The statement of the objective and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this preamble and in the
On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size standard from $19.0 million to $20.5 million for finfish fishing, from $5.0 to $5.5 million for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0 million to $7.5 million for other marine fishing, for-hire businesses, and marinas. The small-mesh multispecies fishery falls under the finfish category and, thus, has a threshold of $20.5 million for determining small versus large entities. However, having different size standards for different types of commercial fishing activities creates difficulties in categorizing business that participate in multiple fishing related activities, which is typically the case in the fishing industry.
In order to fish for small-mesh multispecies, a vessel owner must be issued either a limited access Northeast multispecies permit or an open access Northeast Multispecies Category K Permit; however, there are many vessels issued both of these types of permits that may not actually fish for small-mesh multispecies. Based on ownership data for 2011-2013, there were 1,087 distinct ownership entities based on calendar year 2013 permits that could potentially target small mesh multispecies. Of these, 1,069 are categorized as small and 18 are categorized as large entities per the SBA guidelines. While 1,087 commercial entities are directly regulated by the proposed action, not all of these entities land small-mesh multispecies and would, therefore, not be directly impacted by this action. To estimate the number of commercial entities that may experience impacts from the proposed action, active small-mesh multispecies entities are defined as those entities containing permits that are directly regulated and that landed any silver hake or red hake in 2013 for commercial sale. There are 298 potentially impacted, directly regulated commercial entities, 295 (99 percent) of which are classified as small entities.
According to SBA's new size standards, a business involved in harvesting finfish is classified as small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, with receipts not exceeding $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. To identify an independent business, ownership information was used. The ownership data identifies individuals who own multiple vessels or a single vessel with multiple owners. This methodology assigns all the vessels owned by an individual into the same entity and including the co-owners in the same pool of affiliation following SBA's criteria for affiliation based on the principle of control that “may arise through ownership, management, or other relationships or interactions between the parties” even when the control is not exercised. Section 8.9 in the specifications EA describes the vessels, key ports, and revenue information for the small-mesh multispecies fishery, and is not repeated here.
This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
The Council conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the specifications in the EA (see
Overall, the expected impact from the proposed changes to the ACL specifications is neutral to low positive, relative to the no-action alternative. The proposed specifications in this action would revise the ACL specifications for northern and southern stocks of silver and red hakes for fishing years 2015-2017 based on updated stock assessments. The proposed specifications would increase the northern red and silver hake TALs, but reduce the TALs of the southern red and silver stocks. Landings of southern red hake and both stocks of silver hake were well below the 2013 TALs and the proposed 2015-2017 TALs. Therefore, the proposed limits would not be restrictive for the fishery and as a result, compared to taking no action, impact on revenues would be neutral. In 2013, landings of northern red hake exceeded the TAL and also exceed the proposed 2015-2017 TAL. Thus, if the fishery stays under the TAL to prevent overfishing as is expected, the impacts on revenue from northern red hake landings would be negative, but insignificant when compared with status quo. Compared to the no action alternative, the status quo northern red hake TAL is 15 percent lower than the proposed TAL. Because the proposed specifications generally increase quotas, compared to taking no action the proposed specifications would be positive, but insignificant. However, over the long term, the proposed limits
This action also proposes to reduce the possession limit for northern red hake from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg). The preferred alternative may reduce catch and landings (on trips targeting red hake) early in the season. However, the alternative may also potentially delay the time when the AM is triggered, allowing more red hake catch to be landed later in the season. It is expected, based on input from industry advisors, that the in-season AM trigger would be delayed with a lower initial possession limit, increasing revenue for trips taken later in the fishing year and reducing discards. Compared to taking no action, reducing the northern red hake possession limit is intended to prevent early closures, thus extending the season and fishing opportunity. This alternative is intended to support better market conditions by allowing small-mesh vessels to operate at a more consistent level for a longer period of time. As such, although this measure reduces a possession limit, the reduction is intended to prolong the fishing season and provide for better and more consistent market conditions, thus increasing overall revenues. As such, the preferred alternative's impact on profitability is expected to be neutral to low positive relative to the no-action alternative. Actual impact will depend on how fishermen who target this species in the northern area adapt their targeted fishing activity (and discarding activity) to the proposed lower initial possession limit and in-season accountability measures.
This action also proposes to implement an additional in-season possession limit reduction trigger for red hake. This proposed measure would reduce the possession limit to 1,500 lb (680 kg) when landings reach 45 percent of the TAL. This measure, in conjunction with the measure to reduce the initial northern red hake possession limit to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) are designed to slow catches of northern red hake. Although this would implement an additional possession limit reduction trigger, further reducing possession limits, the reduction is intended to extend the overall season and delay the reduction to incidental levels. Compared to taking no action, implementing an additional northern red hake possession limit trigger at 45 percent is intended to prevent early closures, thus extending the season. Without this additional trigger, possession limits could likely be reduced to the incidental limit trigger earlier in the year. Similar to the reduction in northern red hake possession limit, this alternative is expected to have neutral to slightly positive impacts compared to taking no action.
In regard to correcting the accountability measure trigger for northern red hake, when the specifications were being developed the Whiting Plan Development Team identified an error in the previous set of specifications (
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(5)
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The Whiting PDT shall prepare a specification package, including a SAFE Report, at least every 3 years. Based on the specification package, the Whiting PDT shall develop and present to the Council recommended specifications as defined in paragraph (a) of this section for up to 3 fishing years. The specifications package shall be the primary vehicle for the presentation of all updated biological and socio-economic information regarding the small-mesh multispecies fishery. The specifications package shall provide source data for any adjustments to the management measures that may be needed to continue to meet the goals and objectives of the FMP. The specifications package may include modifications to the OFL, ABC, ACL, TAL, possession limits, and in-season possession limit triggers.
(5) * * *
(iii)
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New York Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene via conference call. The purpose of the planning meeting is for the Advisory Committee to discuss plans to conduct a public meeting on the over policing of communities of color in New York.
The meeting will be conducted via conference call. Members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the toll-free number Public Dial-in number and providing the Listen Line Code identified above. Persons with hearing impairments may also following the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service number listed above and providing the toll-free number Public Dial-in number and the Listen Line Code identified above. Callers will incur no charges for calls they initiate over land line connections to the toll-free Public Dial-in number. Callers may incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines; the Commission will not refund any incurred charges.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, June 8, 2015. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Solicitation of applications.
Because the terms of the members of the Kentucky Advisory Committee are expiring on July 11, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Kentucky Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Kentucky to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Southern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than May 11, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the Minnesota Advisory Committee are expiring on July 11, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Minnesota Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Minnesota to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Midwestern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than May 11, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the New Hampshire Advisory Committee are expiring on July 11, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the New Hampshire Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of New Hampshire to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Eastern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than May 11, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Because the terms of the members of the New York Advisory Committee are expiring on July 11, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the New York Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of New York to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Eastern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than May 11, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.
Letters of interest for membership on the Kentucky Advisory Committee should be received no later than May 11, 2015.
Letters of interest for membership on the Minnesota Advisory Committee should be received no later than May 11, 2015.
Letters of interest for membership on the New Hampshire Advisory Committee should be received no later than May 11, 2015.
Letters of interest for membership on the New York Advisory Committee should be received no later than May 11, 2015.
Send letters of interest for the Kentucky Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Southern Regional Office, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. Letter can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the Minnesota Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
Send letters of interest for the New Hampshire Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Eastern Regional Office, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Letter can also be sent via email to
Send letters of interest for the New York Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Eastern Regional Office, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Letter can also be sent via email to
David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603, (312) 353-8311. Questions can also be directed via email to
The Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York Advisory Committees are statutorily mandated federal advisory committees of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1975a. Under the charter for the advisory committees, the purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) on a broad range of civil rights matters in its respective state that pertain to alleged deprivations of voting rights or discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or the administration of justice. Advisory committees also provide assistance to the Commission in its statutory obligation to serve as a national clearinghouse for civil rights information.
Each advisory committee consists of not more than 19 members, each of whom will serve a four-year term. Members serve as unpaid Special Government Employees who are reimbursed for travel and expenses. To be eligible to be on an advisory committee, applicants must be residents of the respective state or district, and have demonstrated expertise or interest in civil rights issues.
The Commission is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957 to focus on matters of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Its mandate is to:
• Investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights are being deprived,
• study and collect information about discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law,
• appraise federal civil rights laws and policies,
• serve as a national clearinghouse on discrimination laws,
• submit reports and findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress, and
• issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination.
The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed a member of the Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, or New York Advisory Committee covered by this notice to send a letter of interest and a resume to the respective address above.
syncreon Logistics (USA), LLC (syncreon) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Torrance, California. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 27, 2015.
A separate application for a usage-driven site designation at the syncreon facility was submitted and will be processed under Section 400.38 of the FTZ Board's regulations. The facility is used for the kitting of cameras and accessories into retail packages on behalf of GoPro, Inc. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt syncreon from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, syncreon would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply for protective lens covers, camera bundles, and lens replacement kits (duty rates range from 2.0 to 5.3%) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Silicon dioxide for anti-fog inserts; 1 inch diameter, clear plastic adhesive; foam, cushions, double adhesive, 10mm; display boxes; plastic bags; plastic water housing assemblies; flat and curved adhesive mounts; rubber seals for water housing doors; quick release rubber plugs; rubber containers; textile bag packs; replacement camera cases; waterproof camera covers; accessory boxes; top trays for packaging; accessory boxes with shelves; warranty cards; printed carnets; stickers; textile chest mount harnesses; security tethers; washers; Wi-Fi remote attachments for key rings; thumbscrew wrench/bottle openers; metal mountings; adapters, micro SD to USB 2.0; battery transmitters; rechargeable batteries; Wi-Fi transmitters; Wi-Fi remotes; video players; micro SD cards 32GB; cameras; radar transmitters; LCD transmitters; cables, composite, 120 pin mini USB to CVBS audio/video; cables, micro HDMI to HDMI; microphone stand mounts; lens filters; 3D glasses; and, 24-inch metal camera bars (duty rates range from duty-free to 20%). The request indicates that foreign inputs included in certain textile categories (classified within HTSUS Subheadings 4202.92 and 6307.90) will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 18, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip (BSS) from Italy.
Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1293.
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is brass sheet and strip, other than leaded brass and tin brass sheet and strip, from Italy, 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). The HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
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 KME Italy SpA (KME Italy), the only company for which a review was requested. Thus, we preliminarily assign a rate of 22.00 percent as the dumping margin for KME Italy. In making these findings, we relied on facts available because KME Italy 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.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin on BSS from Italy exists for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014:
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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (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 BSS from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
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.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubesfrom Turkey for the period of review (POR) of January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. The review covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise that the Department selected for individual examination: the Borusan Group, Borusan Holding, A.S. (Borusan Holding), Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan), Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (Istikbal), and Borusan Lojistik Dagitim Pepolama Tasimacilik ve Tic A.S. (Borusan Lojistik) (collectively, the Borusan Companies). Additionally, this review covers three firms that were not individually examined: Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik Profil), Toscelik Metal Ticaret AS., and Tosyali Dis Ticaret AS. (Tosyali) (collectively, the Toscelik Companies),
John Conniff or Jolanta Lawska, 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: 202-482-1009 and 202-482-8362, respectively.
Erbosan and the Yucel Companies submitted letters to the Department on May 5, 2014, June 27, 2014, respectively, timely certifying that they had no sales, shipments, or entries, directly or indirectly, of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as item numbers 7306.30.10,
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
The Department determined that the following preliminary net subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013:
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs in the amounts indicated for each of the four companies listed above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all other non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
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 using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frontseating service valves from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is April 1, 2013, through April 28, 2014. The review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise, Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd. (“Sanhua”). The Department preliminarily finds that Sanhua made no sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Laurel LaCivita, Enforcement and Compliance, Office III, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243.
The merchandise covered by this order is frontseating service valves, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof of any size, configuration, material composition or connection type.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Constructed export prices are calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (“NME”) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR April 1, 2013, through April 28, 2014:
The Department intends to disclose to the parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review.
Because the antidumping duty order on frontseating service valves from the PRC was revoked,
This notice also 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing notice of these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 3, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of changed circumstances review, and intent to revoke, in part, the antidumping (AD) duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Scott Hoefke at (202) 482-4947 or Robert James at (202) 482-0649; AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the
The merchandise covered by this changed circumstances review is a multifunction cart that combines, among others, the capabilities of a wheelbarrow and dolly. The product comprises a steel frame that can be converted from vertical to horizontal functionality, two wheels toward the lower end of the frame and two removable handles near the top. In addition to a foldable projection edge in its extended position, it includes a permanently attached steel tub or barrow. This product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as the “Aerocart.”
The scope of the Order will be modified to read as stated below.
The merchandise subject to this Order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.
A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.
Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.5090. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.5060 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.
Excluded from the scope is a multifunction cart that combines, among others, the capabilities of a wheelbarrow and dolly. The product comprises a steel frame that can be converted from vertical to horizontal functionality, two wheels toward the lower end of the frame and two removable handles near the top. In addition to a foldable projection edge in its extended position, it includes a permanently attached steel tub or barrow. This product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as the “Aerocart.”
At the request of Positec, and in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1), the Department initiated a changed circumstances review of the Order on hand trucks from the PRC to determine whether partial revocation of the Order is warranted with respect to certain multifunction carts.
Therefore, in accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i), the Department is partially revoking the AD Order on hand trucks from the PRC with respect to certain multifunction carts meeting the specifications described above. This partial revocation will be applied to entries of the certain multifunction cart entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after December 1, 2012, which corresponds to the day following the
As we stated in our
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)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e), 351.221(b)(5), and 351.222(g).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) covering the period of review (POR) from March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014. The administrative review covers two mandatory respondents, Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. (Baoding Mantong) and Evonik Rexim (Nanning) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Evonik). The Department preliminarily finds that Baoding Mantong sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below the normal value (NV) during the POR. The Department preliminarily determines that Evonik's sales to the United States were not
Dena Crossland or Ericka Ukrow, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-0405, respectively.
On April 30, 2014, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty
The product covered by the antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As discussed in Evonik's
The Department has preliminarily determined that the following dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2014:
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy antidumping duty cases.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will apply to all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also 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
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the
Matthew Renkey or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-2312 or 202-482-4031, respectively.
The Department published the
The merchandise covered by the order includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, 7317.00.75, and 7907.00.6000.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
In the
The weighted-average dumping margins for the final results of this administrative review are as follows:
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these final results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.
For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. We will continue to direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (
The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.
The Department determines that Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., Certified Products International Inc. (“CPI”), Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Oriental Cherry”), Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd., Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd., Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd. did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. As a result, any suspended entries that entered under these exporters' case numbers (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. 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.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these administrative reviews and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice; Request for Information (RFI).
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requests information about the broader needs of the industrial community in the area of quantum information science (QIS). NIST requests this information through its role in the Interagency Working Group on Quantum Information Science of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science (CoS) Subcommittee on Physical Sciences (PSSC). NIST seeks input from stakeholders regarding opportunities for research and development, emerging market areas, barriers to near-term and future applications, and workforce needs. The information received in response to this RFI will inform and be considered by the Interagency Working Group making recommendations for the development and coordination of U.S. Government policies, programs, and budgets to advance U.S. competitiveness in QIS.
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on May 8, 2015. Written comments in response to the RFI should be submitted according to the instructions in the
Written comments may be submitted only by email to Dr. Claire Cramer at
For further information contact Gail Newrock, Carl Williams, or Claire Cramer by email at
Twenty years of research and development work in QIS is producing the first niche applications, and there is an increasing level of international activity in the field. The Interagency Working Group in QIS was chartered in October 2014 to develop and coordinate policies, programs, and budgets for QIS research and development to create the scientific basis, infrastructure, future technical workforce, and intellectual property that will be required to address agency missions and secure future U.S. competitiveness in quantum information science. The Interagency Working Group includes participants from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and the National Science Foundation.
NIST seeks input from stakeholders regarding opportunities for research and development, emerging market areas, barriers to near-term and future applications, and workforce needs. The information received in response to this RFI will inform and be considered by the Interagency Working Group making recommendations for the development and coordination of U.S. Government policies, programs, and budgets to advance U.S. competitiveness in QIS.
Written comments may be submitted only by email to Dr. Claire Cramer at
Quantum information science includes, for example, quantum computing and processing, quantum algorithms and programming languages, quantum communications, quantum sensors, quantum devices, single photon sources, and detectors. What areas of pre-competitive QIS research and development appear most promising? What areas should be the highest priorities for Federal investment? What are the emerging frontiers? What methods of monitoring new developments are most effective?
The 2009 “Federal Vision for Quantum Information Science”
Funding levels and mechanisms, technology, dissemination of information, and technology transfer are some of the potential barriers to adoption of QIS technology. What do you see as the greatest barriers to advancing important near-term and future applications of QIS? What should be done to address these barriers?
Addressing opportunities in QIS and barriers to applications requires a workforce spanning many disciplines, ranging from computer science and information theory to atomic scale manipulation of materials, and possessing a range of knowledge and skills. What knowledge and skills are most important for a workforce capable of addressing the opportunities and barriers? In what areas is the current workforce strong, and in what areas is it weak? What are the best mechanisms for equipping workers with the needed knowledge and skills?
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Application for one new scientific research permit.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received a permit application request for a new scientific research permit. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management, conservation, and recovery efforts. The application may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the application should be submitted to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 707-578-3435 or by email to
Jeffrey Jahn, Santa Rosa, CA (ph.: 707-575-6097), Fax: 707-578-3435, email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Coho salmon (
Steelhead (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), Fisheries Ecology Division (FED) is requesting a permit to annually take sub-adult and juvenile listed salmon and steelhead for a period of five years. The permit would authorize research designed to (1) determine the inter-annual and seasonal variability in growth, feeding, and energy status among juvenile salmonids in the coastal ocean off northern and central California; (2) determine migration paths and spatial distribution among genetically distinct salmonid stocks during their early ocean residence; (3) characterize the biological and physical oceanographic features associated with juvenile salmon ocean habitat from the shore to the continental shelf break; (4) identify potential links between coastal geography, oceanographic features, and salmon distribution patterns; and (5) identify and test ecological indices for salmon survival. This research would benefit listed fish by informing comprehensive lifecycle models that incorporate both freshwater and marine conditions and recognize the relationship between the two habitats; it would also identify and predict sources of salmon mortality at sea and thereby help managers develop indices of salmonid survival in the marine environment.
Listed fish would be captured primarily via surface trawling, however midwater trawling and beach seining would be used occasionally. Sub-adult salmonids (
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of agency decision.
NMFS announces approval of a marine conservation plan (MCP) for American Samoa.
This agency decision is effective from April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2018.
You may obtain a copy of the MCP, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0095, from the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal,
Bob Harman, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, 808-725-5170.
Section 204(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and in consultation with the Council, to negotiate and enter into a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement (PIAFA). A PIAFA would allow foreign fishing within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands with the concurrence of, and in consultation with, the Governor of the Pacific Insular Area to which the PIAFA applies. Before entering into a PIAFA, the appropriate Governor, with the concurrence of the Council, must develop a 3-year MCP providing details on uses for any funds collected by the Secretary under the PIAFA.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires payments received under a PIAFA to be deposited into the United States Treasury and then conveyed to the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for which funds were collected. In the case of violations by foreign fishing vessels in the EEZ around any Pacific Insular Area, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines and penalties imposed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including sums collected from the forfeiture and disposition or sale of property seized subject to its authority, shall be deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area adjacent to the EEZ in which the violation occurred, after direct costs of the enforcement action are subtracted. The government may use funds deposited into the Treasury of the Pacific Insular Area for fisheries enforcement and for implementation of an MCP.
An MCP must be consistent with the Council's fishery ecosystem plans, must identify conservation and management objectives (including criteria for determining when such objectives are met), and must prioritize planned marine conservation projects. Although no foreign fishing is being considered at this time, at its 160th meeting held June 24-27, 2014, in Honolulu, the Council reviewed and approved the MCP for American Samoa and recommended its submission to the Secretary for approval. On March 16, 2015, the Governor of American Samoa submitted the MCP to NMFS, the designee of the Secretary, for review and approval.
The American Samoa MCP contains six conservation and management objectives, listed below. Please refer to the MCP for planned projects and activities designed to meet each objective, the evaluative criteria, and priority rankings.
1. Maximize social and economic benefits through sustainable fisheries development.
2. Support quality scientific research to assess and manage fisheries.
3. Promote an ecosystem approach in fisheries management, reduce waste in fisheries and minimize interactions between fisheries and protected species.
4. Recognize the importance of island culture and traditional fishing in managing fishery resources and foster opportunities for participation.
5. Promote education and outreach activities and regional collaboration regarding fisheries conservation.
6. Encourage development of technologies and methods to achieve the most effective level of enforcement and to ensure safety at sea.
This notice announces that NMFS has determined that the American Samoa MCP satisfies the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and approves the MCP for the 3-year period from April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2018. This MCP supersedes the one approved for the period August 11, 2012, through August 10, 2015 (77 FR 58813, September 24, 2012).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an exempted fishing permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This exempted fishing permit would allow up to three commercial fishing vessels to conduct exploratory fishing in year-round groundfish closed areas (Closed Areas I and II) for the purposes of obtaining fisheries dependent catch information. This research is being conducted by Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed exempted fishing permits.
Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2015.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
• Email
• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, NE Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Closed Area Exploratory Fishing EFP.”
Brett Alger, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-675-2153,
In a 2014 proposed rule for Northeast Multispecies Sectors that would have allowed vessels using selective trawl gear into portions of year-round Georges Bank (GB) groundfish closed areas (CAs) I and II, we announced interest in gathering catch data from these areas through exempted fishing permits (EFPs) (79 FR 14639, March 17, 2014). Because many of these areas have been closed to groundfish bottom trawling for nearly 20 years, fisheries dependent data collected through an EFP would help inform whether to allow conditional access to CAs I and II to sector vessels through the sector exemption process. Data from vessels operating under an EFP may be used to characterize catch rates of target and non-target species in the CAs, as well as help inform industry on the economic feasibility of industry-funded monitoring for trips into CAs I and II.
In April 2014, we announced our intention to issue an EFP to Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc. (79 FR 23940,
Due to several factors, including catch rates, time and area access to CAs I and II, and weather, only 12 trips were taken under the EFP in fishing year 2014. Because there were a limited amount of trips and, therefore, not enough information to make a determination on whether or not to approve access to CAs I and II through the sector exemption process, we did not approve access for sectors in fishing year 2014. Additionally, we did not propose to allow sector vessels access to CAs I and II for fishing year 2015 (80 FR 12380, March 19, 2015), however, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has requested an EFP renewal for fishing year 2015 to continue collecting data under the same exemptions as their previous EFP.
Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., seeks to address five objectives as follows: (1) Generate data on the composition of catch, including presence and absence of target (
To fulfill these objectives, three vessels would be allowed to use nets with either a haddock separator trawl or a Ruhle trawl, fitted with either a 6-inch (15.2-cm) diamond mesh codend (currently allowed in the fishery) or a 5.1-inch (13-cm) square mesh codend (not currently allowed in the fishery). The applicant claims that the 5.1-inch (13-cm) square mesh codend will improve their ability to target legal-size haddock while maintaining the ability to filter out small non-target catch, including sub-legal haddock. Preliminary results indicate that the two codends have similar selectivity characteristics, but additional replicates are needed. In addition, for sampling purposes, vessels would be authorized to temporarily retain sub-legal fish, and fish in excess of possession limits. All undersized fish and fish in excess of possession limits would be discarded as soon as practicable following data collection. All three vessels would be accompanied by a technician with an at-sea monitor certification and equipped with echo sounders that operate on multiple frequencies, which provide the capability of revealing fish size distribution and bottom hardness.
For CA I, vessels would have access from May 1, 2015, through February 15, 2016, but would not be given access to areas within CA I that are existing Habitat Management Areas. Additionally, vessels would not be given access to areas that are Habitat Management Area alternatives contained in the Council's draft Omnibus Habitat Amendment as of April 30, 2015. We have raised concerns about spawning of groundfish in CA I from January 1 to February 15, but Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has requested access for this period to collect information to address questions about spawning fish.
For CA II, vessels would have access from May 1, 2015, through June 15, 2015, and then from November 1, 2015, through February 15, 2016, but would not be given access to areas within CA II that are existing Habitat Management Areas. Additionally, vessels would not be given access to areas that are Habitat Management Area alternatives contained in the Council's draft Omnibus Habitat Amendment as of April 30, 2015. Similar to CA I, we have raised concerns about spawning of groundfish in CA II from January 1 to February 15, but Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has requested access for this period to collect information to address questions about spawning fish. The dates for CA II access reflect an agreement between sector trawl fishermen and the lobster industry to avoid gear conflicts. Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., would not access portions of CA II from June 15 through November 1, the time period that the lobster industry is allowed access.
Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., requests issuance of the EFP for the entire fishing year in order to use a smaller mesh codend throughout the year, but access to the closed areas would be for only portions of the year. Fishing effort under the EFP would be heavily dependent upon operational decisions dictating whether to fish within CAs I and II, as compared to outside the areas. As previously described, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., has stated that the directed haddock fishery is highly dynamic and requires a high degree of mobility. If approved, the three participating vessels would focus on the directed haddock fishery throughout the study period, and make tows both inside and outside the CAs on the same trip. Vessel tow duration would vary from 30 minutes to 3 hours, and tow time and speed would be at the discretion of the vessel operator. However, in order to conduct statistical comparisons between meshes or areas, the vessels would be required to conduct some tows in a specific sequence and for a specified amount of time. While this may be disruptive to the commercial enterprise, it would ensure that codend comparison data are representative of the fishery and can be used to inform any potential future management decisions. Trawling would occur up to 18 hours per fishing day, an average trip would last seven days (five days fishing and two days steaming), and there would be an average of three trips total, per month. Under the EFP in fishing year 2014, this would have resulted in approximately 72 trips, however, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., only took the 12 trips. Under the renewed EFP, vessels would be limited to the remaining amount of trips (
All legal sized fish will be landed and sold with all proceeds retained by the vessel owner. All three vessels are members of the Sustainable Harvest Sector (SHS) and all catch of allocated stocks (
If approved, Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, Inc., may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS); request for comments; notice of scoping meetings.
NMFS, Southeast Region, in collaboration with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), intends to prepare a DEIS to describe and analyze a range of alternatives for management actions to be included in Amendment 36 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 36). Amendment 36 will consider alternatives to implement special management zones (SMZs). The purpose of this NOI is to solicit public comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS and to announce scoping meetings.
Written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS will be accepted until May 8, 2015.
You may submit comments on the NOI identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0050” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Rick DeVictor, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
In 1983, the Council and NMFS established a procedure under the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region for designation of SMZs to protect artificial reef habitats. The procedure includes the development of recommendations to establish an SMZ by a monitoring team, a review of the recommendations by the Council, and submittal of the recommendations to the NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator (RA). The RA reviews the Council's recommendations and may propose regulations in accordance with the recommendations or take no action. The Council and NMFS have used the procedure to establish artificial reef SMZs in the South Atlantic region. The SMZs protect artificial reef habitat by prohibiting the use of gear types such as fish traps and bottom longlines.
Through Amendment 36, the Council is considering modifications to the SMZ process and framework procedures to include the consideration of SMZs that would protect locations where snapper-grouper fish species are likely to spawn and natural habitats that support spawning fish. Protecting locations where fish spawn and protecting natural habitats that support spawning fish will likely enhance stock productivity and may act as an effective strategy when managing a sustainable fish population.
In the amendment, the Council is also considering the implementation of SMZs to protect spawning snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic region. The measures in Amendment 36 would prohibit fishing for, harvest, and/or possession of species in the snapper-grouper fishery management unit year-round in the proposed SMZs; fishing for other species would be allowed in accordance with the current regulations. Some of the sites being considered in Amendment 36 were recommended for protection by a Marine Protected Area (MPA) Expert Workgroup that was formed by the Council in 2012. The MPA Expert Workgroup is comprised of scientists and fishermen with experience studying snapper-grouper fish species and observing fish in spawning condition.
NMFS previously published NOIs to notify the public that the Council and NMFS are considering the establishment of spatial management areas. NMFS published an NOI to prepare a DEIS for the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA 3) on May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30506). One proposed action in CE-BA 3 was to modify existing MPAs or to establish new ones; however, that action was moved to Regulatory Amendment 17. An NOI for Regulatory Amendment 17 was published on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 72867). Through Regulatory Amendment 17, the Council intended to further reduce bycatch mortality of speckled hind and warsaw grouper and increase protection to their habitat. However, at their June 2014 meeting, the Council decided not to proceed further with the development of Regulatory Amendment 17.
NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, will develop a DEIS to describe and analyze alternatives to address the management needs described above including the “no-action” alternative. In accordance with NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6, Section 5.02(c), Scoping Process, NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, has identified preliminary environmental issues as a means to initiate discussion for scoping purposes only. The public is invited to attend scoping meetings (dates and addresses below) and provide written comments on the preliminary issues, which are identified as actions and alternatives in the Amendment 36 scoping document. These preliminary issues may not represent the full range of issues that will eventually be evaluated in the DEIS. A copy of the Amendment 36 scoping document is available at
After the DEIS associated with Amendment 36 is completed, it will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After filing, the EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DEIS for public comment in the
The Council and NMFS will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and before voting to submit the final amendment to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS will announce in the
NMFS will announce, through a document published in the
The scoping meetings will be held via webinar April 20, 2015, through April 23, 2015. A scoping meeting for Snapper-Grouper Amendment 36 will also be held in Key West, Florida, in conjunction with the Council meeting on June 10, 2015, beginning at 5:30 p.m. With the exception of the scoping meeting in Key West, Florida, all scoping meetings will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council's Web site at
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; phone 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; phone 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; phone 912-264-7218 and Richmond Hill Fish Hatchery, 110 Hatercry Drive, Richmond Hill, GA 31324; phone 912-756-3691.
4. April 23, 2015: Local Comment Station: Hampton Inn Daytona Speedway, 1715 W. International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, FL 32114; phone 386-257-4030.
5. June 10, 2015: A scoping meeting 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; phone 305-293-1818.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Applications for seven new scientific research permits, two permit modifications, and two permit renewals.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received 11 scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon and eulachon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to
Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Sockeye salmon (
Chum salmon (
Coho salmon (
Eulachon (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP) is seeking to modify a five-year permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling sites would be in four Puget Sound sub-basins (Snoqualmie, Lake Washington, Duwamish, and Puyallup) located in King County, Washington. The purpose of the study is to: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions through biological monitoring, (2) understand the importance of off-channel habitats in providing habitat for listed species, (3) assess salmonid habitat status and trends in small streams with varying degrees of land use, and (4) assess containment levels in various freshwater fish eaten by humans. The research would benefit the affected species by determining if restoration and recovery actions are contributing to listed species recovery, providing information on use of off-channel areas by juvenile salmonids, guiding future projects based upon monitoring results, and providing habitat use information for yearling fall Chinook. The KCDNRP proposes to capture fish using beach seines, fyke nets, gill nets, hook and line, minnow traps, and both backpack and boat-operated electrofishing. Fish would be anaesthetized, identified by species, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) are seeking to renew a five-year permit that currently allows them to capture, handle, and release juvenile MCR steelhead in the John Day River, Oregon. The primary purpose of the research is to monitor anadromous fish response to habitat restoration projects throughout the John Day Basin, however the permit was modified in 2012 to allow the CTWSRO are to expand upon that research by adding juvenile mark/recapture studies and adult spawning surveys in various drainages in the John Day River Basin for the purpose of determining adult return success and making juvenile abundance estimates. This project would establish baseline estimates at 10 sampling locations and then resample those sites to evaluate the impact restoration projects have on juvenile Chinook and steelhead abundance. The research would continue to benefit the fish by helping managers determine the most effective ways to restore habitat.
Under the permit, the researchers would set up survey reaches at each site and use block nets at the upstream and downstream boundaries to temporarily curtail fish movement. In those reaches, fish would be collected using backpack electrofishing equipment or seine nets. Once the fish are collected, they would be placed in an aerated bucket and anesthetized. They would then be counted, measured, weighed, marked with a caudal fin clip, allowed to recover, and released back into the sampling reach. A second fish sampling event (using the same collection methods) would be conducted within 24 hours of each initial survey. The researchers would use these two samples to estimate fish abundance and density. The surveys would be conducted at the same locations on an annual basis in order to assess population trends. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed salmonids, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) are seeking to renew for five years a permit that has been in place since 2011. Under the renewed permit, they would annually take juvenile and adult SR spr/sum Chinook and SR steelhead in Bear Valley Creek, Idaho. The purpose of the research is to estimate fish abundance, smolt-to-adult return rates, and adult productivity in Bear Valley Creek with a high degree of accuracy. The researchers are seeking to generate information that may be used widely throughout the Salmon River subbasin. This monitoring project was recommended as part of a larger monitoring effort that developed through the Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Workshop. The work would benefit fish by giving managers key information about population status in the Salmon River subbasin which, in turn, would be used to inform recovery plans and land-management activities. The SBT would count and monitor adult spr/sum Chinook at a video station, and they would handle, measure, tag, and tissue sample juvenile SR spr/sum Chinook and steelhead at a screw trap. They would also do some harvest monitoring (creel surveys) and spawning ground surveys. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed salmonids, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities. In addition to this permit, the U.S. Forest Service (FS) would issue a special use permit for the SBT to conduct the work.
The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is seeking to modify a five-year permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, and PS steelhead. The WFC research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon, for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The sampling would take place in locations throughout Hood Canal, Admiralty Inlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The purpose of the study is to determine the relative abundance, distribution, and emigration timing of juvenile HCS chum salmon throughout their range. The research would benefit the affected species by determining juvenile salmonid out-migrant timing, use of nearshore rearing habitats, and key habitat associations (
The Samish Indian Nation Department of Natural Resources (SINDNR) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The SINDNR research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon, for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The sampling would take place adjacent to Cypress Island (of the
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has requested a one-year permit to take LCR Chinook, LCR coho, LCR steelhead, CR chum, UWR Chinook, UWR steelhead, PS Chinook, and PS steelhead while conducting the National Water Quality Monitoring Program. The purpose of the USGS study is to characterize contaminants, nutrients, suspended and fine sediment, and ecological communities at perennial-stream sites in the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound Lowlands. The ecological community surveys would consist of double pass backpack electrofishing of approximately 100 sites in June and July. The majority of the listed salmonids that may be captured would be measured, examined for external abnormalities, and released. A secondary survey would be conducted to collect and sacrifice up to 15 salmonids per site from a total of 15 sites. Depending on availability, fish collections would focus on unlisted juvenile coho salmon or cutthroat trout in the Puget Sound and Upper Willamette basins and cutthroat trout or listed juvenile coho in the Lower Willamette and Lower Columbia basins. The research may benefit the listed species by helping managers to better understand the stressors—such as contaminant loads—affecting ecological stream communities in urban areas.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is seeking a five-year permit to take juvenile SR steelhead, sockeye, and spr/sum Chinook during the course of three research tasks in the upper Salmon River of Idaho State. They would (a) conduct a general fish population inventory, (b) monitor fish population responses to habitat improvement and restoration activities, and (c) document juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and winter habitat use in the Salmon River. The researchers would use drift boat and raft-mounted electrofishing gear to capture fish and estimate trout abundances in up to five monitoring reaches of the Salmon River during the fall. Captured fish would be identified by species, measured (total length & fork length), and weighed to the nearest gram. During marking runs, captured target species (rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, and mountain whitefish) would be marked with a hole punch in the caudal fin. Any juvenile Chinook salmon they encounter would be identified, measured (fork length), weighed, and examined for tags/marks. Unmarked juvenile Chinook salmon would be implanted with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. Some captured fish may be anesthetized to minimize stress. In all cases, adult salmonids would be avoided and none would be captured. To help with this, the researchers would operate at times and in locations where no adults are likely to be present. The research activities would benefit the fish by providing information on a suite of factors—population abundance and response to restoration actions, predator and competitor abundance and interactions, and life history and behavior characteristics—all of which would be used to inform management, restoration, and recovery decisions in the Salmon River. The researchers do not intend to kill any fish, but a small number may die as a consequence of the planned activities.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has requested a five-year permit to take LCR Chinook salmon, LCR Coho salmon, LCR steelhead, UWR Chinook salmon, and UWR steelhead while conducting research and monitoring in the Tryon Creek watershed of Portland, Oregon. The purpose of the project is to assess fish use of Tryon Creek above and below the Oregon Highway 43 culvert. Culvert modification and habitat enhancement projects have been implemented to improve fish passage and the research and monitoring would be used to gauge effectiveness of the restoration activities. The FWS would capture fish using backpack electrofishing equipment and beach seines. Captured fish would be measured, weighed, PIT-tagged, and tissue sampled for genetic analysis. The FWS does not intend to kill any of the salmonids being captured but a small number of juvenile fish may die as an unintended result of the activities. The research may benefit the listed species by helping managers better understand the effectiveness of habitat restoration activities.
The AMEC Foster Wheel (AMECFW) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in the Lower Duwamish River waterway. Under a Consent Decree settled through U.S. District Court (Western District of Washington), The Boeing Company agreed to construct two habitat restoration projects near Boeing Plant 2 in the Lower Duwamish Waterway to restore and create off-channel and riparian habitats in an area where they have been largely eliminated due to channelization and industrialization. The purpose of this study is to determine if fish, including ESA listed juvenile salmonids, are using the newly created/restored habitat. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs as well as providing data to support future enhancement projects. The researchers propose to capture fish using fyke nets during the spring salmonid outmigration (March through June). Fish would be anaesthetized, identified by species, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The SBT are seeking a five-year permit to annually take adult and juvenile SR steelhead and spr/sum Chinook while operating a screw trap and adult weir in Panther Creek, Idaho. They would also conduct some electrofishing and spawning ground surveys in the area. Most of the juvenile Chinook salmon would be captured, handled, and released. Some of them would be implanted with PIT-tags, and some would be sampled for genetic analysis. All would be allowed to recover and released to continue their downstream migration. Although the researchers are targeting Chinook, some
The Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) is seeking a three-year permit to collect environmental samples in rivers and streams in the state of Washington while conducting Washington's Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery—a statewide habitat and biological monitoring program. The permit would authorize the WDOE to take juvenile and adult UCR Chinook salmon and steelhead, SR spr/sum and fall-run Chinook salmon, SR steelhead, SR sockeye salmon, and MCR steelhead. The goal of status and trends monitoring is to provide quantitative, statistically valid estimates of habitat and water quality that are important for policy and management decisions. The WDOE would monitor seven status and trends regions statewide on a four-year cycle. The information gathered by this research would benefit listed salmonids by helping resource managers evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts and monitor aquatic species status and trends. The researchers would capture fish using boat electrofishing equipment; the listed fish would be enumerated, measured, and released immediately. At no time would adults be electrofished. If any adults are seen during the electrofishing operation, the equipment would immediately be turned off and the fish would be allowed to escape. If another adult is seen, the researchers would move the operation. And in no case would the electrofishing take place where fish are actively spawning. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the fish they capture, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Island County Department of Natural Resources (ICDNR) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The sampling would take place in the Fidalgo Island and northern Whidbey Island shoreline area near Deception Pass at Cornet Bay and Ala Spit. The purpose of the study is to assess salmonid and forage fish use of habitat restored by removal of armoring and fill. This research would benefit the affected species by informing future restoration designs as well as providing data to support future enhancement projects. The ICDNR proposes to capture fish using a beach seine. Fish would be removed from the net and placed in buckets. All fish would be enumerated by species and the first 20 of each species would be measured for length. All fish would be released in the same location they were caught. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
Determination to remove a product currently included in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement.
October 5, 2015.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”) has determined that certain three-thread circular knit fleece fabrics, as specified below, are available in the CAFTA-DR countries in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The product, which is currently included in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities, will be removed, effective 180 days after publication of this notice.
Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2043. For information online see
The CAFTA-DR Agreement; Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (“CAFTA-DR Implementation Act”), Public Law 109-53; the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act; and Presidential Proclamation 7987 (February 28, 2006).
The CAFTA-DR Implementation Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamation 7987, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act for modifying the list in Annex 3.25. Pursuant to this authority, CITA
On February 27, 2015, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Sorini Samet & Associates, on behalf of Gildan USA, Inc. (“Gildan”) for a Commercial Availability determination to remove or restrict (“Request to Remove”) certain three-thread circular knit fleece fabrics, currently listed in Annex 3.25. Gildan offered to supply the specified fabrics and provided information demonstrating its ability to supply commercial quantities in a timely manner. On March 3, 2015, in accordance with CITA's procedures, CITA notified interested parties of the Request to Remove, which was posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings. In its notification, CITA advised that any Response to the Request to Remove must be submitted by March 13, 2015, and any Rebuttal Comments to a Response must be submitted by March 19, 2015, in accordance with Sections 6, 7 and 9 of CITA's procedures. No interested entity submitted a Response advising CITA of its objection to the Request to Remove. In accordance with section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, Section 8(a) and (b), and Section 9(c)(3) of CITA's procedures, as no interested entity submitted a Response objecting to the Request to Remove, CITA has determined to approve the Request to Remove the subject product from the list in Annex 3.25. Pursuant to Section 9(c)(3)(iii)(A), textile and apparel articles containing the subject product are not to be treated as originating in a CAFTA-DR country if the subject product is obtained from non-CAFTA-DR sources, effective for goods entered into the United States on or after 180 calendar days after the date of publication of this notice. A revised list in Annex 3.25, noting the effective date of the removal of the subject product, has been posted on the dedicated Web site for CAFTA-DR commercial availability proceedings.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is requesting to renew the approval for an existing information collection titled, “Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators (Regulation G) 12 CFR 1007.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before June 8, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
• Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is proposing to renew the approval for an existing information collection titled, “CFPB's Consumer Response Intake Form.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before May 8, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
• Electronic:
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is proposing to renew the approval for an existing information collection titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for Consumer Complaint and Information Collection System (Testing and Feedback).”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before May 8, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Advisory Panel will meet 8:15 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to review ways to establish a culture of innovation in the Department of the Navy. This meeting is opened to the public.
The meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 2015, from 8:15 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Pentagon, in Room 4B746, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000.
Commander Randall Biggs, SECNAV Advisory Panel, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000, 703-695-3042.
The agenda is as follows: April 20, 2015, speakers and discussions on the
Individuals or interested groups may submit written statements for consideration by the SECNAV Advisory Panel at any time or in response to the agenda of a schedule meeting. All requests must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address detailed below. If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in this meeting notice, it must be received at least five days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the SECNAV Advisory Panel before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. For further information write to: Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy, (Policy), Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel, Designated Federal Officer, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-1000.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
This priority is:
Section 612(a)(23) of IDEA requires States to provide educational materials in accessible formats in a timely manner to students who are blind or have print disabilities. Section 613(a)(6) of IDEA includes a similar requirement for local educational agencies (LEAs). In the process of implementing these provisions in IDEA, States, LEAs, and accessible media producers (AMPs), whom States and LEAs employ to convert educational materials into accessible formats, have encountered barriers to the production of high-quality accessible educational materials (AEM).
In 2010, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) awarded a cooperative agreement, the Research and Development Center on Digital Images and Graphic Content in Accessible Instructional Materials, to implement a rigorous program of research and development to improve the cost, quality, usability, and availability of graphic content in accessible instructional materials and the devices and software used to access that content for blind, visually impaired, and print disabled students. While the center has improved the way graphic content is produced and accessed by children with print disabilities, ensuring accessibility to complex educational materials, such as STEM educational materials with graphic content, continues to challenge publishers, AMPs, and others who develop and produce STEM educational materials. The need for research and development continues to exist.
Although the technology, publishing, and disability communities are working together to develop standards and guidelines for producing and accessing digital materials and assessments in accessible formats, the adoption of these standards remains voluntary, thus implementation and use of the standards are inconsistent. Additionally, some standards and guidelines may not include markup language,
New unexplored technologies, and the promise of more powerful technologies in the future, provide potential opportunities to improve access to digital content and educational
To address the issues and challenges related to the development, production, and dissemination of AEM and to ensure that infants, toddlers, and children
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to support the establishment and operation of a Research and Development Center to Advance the Use of New and Emerging Technologies to Ensure Accessibility (Center). Under this priority, the Center must conduct a comprehensive review of industry accessibility standards and their applications. Based on this review, the Center must implement a program of research and development designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following outcomes:
(a) Development, demonstration, and use of technologies, devices, tools, products, and software that ensure full access to educational materials and content, including graphic content, regardless of the original formats of the materials (
(b) Increase the number of new digital and multimedia educational materials that are “born accessible” (
(c) Identification of potential uses of new technologies, devices, tools, products, and software to enhance the accessibility of educational materials, especially STEM educational materials, for children who are blind or have print disabilities and those with disabilities not traditionally associated with print disabilities;
(d) Identification of accessibility features specific to the needs of children with disabilities not traditionally associated with print disabilities (
(e) Increased knowledge sharing among technology developers, publishers, and end users including educators, persons with disabilities, and parents of children with disabilities.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements in this priority. OSEP encourages innovative approaches to meeting the following requirements:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will achieve and maintain expert awareness of the current and developing standards and uses of technologies that support or increase accessibility of educational materials for children with disabilities by:
(1) Establishing and maintaining a technical format review advisory committee. The technical format review advisory committee must—
(i) Consist of no fewer than five members representing the full range of diverse stakeholders, including at least one member from each of the following five specific groups: Technology developers, publishers, and end users including educators, persons with disabilities, and parents of children with disabilities. Advisory committee members should be identified no later than six weeks from the award date;
(ii) Meet no less frequently than twice per year during the project period with the project director and relevant project staff;
(iii) Evaluate current technologies, standards, and guidelines that are used and applied in the production and use of educational materials to ensure that the content is accessible to children with disabilities; and
(iv) Evaluate current devices and software that support and ensure access to educational materials.
(2) Leveraging its network of professional relationships to increase the awareness and application of accessibility standards among educators, publishers, and technology developers. To meet this requirement, the applicant must:
(i) Demonstrate the extent of its network of educators, publishers, and technology developers;
(ii) Describe its proposed methods to increase the awareness and application of accessibility standards by educators, publishers, and technology developers; and
(iii) Describe its plan for expanding its network to include additional stakeholders in order to maintain relevant expertise in emerging technologies, standards, and guidelines.
(3) Disseminate information on the uses, and potential uses, of emergent technologies, devices, tools, products, and software and accessibility standards and features of AEM for children who are blind or have print disabilities and those with disabilities not traditionally associated with print disabilities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its plan to:
(i) Prepare and disseminate reports, documents, and other materials available in appropriate formats on:
(A) Current industry standards and best practices in the production and dissemination of AEM;
(B) Current technologies used to produce AEM;
(C) Currently available devices and software used to access AEM;
(D) Any devices or software developed or modified by the Center;
(E) Processes related to the development or modification of technologies, standards, and guidelines used in the production of AEM, and devices and software used to access AEM; and
(F) Related topics, as requested by OSEP; and
(ii) Communicate using a variety of media and methods (for example, presentations, publications, conference attendance, demonstrations) to reach the broad range of technology developers, publishers, and end users, including educators, children with disabilities, and parents of children with disabilities.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Explore the legal issues around the provision of AEM for children with disabilities not traditionally associated with print disabilities.
(2) Collaborate with publishers and distributors of educational materials to develop and field test models for making AEM available for use by children with disabilities traditionally not associated with print disabilities.
(3) Determine potential uses of new technologies to enhance the accessibility of educational materials.
(4) Collaborate with publishers, AMPs, State educational agencies, LEAs, consumers, and technology developers, vendors, and others with expertise in AEM production, devices, and software, to—
(i) Develop technologies that improve access to and readability of educational materials containing graphic content, including STEM educational materials;
(ii) Develop tools and products to improve the quality and usability of AEM and increase the efficiency of producing AEM, including the production of digital braille files written in Unified English Braille;
(iii) Identify accessibility features specific to the needs of children with disabilities not traditionally associated with print disabilities; and
(iv) Develop new tools or products and modify existing tools and products that address the specialized needs of children with disabilities not traditionally associated with print disabilities.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Include key personnel, consultants, and contractors with sufficient qualifications, experience, and commitment to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes.
(2) Encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, linguistic diversity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability, as appropriate.
(3) Allocate project resources to carry out proposed activities.
(4) Ensure the proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Management Plan,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.
(2) Pursue a diversity of perspectives, including families, early intervention service providers, educators, publishers, designers, developers, vendors, researchers, parent training and information centers, policy makers, the business community, SEAs and lead agencies, and other OSEP-funded projects.
(3) Communicate effectively between the project and stakeholders and between the project and OSEP including OSEP-funded projects. To address this requirement, the applicant must commit to—
(i) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
(ii) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with OSEP-funded projects, specifically the Center for Parent Information and Resources, National Instructional Materials Access Center, National Center on Accessible Educational Materials for Learning, and Bookshare and Innovation for Education. The collaborations could include the joint development of products, participation in field-testing, and regular communications and updates on Center activities;
(iii) Prior to developing any new product, whether paper, digital, or oral, discuss the content and purpose of the product or event with the OSEP project officer;
(iv) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP project officer through biweekly phone conversations and email communication; and
(v) Submit a quarterly progress report to the OSEP project officer.
(e) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan. The evaluation plan must describe measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project's products and services have reached the target population, and measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to assess the effectiveness of those activities.
In the evaluation plan, the applicant must commit to—
(1) Ensure ongoing feedback on the quality of project performance from technology developers, AEM publishers, and end users including educators, persons with disabilities, and parents of children with disabilities.
(2) Assess the cost, quality, usability, and availability of the technologies, including devices and software products, that are developed or modified by the Center.
(3) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Project Performance (CIPP),
(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the grant application to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model discussed at the kick-off meeting and to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes;
(ii) Refine, as needed, the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the grant application consistent with the logic model (
(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the grant application such that it clearly—
(A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completion of the plan;
(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the second project year for use during the project's intensive review for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and
(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project officer, with the assistance of CIPP as needed, to specify the performance measures to be addressed in the project's Annual Performance Report.
(4) Cooperate with CIPP staff in order to accomplish the tasks described in paragraph (e)(3) of these application requirements.
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of these application requirements and implementing the evaluation plan.
(f) In the narrative under “Required Project Assurances” or the appendices as directed, the applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the project's proposed goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.
The following Web sites provide more information on logic models:
(2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project.
(3) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts (charts listing information such as key project staff, their full-time equivalent, and the number of days allocated to each major activity) and timelines to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative.
(4) Include in the budget:
(i) Attendance at the following:
(A) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer during each subsequent year of the project period.
Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.
(B) A three-day project directors' meeting in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.
(C) One two-day trip annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.
(D) A one-day meeting in Washington, DC, as described under the heading Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project.
(ii) A line item for a summative evaluation to be conducted by an independent third party.
(iii) A line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are identified in consultation with OSEP.
With approval from the OSEP project officer, the Center must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.
In deciding whether to continue funding the Center for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well as—
(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary. This intensive review will be conducted during a one-day meeting in Washington, DC, that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Center; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Center's activities and products and the degree to which the Center's activities and products have contributed to changed practice and improved student access to the general education curriculum through improved access to high-quality AEM and devices.
20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program must involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327B.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirement does not apply to part I, the cover sheet; part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirement does apply to all of part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the Research and Development Center to Advance the Use of New and Emerging Technologies to Ensure Accessibility competition, CFDA number 84.327B, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Research and Development Center to Advance the Use of New and Emerging Technologies to Ensure Accessibility competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m.,
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Glinda Hill, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4063, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2600. FAX: (202) 245-7617.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
5.
Glinda Hill, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4063, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone: (202) 245-7376.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of closed meeting.
This notice announces a closed meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of meetings be announced
April 29, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.—Sandia National Laboratories. April 30, 2015, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.—Los Alamos National Laboratory. May 1, 2015, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.—Sandia National Laboratory.
Sandia National Laboratories, 1515 Eubank SE., Albuquerque, NM 87123; Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545.
Loretta Martin, Office of RDT&E (NA-113), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7996.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final action.
This notice announces that EPA Region 1 issued a final permit decision for a Clean Air Act (CAA) permit modification (Permit number RG1-DPA-CAA-01M) to Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, LLC for the operation of the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port.
EPA Region 1 issued a final CAA permit modification decision for the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port on December 30, 2014. The CAA permit modification for the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port became final and effective on December 30, 2014. Pursuant to Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final permit decision, to the extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit within 60 days of April 8, 2015.
Documents relevant to the above-referenced permit are available for public inspection between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at EPA Region 1's Boston office, John W. McCormack Post Office and Courthouse Building, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA. These materials may also be obtained on-line at EPA Region 1's Web site at
Patrick Bird, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, (617) 918-1287,
EPA Region 1, acting in accordance with provisions of the Deepwater Port Act and the CAA, issued a final CAA permit modification decision on December 30, 2014 to Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, LLC for the operation of the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, located in federal waters off the coast of Massachusetts. Prior to the permit being finalized, a draft permit was issued, and the permit underwent a public comment period, which included a public hearing. EPA Region 1 received no comments during the public comment period. All conditions of the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port modified permit (Permit number RG1-DPA-CAA-01M) became final and effective on December 30, 2014.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Background Checks for Contractor Employees (Renewal)—EPA ICR No. 2159.06, OMB Control No. 2030-0043, 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 8, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2014-0857, to: (1) EPA, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Dianne Lyles, Policy Training and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-6111; fax number: 202-565-2553; 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
Christopher Green, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address:
The Agency included in the February 25, 2015 notice, a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0888, is available at
FR Doc. 2015-03926, published in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application 100-EUP-RRA from Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requesting an experimental use permit (EUP) for the termiticide Altriset containing the active ingredient chlorantraniliprole. 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 8, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0206 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 attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
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
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Federal Maritime Commission.
April 13, 2015; 10:00 a.m.
800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
The first portion of the meeting will be held in Open Session; the second in Closed Session.
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and section 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 23, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 4, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 23, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, GSA.
Meeting Notice.
The Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities (CECANF), a Federal Advisory Committee established by the Protect Our Kids Act of 2012, will hold a meeting open to the public on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 and Wednesday, April 29, 2015 in Memphis, Tennessee.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 28, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT), and Wednesday, April 29, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT). Comments regarding this meeting must be received by Friday, April 24, 2015, for consideration prior to the meeting.
CECANF will convene its meeting at the Spring Hill Suites Memphis Downtown, 85 West Court Ave., Memphis, TN 38103. This site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The meeting also will be made available via teleconference and/or webinar.
Submit comments identified by “Notice-CECANF-2015-03,” by either of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Mail: U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7003D, Washington, DC 20405, Attention: Tom Hodnett (CD) for CECANF.
Visit the CECANF Web site at
However, members of the public wishing to comment should follow the steps detailed under the heading
Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Property, GSA Form 3040.
Submit comments on or before June 8, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0112, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for Information Collection 3090-0112. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0112; State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and select “Search”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0112, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0112, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property” on your attached document.
•
•
Joyce Spalding, Federal Acquisition Service, GSA at telephone 703-605-2888 or via email to
This report complies with Public Law 94-519, which requires annual reports of donations of personal property to public agencies for use in carrying out such purposes as conservation, economic development, education, parks and recreation, public health, and public safety.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0112, GSA Form 3040, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property, in all correspondence.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on Enhancing Mine Workers' Abilities to Identify Hazards at Sand, Stone, and Gravel (SSG) Mines. The objective of this project is to characterize SSG mine workers ability to recognize worksite hazards, to understand how this ability relates to perceived and measured risk as well as to other factors internal and external to the SSG mine worker.
Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0017 by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital
Enhancing Mine Workers' Abilities to Identify Hazards at Sand, Stone, and Gravel Mines—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
NIOSH, under Pub. L. 91-173 as amended by Pub. L. 95-164 (Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977), and Pub. L. 109-236 (Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006) has the responsibility to conduct research to improve working conditions and to prevent accidents and occupational diseases in underground coal and metal/nonmetal mines in the U.S.
Hazard recognition is only the first step to a safe work environment. A miner must be able to identify a hazard, recognize the risk associated with the hazard, and then make a decision of how to mitigate the risk and perform the task safely. Risk is defined as the combination of the likelihood an event will occur and the adverse consequences of that event (Brown & Groeger, 1988). Risk perception, the recognition of the risk inherent in a situation, influences decision making with regards to job safety (Hunter, 2002). Being able to recognize worksite hazards and then accurately perceive the associated risk are critical skills that lead to the work behavior decision-making process that is used to eliminate or reduce mining hazards related to operations and maintenance of machinery, operation of powered haulage, material handling, etc. that can result in injury or death.
Hazard recognition is integral to risk perception, situational awareness, and decision making—that is, if the mine worker is unable to recognize worksite hazards, then steps cannot be taken to eliminate or mitigate them. Thus, the mine worker must first be able to recognize that a hazard is present in the environment and then understand the risk the hazard poses to their safety and health in order to make the best decision possible about how to deal with the hazard. Hazard recognition is a necessary skill for all mine workers; therefore, a better understanding of the hazard recognition process within the mining environment is a critical need that this research will fulfill for the industry.
Given the aforementioned, the objective of the project is to characterize SSG mine workers' ability to recognize worksite hazards, to understand how this ability relates to perceived and measured risk as well as to other factors internal and external to the SSG mine worker.
In order to determine how SSG mine workers' recognize and understand the risk associated with mine site hazards, NIOSH will conduct a laboratory-based experimental research study. Throughout the laboratory study, participants will wear a light weight eye-tracking system. Eye-movements will be collected throughout the task so that search patterns can be mapped during analysis to determine differences based on level of experience. NIOSH will also collect identification accuracy data to determine whether level of experience affects the number of hazards identified.
NIOSH will collect additional measures related to perceived risk and risk tolerance. Researchers will assess perceived risk using a Risk Assessment measure which has three parts: (1) An overall evaluation of risk level; (2) an evaluation of accident severity; and (3) an evaluation of risk probability. This will be done for each hazard included in the study.
Researchers will assess Risk Tolerance in two ways: (1) Through the use of the Risk Propensity Scale (Meertens & Lion, 2008) and (2) through the use of Risk Tolerance Workplace Scenarios (Lehmann, Haight, & Michael, 2009). NIOSH will also collect qualitative data through the use of open-ended interview questions.
NIOSH will collect data from SSG mine workers, SSG safety professionals, and students knowledgeable of safety and health issues at SSG mine sites but who have limited work experience on a mine site. The purposes of collecting data from these three groups of participants are to identify differences in hazard recognition abilities and determine how these abilities change—and whether they change—with level of experience and amount of experience with hazards at SSG mine sites.
The total estimated burden hours are 160. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to (FOA) DP15-002, Population-based Diabetes in Youth Registry.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on procedures to conduct interviews with Age Friendly Initiative, Senior Village, and local health department staff, as well as surveys of older adults.
Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0019 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Examining how Local Health Departments can Leverage Age-Friendly Cities Initiatives to Build Resilience in Elderly Populations—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Despite considerable progress in efforts to define and build community resilience (CR), critical gaps remain in addressing the needs of older adults (age 60+), which is expected to rise to 25% by 2050. Age Friendly Initiatives (AFIs), including Senior Villages (SV) represent a promising strategy for U.S. communities and cities to support older adults aging in place, and could potentially build CR. However, few AFIs have wholly incorporated the critical element of emergency preparedness and resilience. Even when these domains have been included, there is no evaluation of whether these efforts have resulted in improved resilience outcomes among seniors (
CDC is requesting a 24-month OMB clearance period to conduct and analyze telephone interview data to identify how current AFIs and CR efforts align; understand AFI and SV relationships with LHDs; clarify the process through which policymakers can incorporate CR into AFIs; survey test sites in a quasi-experimental design of AFIs currently underway; and develop a toolkit to help LHDs identify the need for AFIs, evaluate and monitor AFIs ability to improve resilience, develop effective and efficient partnerships with AFIs to expand AFI-LHD efforts across the U.S to build community resilience.
RAND Corporation research staff will conduct the telephone interviews (average of 30 minutes) over a 3-9 month period beginning approximately one month after OMB approval. The target universe for the interviews with key informants comprises three types of respondents (a) SV executive directors; (b) AFI staff; and (c) local public health department officials. SVs are neighborhood-based and are grassroots organizations usually led by older adult residents. AFIs in the U.S. can be either city-based or county-based and are led by city/county-level administration, health departments, academic centers, and/or volunteer organizations. CDC will recruit no more than 30 SV executive directors, 31 staff from AFIs, and 15 local health department officials.
To assess the variability in AFIs and SVs and identify opportunities for integrating community resilience goals and activities into their development and ongoing activities, CDC will conduct qualitative interviews using semi-structured interview guides (each interview guide for the three groups is different). These interview guides ask about the AFIs' or SVs' structure, stage of implementation, linkage with public health departments, and whether (and what types) of emergency preparedness (EP) activities are provided to older adults in their community.
For the telephone survey of older adults, data collection by a survey firm will take place over a 9-15 month period beginning approximately 9 months after OMB approval. The sample will comprise of 1,550 adults age 65 and older from three types of communities: Communities with SVs that engage in EP activities, communities with SVs that do not engage in EP activities, and control communities without SVs or other AFIs.
The survey firm will conduct a random digit dial (RDD) survey (approximately 20 minutes) of 1,550 older adults to evaluate the effects of being village member versus not living in a SV, and the effects of living in a SV with EP preparedness activities.
SV members will be identified and recruited in two ways: Member lists with contact information will be submitted to the research team by SV executive directors or SV executive directors will send a recruitment letter on our behalf. The survey will begin with a screening question to identify SV member status (1-2 minutes). We anticipate that we will need to screen out approximately 1,431 participants to identify our target sample: SV members who live in an SV that does engage in EP activities; SV members who live in a SV that do not engage in EP activities; and older adults that do not live in a SV. The outcomes and control variables we will measure in the survey of older adults are: Disaster resilience, social connectedness, self-sufficiency, emotional resilience, attention to health needs, exposure to age-friendly initiatives, age, gender, race/ethnicity, length of time living in community, current living situation, income, and presence of chronic health conditions.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 580. A summary of annualized burden hours is below.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to (FOA) DP15-001, Natural Experiments of the Impact of Population-targeted Health Policies to Prevent Diabetes and its Complications.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the information collection request for reinstatement with change of the collection previously approved under OMB control number 0920-1005—“
Written comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0018 by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Conduct an Older Adult Mobility Assessment Tool Impact Evaluation and Develop a Dissemination Plan (OMB Control No. 0920-1005)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) requests approval for 3 years, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a reinstatement with change for the previously approved OMB No. 0920-1005 (Exp. Date: 12-31-2014) designed to evaluate whether the Mobility Planning Tool is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and assess potential strategies for dissemination of the Mobility Planning Tool. With this reinstatement, NCIPC requests a change of title from “
The population of older adults in the U.S. is growing rapidly. By 2030, this segment of the population will increase to an estimated 72 million (20% of the U.S. population). A critical public health issue for the older adult population is mobility—how well people are able to get to places they need to go. The goals of this study are to evaluate (1) whether the Mobility Planning Tool (MPT) is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and (2) assess potential strategies for dissemination of the MPT.
NCIPC will collect study data using telephone interviews. The study population is community-living older adults ages 60-74 with no known mobility limitations. A total of 1,000 individuals will participate in the study. Prospective respondents will answer a series of screening questions. Individuals who meet the screening criteria and are willing to participate will complete a baseline and follow-up interview each lasting approximately 10 minutes.
NCIPC will analyzed the collected data using descriptive statistics and a series of t-tests, chi-square analyses, and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Multivariate analyses will include a series of repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and logistic regressions.
The data collected from this study will help CDC identify what further revisions to the MPT might be necessary before it is disseminated publicly. Selected study findings may eventually be presented in oral and poster presentations and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Without this information collection, CDC will not know whether the MPT is an effective tool for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and will not know whether additional revisions to the tool are necessary before the MPT is disseminated publicly. Without this study, CDC will have limited information about what strategies are most likely to be effective for disseminating the MPT publicly to the target audience.
The total estimated annual burden hours are 734.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH or Center) is announcing the 2015 Experiential Learning Program (ELP). This training component is intended to provide CDRH staff with an opportunity to understand the policies, laboratory practices, and challenges faced in broader disciplines that impact the device development life cycle. The purpose of this document is to invite medical device industry, academia, and health care facilities to apply to participate in this formal training program for FDA's medical device review staff, or to contact CDRH for more information regarding the ELP.
Submit either an electronic or written request for participation in the ELP by May 8, 2015. The proposal should include a description of your facility relative to focus areas described in tables 1or 2). Please include the Area of Interest (see tables 1or 2) that the site visit will demonstrate to CDRH staff, a contact person, site visit location(s), length of site visit, proposed dates, and maximum number of CDRH staff that can be accommodated during a site visit. Proposals submitted without this minimum information will not be considered. In addition, please include an agenda outlining the proposed training for the site visit. A sample request and agenda are available on the ELP Web site at
Submit either electronic requests to
Latonya Powell, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5232, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6965, FAX: 301-827-3079,
CDRH is responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices marketed in the United States. Furthermore, CDRH assures that patients and providers have timely and continued access to high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices. In support of this mission, the Center launched various training and development initiatives to enhance performance of its staff involved in regulatory review and in the premarket review process. One of these initiatives, the ELP Pilot, was launched in 2012 and fully implemented on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19711). CDRH is committed to advancing regulatory science; providing industry with predictable, consistent, transparent, and efficient regulatory pathways; and helping to ensure consumer confidence in medical devices marketed in the United States and throughout the world. The ELP is intended to provide CDRH staff with an opportunity to understand the policies, laboratory practices, and challenges faced in broader disciplines that impact the device development life cycle. This is a collaborative effort to enhance communication and facilitate the premarket review process. Furthermore, CDRH is committed to understanding current industry practices, innovative technologies, regulatory impacts, and regulatory needs.
These formal training visits are not intended for FDA to inspect, assess, judge, or perform a regulatory function (
In this training program, groups of CDRH staff will observe operations at research, manufacturing, academia, and health care facilities. The focus areas and specific areas of interest for visits may include the following:
CDRH will be responsible for CDRH staff travel expenses associated with the site visits. CDRH will not provide funds to support the training provided by the site to this ELP. Selection of potential facilities will be based on CDRH's priorities for staff training and resources available to fund this program. In addition to logistical and other resource factors, all sites must have a successful compliance record with FDA or another Agency with which FDA has a memorandum of understanding. If a site visit involves a visit to a separate physical location of another firm under contract with the site, that firm must agree to participate in the ELP and must also have a satisfactory compliance history.
Submit proposals for participation with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. Received requests may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; and Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services and Research, Education, and Economics. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice.
A notice was published in the
The comment period is extended and thus will end at 11:59 p.m., E.D.T. on May 8, 2015.
The Advisory Report is available on the Internet at
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), 2015 DGAC, Richard D. Olson, M.D., M.P.H.; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, OASH/HHS; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100 Tower Building; Rockville, MD 20852: Telephone: (240) 453-8280; Fax: (240) 453-8281; Alternate DFO, 2015 DGAC, Kellie (O'Connell) Casavale, Ph.D., R.D., Nutrition Advisor; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, OASH/HHS; 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100 Tower Building; Rockville, MD 20852: Telephone: (240) 453-8280; Fax: (240) 453-8281; Lead USDA Co-Executive Secretary, Colette I. Rihane, M.S., R.D., Director, Office of Nutrition Guidance and Analysis, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, USDA; 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1034; Alexandria, VA 22302; Telephone: (703) 305-7600; Fax: (703) 305-3300; and/or USDA Co-Executive Secretary, Shanthy A. Bowman, Ph.D., Nutritionist, Food Surveys Research Group, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA; 10300 Baltimore Avenue, BARC-West Bldg. 005, Room 125; Beltsville, MD 20705-2350; Telephone: (301) 504-0619.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB).
Under authority 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services established the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to provide advice regarding federal oversight of dual use research, defined as
The meeting will be open to the public and will also be webcast as space will be limited. Persons planning to attend or view via the webcast may pre-register online using the link provided below or by calling Palladian Partners, Inc. (Contact: Monica Barnette at 301-650-8660). Online and telephone registration will close at 12:00 p.m. Eastern on May 4, 2015. After that time, attendees may register onsite on the day of the meeting. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should indicate these requirements upon registration.
The effectiveness of donor notification, HIV counseling, and linkage of HIV positive donors to health care in Brazil (NHLBI).
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c) (2) (A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
New information gathered from these enrollees will serve the three aims proposed for this proposed study. The first aim of this study will be to analyze the actual percentage of blood donors who are successfully notified of their infection testing results. In this aim, we will expand the notification focus to include all infections that blood centers in Brazil test for because differences in rates of notification by type of infection are unknown. The second aim will assess the effectiveness of HIV notification and counseling. HIV-positive donors will be interviewed to evaluate their follow-up activities with regard to HIV infection treatment and infection transmission prevention
Because our study will build off the routine blood donor procedures in four large blood banks in Brazil, it may lead to more informed conversations around and possible changes in donor screening, notification and counseling policies in Latin America. Results of these three aims may also help to better integrate blood centers within the context of broader HIV testing, counseling and treatment sites in Brazil. Similarly, in the US little is known about donor behavior after notification of testing results by blood centers. The results from this study can be used to develop insights and hypotheses focused on developing improved strategies for notification and counseling of HIV-positive (or hepatitis C or B-positive) donors in the U.S.
This proposed study's findings will also yield insights into improved methods for donor self-selection and qualification post donation, which will serve to decrease the frequency of higher-risk persons acting as donors. Our findings on improved methods for Brazilian donor notification and linkage to health care services may also be applicable to developed countries, including the U.S. Results of the Brazil Notification Study will identify how to improve notification and counseling strategies that increase the number of HIV-positive donors seeking prompt medical care. This might ultimately boost strategies to prevent secondary HIV transmission and reduce the risk of transfusion-transmission.
In addition to the traditional route of scientific dissemination through peer reviewed scientific publication, previous REDS and REDS-II study data were the subject of numerous requested presentations by Federal and non-Federal agencies, including the FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee, the HHS Advisory committee on Blood Safety and Availability, the AABB Transfusion-Transmitted Diseases Committee, and the Americas Blood Centers (ABC). We anticipate similar requests for results generated from this study. Data collected in this proposed HIV Notification study of donors will be of practical use to the blood banking and infectious disease communities in the U.S. and internationally.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 229.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Coast Guard, DHS
Request for applications.
The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee. The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations on matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials activities insofar as they relate to matters within the United States Coast Guard's jurisdiction.
Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before June 8, 2015.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
• By Email:
• By Fax: (202) 372-8380.
• By Mail: Lieutenant Cristina Nelson, Alternate Designated Federal
Lieutenant Cristina Nelson, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509,
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is established under the authority of section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 451. Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is an advisory committee established in accordance with and operating under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. Appendix).
The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials activities insofar as they relate to matters within the Coast Guard's jurisdiction.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meets at least twice per year, typically every six months. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees may meet to consider specific problems as required.
The Coast Guard will consider applications for eight positions that become vacant on September 17, 2015. The membership categories are: Marine Handling and Transportation, Marine Environmental Protection, Safety and Security, Vessel Design and Construction, and Chemical Manufacturing.
To be eligible, applicants should have experience in chemical manufacturing, marine handling or transportation of chemicals, vessel design and construction, marine safety or security, or marine environmental protection. Each member serves for a term of three years. Committee members are limited to serving no more than two consecutive three-year terms. A member appointed to fill an unexpired term may serve the remainder of that term. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory Committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards and Commissions” (79 FR 47482, August 13, 2014). Registered lobbyists are lobbyists required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65, as amended by title II of Pub. L. 110-81).
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Lieutenant Cristina Nelson, Alternate Federal Officer of Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, by email or mail according to instructions in the
Note, that during the vetting process, applicants may be asked to provide their date of birth and social security number. All email submittals will receive email receipt confirmation.
To visit our online docket, go to
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice.
DHS, USCIS invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 8, 2015.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0052 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0025. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
(3)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 8, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number 202-272-8377 (comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of a Federal Advisory Committee Meeting: Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC).
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a teleconference meeting of the MHCC, General Subcommittee. The teleconference meeting is open to the public. The agenda provides an opportunity for citizens to comment on the business before the MHCC.
The teleconference meeting will be held on May 5, 2015, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The teleconference numbers are: US toll-free: 1-877-336-1829, and Access Code: 8764141.
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator and Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5. U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2) through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150. The MHCC was established by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, (42 U.S.C. 5401
• Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the Federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards;
• Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement regulations, including regulations specifying the permissible scope and conduct of monitoring; and
• Be organized and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair opportunity for the expression and consideration of various positions and for public participation.
The MHCC is deemed an advisory committee not composed of Federal employees.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments,” this notice requests public comment on HUD's tribal government-to-government consultation policy. The purpose of this tribal consultation policy is to enhance communication and coordination between HUD and federally recognized Indian tribes, and to outline guiding principles and procedures under which all HUD employees are to operate with regard to federally recognized Indian or Alaska Native tribes.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this document to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel,
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the document.
Rodger Boyd, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 4126, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-401-7914 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, published November 9, 2000) recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Among other things, it requires that agencies have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in developing policies that have tribal implications. On November 5, 2009, President Obama reaffirmed the government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments in a White House memorandum that acknowledges that Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The November 5, 2009, memorandum also acknowledges that the United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, Indian tribal treaty and other rights. Today's notice, which requests public comment, supports these Presidential directives and builds upon and expands the principles expressed in the Department's previous “Tribal Government-to-Government Consultation Policy,” (66 FR 49784, September 28, 2001).
A. The United States Government has a unique relationship with American Indian governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, judicial decisions, and Executive orders and memoranda.
B. On April 29, 1994, a Presidential memorandum was issued reaffirming the Federal Government's commitment to operate within a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, and to advance self-governance for such tribes.
On May 14, 1998, Executive Order 13084, “
On November 5, 2009,
C. In recognition of the importance of consultation and consistent with Executive Order 13175, and the Presidential memorandum of November 5, 2009, HUD requests public comment on this consultation policy statement. In January 2010, HUD held a series of HUD-tribal regional consultations to
The comments from participants who attended these consultations, as well as all comments received by other means, were consolidated by ONAP. HUD carefully reviewed all comments received from all sources, responded, and made changes to the existing HUD consultation policy based on these comments, as appropriate.
HUD conducted a second round of tribal consultation by sending the revised draft policy to all tribal leaders for their comment. On November 12, 2014, the Department provided all tribal leaders a draft version of HUD's revised tribal government-to-government consultation policy and requested their feedback and opinion on the draft. In response to the Department's November 12, 2014, request for comments, the Department received three comments from Indian tribes and a national organization that represents the housing interests of Native Americans. The Department appreciates and carefully considered the comments submitted. This notice incorporates several of the comments and recommendations provided.
This consultation policy applies to all HUD programs and policies that have substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribal governments. In formulating or implementing such policies, HUD will be guided by the fundamental principles set forth in section 2 of Executive Order 13175, to the extent applicable to HUD programs. Section 2 of the Executive Order provides as follows:
Sec. 2.
(a) The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. Since the formation of the Union, the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under its protection. The Federal Government has enacted numerous statutes and promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes.
(b) Our Nation, under the law of the United States, in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions, has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights.
(c) The United States recognizes the right of Indian tribes to self-government and supports tribal sovereignty and self-determination.
A. “
Consultation is the proactive, affirmative process of (1) identifying and seeking input from appropriate Native American governing bodies, community groups and individuals; and (2) considering their interest as a necessary and integral part of HUD's decision-making process.
This definition adds to statutorily mandated notification procedures. The goal of notification is to provide an opportunity for comment; however, with consultation procedures, the burden is on the federal agency to show that it has made a good faith effort to elicit feedback.
B. “
C. “
D. “
E. “
F. “
A. HUD respects tribal sovereignty and acknowledges the unique relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
B. HUD recognizes and commits to a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes.
C. HUD recognizes tribes as the appropriate non-Federal parties for making policy decisions and managing programs for their constituents.
D. HUD shall take appropriate steps to remove existing legal and programmatic impediments to working directly and effectively with tribes on programs administered by HUD.
E. HUD shall encourage states and local governments to work with and cooperate with tribes to resolve problems of mutual concern.
F. HUD shall work with other Federal departments and agencies to enlist their interest and support in cooperative efforts to assist tribes to accomplish their goals within the context of all HUD programs.
G. HUD shall be guided by these policy principles in its planning and management activities, including its budget, operating guidance, legislative initiatives, management accountability system, and ongoing policy and regulation development processes for all programs effecting tribes.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
1. A workgroup may be established by HUD and tribes to address specific issues or to draft specific policies that have tribal implications. Tribal representation should be consistent with the established standard of geographically diverse small, medium, and large tribes, whenever possible.
2. Alternate workgroup members may be appointed by written notification signed by the member. Such alternates shall possess the authority of the workgroup member to make decisions on their behalf if such authority is so delegated to them in writing.
3. The workgroup shall be chaired by at least one tribal workgroup member, selected by the tribal workgroup members, and one HUD representative.
4. The workgroup may conduct its activities through various methods of communication, including in-person meetings, conference calls, and internet-based meeting platforms. Workgroup members may be accompanied by other individuals for advice as the members deem necessary.
5. Whenever possible, workgroup products should be circulated to tribal leaders for review and comment.
6. All final recommendations will be given serious consideration by HUD.
On issues relating to tribal self-governance, tribal trust resources, or treaty and other rights, HUD will explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations, including negotiated rulemaking. HUD may establish a standing committee, consisting of representatives of tribal governments, to consult on the appropriateness of using negotiated rulemaking procedures on particular matters. The procedures governing such a standing committee would be established through the mutual agreement of HUD and tribal governments.
To the extent practicable and permitted by law, HUD shall not promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has tribal implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on such communities, unless:
A. Funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the Indian tribal government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or
B. HUD, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation:
1. Consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation;
2. In a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the
3. Makes available to the Director of OMB any written communications submitted to HUD by such Indian tribal governments.
HUD shall review the processes under which Indian tribal governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes.
A. HUD shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by an Indian tribal government for a waiver of
B. HUD shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 90 days of receipt of such application by HUD. HUD shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and, if the application for a waiver is not granted, the reasons for such denial.
C. This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by HUD. Applicable civil rights statutes and regulations are not subject to waiver.
The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) (FACA) do not apply to consultations undertaken pursuant to this policy. In accordance with section 204(b) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, approved March 22, 1995), FACA is not applicable to consultations between the Federal Government and elected officers of Indian tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf). As OMB stated in its guidelines implementing section 204(b):
This exemption applies to meetings between Federal officials and employees and . . . tribal governments, acting through their elected officers, officials, employees, and Washington representatives, at which “views, information or advice” are exchanged concerning the implementation of intergovernmental responsibilities or administration, including those that arise explicitly or implicitly under statute, regulation, or Executive order.
The scope of meetings covered by the exemption should be construed broadly to include any meetings called for any purpose relating to intergovernmental responsibilities or administration. Such meetings include, but are not limited to, meetings called for the purpose of seeking consensus; exchanging views, information, advice, and/or recommendations; or facilitating any other interaction relating to intergovernmental responsibilities or administration. (OMB Memorandum 95-20 (September 21, 1995), pp. 6-7, published at 60 FR 50651, 50653 (September 29, 1995)).
This document has been adopted for the purpose of enhancing government-to-government relationships, communications, and mutual cooperation between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and tribes and is not intended to, and does not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right or benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other persons. The provisions of the FACA are not applicable to this policy. This document is effective on the date it is signed.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on incidental take permit applications for take of the federally listed American burying beetle resulting from activities associated with the geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permits would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2015.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicant's ITP applications by one of the following methods. Please refer to the specific permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at Environmental Review, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed ABB. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (
Applicant requests a new permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.
Applicant requests a new permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact.
This notice publishes the approval of the Tribal-State Compact for Regulation of Class III Gaming between the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians of Oregon (Tribe) and the State of Oregon (State), Amendment II.
Effective: April 8, 2015.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Office of the Secretary, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Acquisition and Property Management announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comments on the provisions thereof.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by
Send your written comments to Mary Heying, Department of the Interior, Office of Acquisition and Property Management, 1849 C St. NW., MS 4262 MIB, Washington, DC 20240, fax (202) 513-7645 or by email to
Requests for additional information on this proposed information collection or its Relocation Forms should be directed to the contact information provided in the
This notice is for renewal of an existing information collection.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This notice identifies an information collection activity that the Office of Acquisition and Property Management will submit to OMB for extension or re-approval. Public law 91-646, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, requires each Federal agency acquiring real estate interests to provide relocation benefits to individuals and businesses displaced as a result of the
(2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:
The Departments invite comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection of information and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
“Burden” means the total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, and to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by using the contact information provided in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rio Grande Natural Area Commission will host public meetings regarding the Draft Management Plan as indicated below.
The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission scheduled public meetings for May 12, 13 and 14. Each meeting will begin at 6 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 8 p.m. A phone call to plan the public meetings will be held on May 6 from 12 to 2 p.m.
The May 12 meeting will be held at the San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District Office, 623 Fourth St., Alamosa, CO 81101. The May 13 meeting will be held at the Costilla County Public Health Agency, 233 Main St., Suite C, San Luis, CO 81152. The May 14 meeting will be held in Antonito, Colorado at the Antonito Senior Center, 701 Main St., Antonito, CO 81120. To participate in the planning call, please contact Kyle Sullivan at the number listed below.
Kyle Sullivan, Public Affairs Specialist, Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 E. Main St., Cañon City, CO 81212; (719) 269-8553. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Rio Grande Natural Area Commission was established in the Rio Grande Natural Area Act (16 U.S.C. 460rrr-2). The nine-member Commission advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, concerning the preparation and implementation of a management plan for non-Federal land in the Rio Grande Natural Area, as directed by law. The public is invited to review, comment on and ask questions about the Commission's draft management plan. The draft management plan and minutes from previous meetings are available for public inspection at:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order extends the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order 7133 for an additional 20-year period. This extension is necessary to continue protection of the Brown Mountain, Pal Moore Meadows, Teepee, Cedar Creek, and Flowery Trail Seed Orchards, located in the Colville and Kaniksu National Forests, which will expire on April 12, 2015, unless extended.
Michael L. Barnes, Bureau of Land Management Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6155, or Candice Polisky, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, 503-808-2479. 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 purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires this extension to continue protection of the investments made in the Brown Mountain, Pal Moore Meadows, Teepee, Cedar Creek, and Flowery Trail Seed Orchards in Colville and Kaniksu National Forests. The withdrawal extended by this order will expire on April 12, 2035, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 43 U.S.C. 1714, the Secretary of the Interior determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.
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:
Public Land Order No. 7133 (60 FR 18777(1995)), which withdrew 496.22 acres of National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2), but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the investment at the Brown Mountain, Pal Moore Meadows, Teepee, Cedar Creek, and Flowery Trail Seed Orchards, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period until April 12, 2035.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Wilderness Stewardship Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Final WSP/EIS). The Final WSP/EIS identifies and analyzes five alternatives that will provide direction for the NPS to make decisions regarding the future use and protection of the Sequoia-Kings Canyon and John Krebs Wilderness within Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.
The NPS will execute a Record of Decision not sooner than 30 days from the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability for the Final EIS in the
Nancy Hendricks, Environmental Compliance and Planning Coordinator, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271, (559) 565-3102. Electronic versions of the complete document are available online at
The purposes of the WSP/EIS include implementing the long-term vision for protecting wilderness character that is contained in the parks' Final General Management Plan (GMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as well as enhancing established programs and actions for managing these areas as wilderness. A variety of controversial or long-standing issues are addressed in the WSP/EIS, including visitor capacity, wilderness permitting, party (group) size limits for people and stock, campfire regulations, camping locations and regulations, food-storage requirements, human-waste management, stock access, stock grazing, maintenance of facilities and trails, and management of frontcountry facilities that support wilderness use. The WSP/EIS also analyzes and determines the types and levels of commercial services that may be performed for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas, as required by § 4(d)(5) of the Wilderness Act (Extent Necessary Determination).
The WSP/EIS considers five alternatives that would manage the overall character of the parks' wilderness, including key aspects such as wilderness use levels, access and trails, stock use and grazing, recreational and administrative infrastructure, and the extent to which those activities proper for realizing wilderness purposes may be supported by commercial services. The main differences between these alternatives lie in the key elements of wilderness management—use levels, access and trails, stock use and grazing, and infrastructure, both recreational and administrative. These differences are driven by the different approach to management that each alternative offers. Each alternative serves visitor and/or operational needs in different ways, and would preserve natural resources in a condition that is consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before March 14, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 23, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the U.S. International Trade Commission is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory Analysis, the FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory, and the FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory Planned Analysis. The FY 2013 inventory analysis provides information on specific service contract actions that were analyzed as part of the FY 2013 inventory. The 2014 inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 which were made in FY 2014. The inventory information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Debra Bridge, U.S. International Trade Commission, Office of Procurement, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, or at 202-205-2004 or
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice with request for comments.
The Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing to adjust the established 2015 aggregate production quota for difenoxin, diphenoxylate (for conversion), and marijuana which are schedule I and II controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act.
Interested persons may file written comments on this notice in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13. Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before May 8,
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-411N” on all correspondence, including any attachments. The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone (202) 598-6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as directed above will generally be made available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document is available at
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires the Attorney General to establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II each year. The Attorney General has delegated this function to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100.
The DEA established the initial 2015 aggregate production quotas and assessments of annual need on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53216). That notice stipulated that, as provided for in 21 CFR 1303.13, all aggregate production quotas and assessments of annual need are subject to adjustment.
Based on unanticipated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States the DEA proposes to adjust the established 2015 aggregate production quotas for the schedule I and II controlled substances difenoxin, diphenoxylate (for conversion), and marijuana to be manufactured in the United States in 2015. The adjustment is necessary to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, lawful export requirements, and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks.
In proposing the adjustment, the Administrator has taken into account the following criteria in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13: (1) Changes in demand for the basic class, changes in the national rate of net disposal for the class, and changes in the rate of net disposal by the registrants holding individual manufacturing quotas for the class; (2) whether any increased demand or changes in the national and/or individual rates of net disposal are temporary, short term, or long term; (3) whether any increased demand for that class can be met through existing inventories, increased individual manufacturing quotas, or increased importation, without increasing the aggregate production quota; (4) whether any decreased demand will result in excessive inventory accumulation by all persons registered to handle the class; and (5) other factors affecting the medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and lawful export requirements, as the Administrator finds relevant.
Since the establishment of the initial 2015 aggregate production quotas, the DEA has received requests from DEA registered manufacturers to manufacture difenoxin and diphenoxylate (for conversion) to support the manufacture
Since the establishment of the initial 2015 aggregate production quotas, the DEA has received notification from DEA registered manufacturers that research and product development involving cannabidiol, is increasing beyond that previously anticipated for 2015. The associated product development activities are related to process validation and commercialization activities, including qualification activities related to potential U.S. Food and Drug Administration submission support.
Additionally, the DEA has also received notification from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) that it required additional supplies of marijuana to be manufactured in 2015 to provide for ongoing and anticipated research efforts involving marijuana. NIDA is a component of the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which oversees the cultivation, production and distribution of research-grade marijuana on behalf of the United States Government, pursuant to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (March 30, 1961, 18 UST 1407).
The Administrator, therefore, proposes to adjust the 2015 aggregate production quotas for difenoxin, diphenoxylate (for conversion), and marijuana, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Intent to Grant Partially Exclusive License.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 7,086,593 B2 titled “Magnetic Field Response Measurement Acquisition System,” NASA Case No. LAR-16908-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,159,774 B2 titled “Magnetic Field Response Measurement Acquisition System,” NASA Case No. LAR-17280-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,075,295 B2 titled “Magnetic Field Response Sensor for Conductive Media,” NASA Case No. LAR-16571-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,589,525 B2 titled “Magnetic Field Response Sensor for Conductive Media,” NASA Case No. LAR-16571-2; U.S. Patent No. 7,759,932 B2 titled “Magnetic Field Response Sensor for Conductive Media,” NASA Case No. LAR-16571-3; U.S. Patent No. 8,430,327 B2 titled “Wireless Sensing System Using Open-Circuit, Electrically-Conductive Spiral-Trace Sensor,” NASA Case No. LAR-17294-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,683,797 B2 titled “Damage Detection/Locating System Providing Thermal Protection,” NASA Case No. LAR-17295-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,902,815 B2 titled “Wireless System and Method for Collecting Motion and Non-Motion Related Data of a Rotating System,” NASA Case No. LAR-17433-1; U.S. Patent No. 8,042,739 B2 titled “Wireless Tamper Detection Sensor and Sensing System,” NASA Case No. LAR-17444-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,711,509 B2 titled “Method of Calibrating a Fluid-Level Measurement System,” NASA Case No. LAR-17480-1; U.S. Patent No. 7,814,786 B2 titled “Wireless Sensing System for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Attributes of Contents in a Container,” NASA Case No. LAR-17488-1; U.S. Patent No. 8,673,649 B2 titled “Wireless Chemical Sensor and Sensing Method for Use Therewith,” NASA Case No. LAR-17579-1; U.S. Patent Application No. 14/215,793 titled “Wireless Chemical Sensor and Sensing Method for Use Therewith,” NASA Case No. LAR-17579-2; U.S. Patent No. 8,167,204 B2 titled “Wireless Damage Location Sensing System,” NASA Case No. LAR-17593-1; U.S. Patent No. 8,179,203 B2 titled “Wireless Electrical Device Using Open-Circuit Elements Having No Electrical Connections,” NASA Case No. LAR-17711-1; U.S. Patent Application No. 14/193,861 titled “Wireless Temperature Sensing Having No Electrical Connections and Sensing Method for Use Therewith,” NASA Case No. LAR-17747-1-CON; U.S. Patent Application No. 13/796,626 titled “Method of Mapping Anomalies in Homogenous Material,” NASA Case No. LAR-17848-1 to GLSEQ, LLC having its principal place of business in Owens Cross Roads, Alabama. The fields of use may be limited to, but not necessarily be limited to, safety related and non-safety related instrumentation and control systems for nuclear facilities, including advanced safety related and non-safety related instrumentation systems for severe accident monitoring within nuclear power plants and nuclear storage facilities. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30,
Robin W. Edwards, Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30, Hampton, VA 23681; (757) 864-3230; Fax: (757) 864-9190. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive License.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license in the United States to ICAP Patent Brokerage, having its principal place of business in New York, NY, to promote the utilization by the public of the inventions described and claimed in the following U.S. Patents by, inter alia, engaging in marketing activities:
The patent rights in these inventions as applicable have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant exclusive licenses and may deny the requested licenses even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Mr. Bryan A. Geurts, Chief Patent Counsel, Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 140.1, Greenbelt, MD 20771, (301) 286-7351.
Alfred T. Mecum, Innovative Partnerships Program Office, Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 504, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301) 286-5810. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Intent to Grant an Exclusive License.
This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in the following U.S. Patent Applications:
To Ocean Tomo Federal Services having its principal place of business in Bethesda, MD. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Mr. Bryan A. Geurts, Chief Patent Counsel/140.1, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, (301) 286-7351.
Alfred T. Mecum, Innovative Partnerships Program Office/504, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301) 286-5810. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that nine meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference from the National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (all meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate):
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice, request for comments, collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this notice, IMLS is soliciting comments concerning a proposed information collection to enable the museum community and members of the public to provide input into IMLS's ongoing effort to provide accurate information about currently operating museums throughout the United States.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before June 7, 2015.
IMLS is particularly interested in comments that help the agency:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
Send comments to: Carlos A. Manjarrez, Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M St. NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Mr. Manjarrez can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4671, Fax: 202-653-4600, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's 123,000 libraries and 35,000 museums. The Institute's mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, learning and civic engagement. The Institute works at the national level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. IMLS is responsible for identifying national needs for and trends in museum, library, and information services; measuring and reporting on the impact and effectiveness of museum, library and information services throughout the United States, including programs conducted with funds made available by IMLS; identifying, and disseminating information on, the best practices of such programs; and developing plans to improve museum, library and information services of the United States and strengthen national, State, local, regional, and international communications and cooperative networks (20 U.S.C. Chapter 72, 20 U.S.C. 9108).
The intention of the Museum Locator Tool is to support IMLS's ongoing effort to provide accurate information about currently operating museums throughout the United States. While IMLS has collected a wide range of data about museums across the country and has cleaned and enhanced this data over time, the museum locator provides an easy-to-use tool for members of the public interested in accessing museum information and providing input to the list of museums on a voluntary basis. The Museum Locator Tool will provide an opportunity for the public to identify museums via a keyword search or by navigating an easy-to-use map. Members of the public will also be able to provide input by identifying museums in their area that may not be listed or by providing additional information for museums they have identified within the tool. The Museum Locator Tool will include an “Add a Museum” function that allows viewers to enter an institution that is not in the data base and provide: Institution name, street address, city and state, zip code, phone number, URL, and hours of operation. There will also be an “Update a Museum” function that will allow viewers to update the same institution fields: Institution name, street address, city and state, zip code, phone number, URL, and hours of operation.
The Museum Locator Tool is not a statistical collection and the data gathered from this tool will not be used for statistical reporting. Rather, it is provided as a service to members of the public who are interested in accessing current data on US museums and who would like to contribute to an open and ongoing public resource. The tool will provide APIs for developers to access the data in real time and data downloads for people who care to access data from the tool in batch form.
Carlos A. Manjarrez, Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 1800 M St. NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.
Mr. Manjarrez can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4671, Fax: 202-653-4600, or by email at
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an amendment to Priority Mail Contract 63 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On April 1, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Contract 63 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment under seal. Notice at 1. The Postal Service states this Amendment will not materially affect the cost coverage of Priority Mail Contract 63 and asserts that the supporting financial documentation and financial certification initially provided in this docket remain applicable.
The Amendment revises the customer's Priority Mail contract rates, which appear in Terms I.F, I.G, and I.H, and the annual adjustment, which is described in Term I.I. Notice, Attachment A at 1-3.
The Postal Service intends for the Amendment to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission completes its review of the Notice. Notice at 1. The Postal Service asserts that the Amendment will not impair the ability of the contract to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than April 9, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2013-81 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than April 9, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold a meeting on April 22, 2015, 10:00 a.m. at the Board's meeting room on the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
(1) Executive Committee Reports
The person to contact for more information is Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify that a member organization may request that the Exchange aggregate its eligible activity
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify that member organizations may request that the Exchange aggregate their eligible activity with activity of member organization's affiliates for purposes of charges or credits based on volume. The proposed rule change is based on NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) Rule 7027, NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Chapter XV, and the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) Pricing Schedule.
As proposed, for purposes of applying any provision of the Exchange's Price List where the charge assessed, or credit provided, by the Exchange depends on the volume of a member organization's activity, a member organization may request that the Exchange aggregate its eligible activity with activity of such member organization's affiliates. The Exchange further proposes that a member organization requesting aggregation of eligible affiliate activity would be required to (1) certify to the Exchange the affiliate status of member organizations whose activity it seeks to aggregate prior to receiving approval for aggregation, and (2) inform the Exchange immediately of any event that causes an entity to cease being an affiliate. The Exchange would review available information regarding the entities and reserves the right to request additional information to verify the affiliate status of an entity. As further proposed, the Exchange would approve a request, unless it determines that the certificate is not accurate.
The Exchange also proposes that if two or more member organizations become affiliated on or prior to the sixteenth day of a month, and submit the required request for aggregation on or prior to the twenty-second day of the month, an approval of the request would be deemed to be effective as of the first day of that month. If two or more member organizations become affiliated after the sixteenth day of a month, or submit a request for aggregation after the twenty second day of the month, an approval of the request would be deemed to be effective as of the first day of the next calendar month.
The Exchange further proposes to provide that for purposes of applying any provision of the Price List where the charge assessed, or credit provided, by the Exchange depends upon the volume of a member organization's activity, references to an entity would be deemed to include the entity and its affiliates that have been approved for aggregation.
Finally, the Exchange proposes that for purposes of the Price List, the term “affiliate” would mean any member organization under 75% common ownership or control of that member organization.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable because it establishes a manner for the Exchange to treat affiliated member organizations for purposes of assessing charges or credits that are based on volume. The provision is equitable because all member organizations seeking to aggregate their activity are subject to the same parameters, in accordance with a standard that recognizes an affiliation as of the month's beginning or close in time to when the affiliation occurs, provided the member organization submits a timely request. Moreover, the proposed billing aggregation language, which would lower the Exchange's administrative burden, is substantially similar to aggregation language adopted by other exchanges.
The Exchange further notes that the proposal would serve to reduce disparity of treatment between member organizations with regard to the pricing of different services and reduce any potential for confusion on how activity can be aggregated. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change avoids disparate treatment of member organizations that have divided their various business activities between separate corporate entities as compared to member organizations that operate those business activities within a single corporate entity. The Exchange further notes that the proposed rule change is
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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”)
The Exchange proposes to move the rule text of current Rule 1070, Customer Complaints, into Rule 1028, Confirmations, to accommodate an upcoming rulebook reorganization. No
The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
[Every member organization conducting a customer business shall maintain and keep current a separate central log, index or other file for all options-related complaints, through which these complaints can easily be identified and retrieved. The central file shall be located at the principal place of business of the member organization or such other principal office as shall be designated by the member organization. At a minimum, the central file shall include: (i) Identification of complaint; (ii) date complaint was received; (iii) identification of Registered Representative servicing the account; (iv) a general description of the matter complained of, and (v) a record of what action, if any, has been taken by the member organization with respect to the complaint. The term “options-related complaint” shall mean any written statement by a customer or person acting on behalf of a customer alleging a grievance arising out of or in connection with listed options. Each options-related complaint received by a branch office of a member organization shall be forwarded to the office in which the separate, central file is located no later than 30 days after receipt by the branch office. A copy of every options-related complaint shall be maintained at the branch office that is the subject of the complaint.
(a) the provisions of this Rule shall be applicable to index warrants.]
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to reorganize the rulebook, moving text from Rule 1070 to Rule 1028, so that the Rule 1070 rule number will be available for subsequent rulebook organizational changes. This proposed rule change is purely administrative. No substantive changes are proposed.
The text of current Rule 1070 will be moved to a new section (b) of Rule 1028. Existing Rule 1028 text will be preserved as new Rule 1028, section (a). The text imported from current Rule 1070 will be set forth in Rule 1028(b). The title of current Rule 1028 will be changed to read “Confirmations and Complaints” and Rule 1070 will be shown as “[Reserved]”.
Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The proposal is designed simply to rearrange rulebook language in order to lay the groundwork for subsequent, more comprehensive organizational changes. No substantive changes are proposed to be made at this time.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to renumber the rule will simply help to streamline the rulebook by accommodating a larger reorganization and will therefore result in administrative efficiencies for the Exchange. No substantive changes are being proposed.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 130, Downers Grove, IL 60515.
Kaitlin C. Bottock, Attorney Adviser, at (202) 551-8658, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust, a business trust organized under the laws of Massachusetts, intends to register with the Commission as an open-end management investment company. The applicants are requesting relief not only for the Trust and its initial series, Amplify Tactical Equity Fund (“Initial Fund”), but also with respect to future series of the Trust, and to any registered open-end management investment companies or series thereof that may be created in the future and that utilizes active management investment strategies (“Future Funds” and collectively with the Initial Fund, the “Funds”).
2. Each Fund will (a) be advised by Amplify Investments or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Amplify Investments (each such entity and any successor thereto, an “Adviser”)
3. The Trust will enter into a distribution agreement with one or more distributors (“Distributor”). Each Distributor will be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and will act as Distributor and principal underwriter of the Funds. No Distributor will be affiliated with the Listing Exchange. The Distributor of any Fund may be an “affiliated person” or an affiliated person of an affiliated person of the Fund's Adviser or Fund Sub-Adviser.
4. Shares of each Fund will be purchased from the Trust only in large aggregations of a specified number referred to as “Creation Units.” Creation Units may be purchased through orders placed with the Distributor by or through an “Authorized Participant” which is either (a) a broker-dealer or other participant in the Continuous Net Settlement (“CNS”) System of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission, or (b) a participant (“DTC Participant”) in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), and which in either case has executed a participant agreement with the Distributor with respect to the creation and redemption of Creation Units. Purchases and redemptions of the Funds' Creation Units will be processed either through an enhanced clearing process available to DTC Participants that are also participants in the CNS system of the NSCC (the “NSCC Process”) or through a manual clearing process that is available to all DTC Participants (the “DTC Process”).
5. In order to keep costs low and permit each Fund to be as fully invested as possible, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Accordingly, except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
6. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Balancing Amount, as described above; (b) if, on a given Business Day, a Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, a Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash;
7. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the Listing Exchange, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Balancing Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. The Listing Exchange or a major market data vendor will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day an amount representing the Fund's estimated NAV, which will be the value of the Fund's Portfolio Positions, on a per Share basis.
8. An investor purchasing or redeeming a Creation Unit will be charged a fee (“Transaction Fee”) to protect continuing shareholders of the Funds from the dilutive costs associated with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units.
9. Beneficial owners of Shares may sell their Shares in the secondary market. Shares will be listed on a Listing Exchange and traded in the secondary market in the same manner as other equity securities. Applicants state that one or more specialists or market makers will be assigned to the Shares. The price of Shares trading on the Listing Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the sale of Shares on the Listing Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
10. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include arbitrageurs and that Listing Exchange specialists or market makers, acting in their unique role to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for Shares, also may purchase Creation Units for use in their own market making activities.
11. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as a conventional open-end investment company or mutual fund. Instead, each Fund will be marketed as an “actively-managed exchange-traded fund.” Any advertising material that describes the features of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units, or buying or selling Shares on the Listing Exchange, or where there is reference to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire Shares from a Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.
12. The Funds' Web site, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include, or will include links to, each Fund's current Prospectus and Summary Prospectus (if any), which may be downloaded. That Web site, which will be publicly available at no charge, will also contain, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or the mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Applicants request an order to permit the Trust to register as an open-end management investment company and redeem Shares in Creation Units only. Applicants state that each investor is entitled to purchase or redeem Creation Units rather than trade the individual Shares in the secondary market. Applicants further state that because of the arbitrage possibilities created by the redeemability of Creation Units, it is expected that the market price of an individual Share will not vary materially from its NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security, which is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, rather than at the current offering price described in the Fund's Prospectus. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been intended (a) to prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) to prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and (c) to ensure an orderly distribution of shares by eliminating price competition from brokers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants state that (a) secondary market transactions in Shares would not cause dilution for owners of such Shares because such transactions do not involve the Trust or Funds as parties, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity will ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains immaterial.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants observe that the settlement of redemptions of Creation Units of Global Funds will be contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the U.S. securities markets but also on the delivery cycles in foreign markets in which those Funds invest. Applicants assert that, under certain circumstances, the delivery cycles for transferring Portfolio Positions to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, may require a delivery process of up to 15 calendar days. Applicants therefore request relief from section 22(e) in order for each Global Fund to provide payment or satisfaction of redemptions within the maximum number of calendar days required for such payment or satisfaction in the principal local market(s) where transactions in its Portfolio Positions customarily clear and settle, but in any event, within a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days.
8. Applicants submit that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants state that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Global Fund to be made within 15 calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e).
9. Section 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person (“second tier affiliate”), from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” of a fund as “the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies” of the fund and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. The Funds may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”).
10. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) under sections 6(c) and 17(b) to permit in-kind purchases and redemptions of Creation Units from the Funds by persons that are affiliated persons or second tier affiliates of the Funds solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the shares of one or more Affiliated Funds.
11. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting the affiliated persons described above from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions. The valuation of the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be made in the same manner, and in the same manner as the Fund's Portfolio Positions, regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer. Except with respect to cash determined in accordance with the procedures described in section I.G.1. of the application, Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be the same for all purchasers and redeemers. Therefore, applicants state that the in-kind purchases and redemptions will afford no opportunity for the specified affiliated persons of a Fund to effect a transaction detrimental to other holders of Shares of that Fund. Applicants do not believe that in-kind purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching of the Fund.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. As long as the Funds operate in reliance on the requested order, the Shares of the Funds will be listed on a Listing Exchange.
2. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only.
3. The Web site for the Funds, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain on a per Share basis, for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
4. On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares on the Listing Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions held by the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the Business Day.
5. The Adviser or any Fund Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, will not cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for the Fund through a transaction in which the Fund could not engage directly.
6. The requested relief to permit ETF operations will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the 1940 Act that provides relief permitting the operation of actively managed exchange-traded funds.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
CME is filing a proposed rule change that is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization. More specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to rulebook provisions establishing decision-making and emergency authority over clearing house matters.
In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any
CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and currently offers clearing services for many different futures and swaps products. With this filing, CME proposes to make rulebook changes that are limited to its business clearing futures and swaps under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. More specifically, the proposed rule change would make amendments to rulebook provisions establishing decision-making and emergency authority over clearing house matters.
The proposed rule change relates to recent management structure and reporting line changes at CME. Current CME rules do not include any reference to or establishment of authority in the newly created role of President of Global Operations, Technology & Risk (“President GOTR”). The proposed rule change referenced in this submission is designed to ensure the President GOTR is authorized to undertake certain actions related to clearing house operations and emergency financial conditions. In light of the Chief Operating Officer`s (“COO”) newly established reporting line to the President GOTR, authority regarding certain clearing house matters and emergency financial conditions will be conferred from the COO to the President GOTR with these changes. The proposed rule revisions are designed to clearly specify the roles and responsibilities of management during extraordinary circumstances that impact the clearing house.
The proposed rule change adds references to or establishes authority for the President GOTR in the following CME rules: Rule 257 (Exchange Physical Emergencies); Rule 403 (Clearing House Risk Committee); Rule 701 (Declarations of Force Majeure); Rule 744 (Failsafe Currency Availability Procedures for Physical Delivery); Rule 812 (Final Settlement Price); Rule 824 (Additional Performance Bond); Rule 8G25 (IRS Default Management Committee); Rule 8G824 (Additional IRS Performance Bond); Rule 8G975 (IRS Emergency Financial Conditions); Rule 8H26 (CDS Default Management Committee); Rule 8H27 (CDS Risk Committee); Rule 8H824 (Additional CDS Performance Bond); Rule 8H975 (CDS Emergency Financial Conditions); Rule 974 (Suspension of Member Firm Privileges); Rule 975 (Emergency Financial Conditions); Rule 976 (Suspension of Clearing Members); Rule 978 (Open Trades of Suspended Clearing Members); and Rule 979 (Suspended or Expelled Clearing Members).
The proposed rule change that is described in this filing is limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. CME has not cleared security based swaps and does not plan to and therefore the proposed rule change does not impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in any way. The proposed rule change would become effective immediately. CME notes that it has also submitted the proposed rule change that is the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the CFTC, in CME Submission 15-047.
CME believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange Act.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, which mean they are limited in their effect to products that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, the changes are limited to CME's activities as a DCO clearing futures that are not security futures and swaps that are not security-based swaps. CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.
Because the proposed rule change is limited in its effect to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses, the changes are properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME that:
(a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect to products that are not securities, including futures that are not security futures, swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps; and forwards that are not security forwards; and
(b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
As such, the changes are therefore consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule revisions simply specify the roles and responsibilities of management during extraordinary circumstances that impact the clearing house. Further, the changes are limited to CME's futures and swaps clearing businesses and, as such, do not affect the security-based swap clearing activities of CME in any way and therefore do not impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC, 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2015-004 and should be submitted on or before April 29, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) under the Act.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Trust for Professional Managers, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202; and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., 222 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6826, or Dalia Osman Blass, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust was organized as a Delaware statutory trust on May 29, 2001 and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. William Blair, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). Of the funds in the Trust, William Blair currently serves as investment adviser only to the William Blair Directional Multialternative Fund. William Blair also serves as the Funds' (as defined below) principal underwriter and distributor.
2. Applicants request the exemption to the extent necessary to permit any existing or future series of the Trust and any other registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that (a) is advised by William Blair or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with William Blair (any such adviser or William Blair, an “Adviser”); (b) is in the same group of investment companies as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act; (c) operates as a “fund of funds” and invests in other registered open-end management investment companies (“Underlying Funds”) in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act; and (d) is also
3. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each Fund's board of trustees will review the advisory fees charged by the Fund's Adviser to ensure that the fees are based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided pursuant to the advisory agreement of any investment company in which the Fund may invest.
1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered investment company (“acquiring company”) may acquire securities of another investment company (“acquired company”) if such securities represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting stock or more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if such securities, together with the securities of other investment companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered open-end investment company may sell its securities to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies and companies controlled by them.
2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides, in part, that section 12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased by an acquiring company if: (i) The acquired company and acquiring company are part of the same group of investment companies; (ii) the acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section 22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section 15A of the Exchange Act or by the Commission; and (iv) the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of registered open-end investment companies or registered unit investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the Act.
3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities issued by another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (i) Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (ii) securities (other than securities issued by an investment company); and (iii) securities issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2, “securities” means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the Act.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, or from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants submit that their request for relief meets this standard.
5. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Funds to invest in Other Investments while investing in Underlying Funds. Applicants state that the Funds will comply with rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants assert that permitting the Funds to invest in Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed to address.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, except for paragraph (a)(2) to the extent that it restricts any Fund from investing in Other Investments as described in the application.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 923NY (Appointment of Market Makers) to refine the appointment process utilized by the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 923NY to refine the appointment process utilized by the Exchange. The Exchange believes this proposal, which is consistent with the rules of other option exchanges,
To register as a Market Maker, an applicant must file an application with the Exchange on a form or forms prescribed by the Exchange.
In addition to having the authority to appoint one Specialist per option class and to designate e-Specialists to fulfill certain obligations required of Specialists,
Under the current Rule, “Market Makers may change the option issues in their appointment, subject to the approval of the Exchange” provided requests for changes are “made in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange.”
Finally, under the current Rule, the Exchange periodically conducts evaluations of Market Makers to determine whether they have fulfilled
The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 923NY to refine the current appointment process. Presently, Market Makers must apply for an appointment in an options class, which, as discussed further below, is done by submitting an email to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 923NY(a) to provide that, rather than apply for an appointment, “a Market Maker may register for an appointment in one or more classes of option contracts,” in a form and manner prescribed the Exchange.
In addition, to simplify a Market Maker's ability to select and make changes to its appointment, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 923NY(c) to replace the existing rule text with text that provides that “[a] Market Maker may select or withdraw option issues included in their appointment by submitting a request via an Exchange-approved electronic interface with the Exchange on a day when the Exchange is open for business.”
Consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange proposes to delete paragraphs (e) and (f) of Rule 923NY, which describe how Market Makers can change their appointment or withdraw from issues in their appointment because these provisions are rendered superfluous by the proposed changes to Rule 923NY(c).
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to how Market Makers select and modify their appoints would enable Market Makers to manage their appointments with more flexibility and in a timelier manner which, in turn, would reduce the time and resources expended by Market Makers and the Exchange on the appointment process. The Exchange believes this proposal would provide Market Makers with more efficient access to the securities in which they want to make markets and disseminate competitive quotations, which would provide additional liquidity and enhance competition in those securities. The Exchange would retain the ability to suspend or terminate any appointment of a Market Maker if necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 923NY(d)(1) to state that “Market Makers must have the number of ATPs required under the Fee Schedule for its
The Exchange also proposes to modify the text in paragraph (h) of the Rule. As proposed, a Market Maker would continue to be permitted to “seek review of any action taken by the Exchange, in accordance with Section 9A of the Office Rules, as applicable.” However, to clarify the rule text, the Exchange proposes to delete the unnecessary clause “including the denial of the appointment for, or the termination or suspension of, a Market Maker's appointment in an option issue or issues.”
Rule 923NY(j) states that the Exchange will conduct periodic evaluations of Market Makers to determine whether they have fulfilled the requisite performance standards. The Exchange proposes to add “the financial resources available to the Market Maker” and “the Market Maker's operational capability” as factors the Exchange will consider in its evaluations conducted pursuant to Rule 923NY(j).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 923NY(j)(2) to reflect the proposed changes to the Market Maker appointment process. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to change the reference to a Market Maker being “re-appointed” by the Exchange if an option issue or issues has been terminated pursuant to this subsection (j), and to instead provide that “the Exchange may restrict a Market Maker's registration as a Market Maker in that option issue or issues for a period not to exceed 6 months.”
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to a free and open market because it would enable Market Makers to manage their appointments with more flexibility and in a timelier manner. The Exchange believes the proposed change would reduce the burden on both Market Makers and Exchange staff, which would result in a fair and reasonable use of resources to the benefit of all market participants. In particular, the proposal to allow Market Makers to select their appointments, and make changes thereto, via an Exchange-approved electronic interface is consistent with [sic] Act because it would provide Market Makers with more efficient access to the securities in which they want to make markets and thus more quickly begin disseminating competitive quotations in those securities, which would provide additional liquidity and enhance competition in those securities. The Exchange also believes that preventing Market Makers from being able to withdraw an option issue from its appointment on the same day that it submits the request (as such requests are processed on an overnight basis for effectiveness on the following business day) would serve to promote just and equitable principles of trade and benefit investors and the public interest.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to allow Market Makers to make selections or changes to their appointment without first obtaining explicit Exchange approval is likewise consistent with the Act. First, because financial resources and operational capability are important considerations in a Market Maker's performance, the Exchange proposes to retain these factors for consideration in the Exchange's periodic evaluation of Market Maker performance. The Exchange believes that adding these factors to the Exchange's consideration would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and would benefit investors and the public interest. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange would continue to have authority to
The proposed rule change would not result in unfair discrimination, as it applies to all Market Makers. Further, the proposed rule change would reduce the burden on Market Makers to manage their appointments and thus provide liquidity to the Exchange. Nevertheless, Market Makers would still be required to comply with certain obligations to maintain their status as a Market Maker, including that they provide continuous, two-sided quotations in their appointed securities.
Finally, as noted above, the proposed modifications to the appointment process would align the rules of the Exchange with the rules of other options exchanges, where Market Makers presently have the ability to select and make changes to their appointment via an Exchange-approved electronic interface.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it provides the same relief to a group of similarly situated market participants—Market Makers. The proposed rule change would reduce the burden on Market Makers to manage their appointments and thus provide liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would help Market Makers to the detriment of market participants on other exchanges, particularly because the proposed functionality is similar to functionality already available on other exchanges.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of an amendment to Addendum A (Fee Structure) of NSCC's Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) to establish certain fees applicable to the Alternative Investment Product services (“AIP” or the “Service”), as more fully described below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on NSCC's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
AIP was initially approved by the Commission on May 12, 2008
As set forth in NSCC's Rules, “AIP Data transmitted through the AIP Service may include data relating to subscriptions and purchases; redemptions, withdrawals and tender offers; exchange transactions;
NSCC recently enhanced the AIP platform to better process transfer instructions submitted by AIP Members. In connection with these enhancements, NSCC proposes to amend Addendum A to establish the fees applicable to the processing of transfers, such as for example, internal transfers. Internal transfers occur within an AIP Member that is a broker/dealer when such AIP Member re-registers a customer account in the name of a different customer due to, for example, the death of the previously registered customer. NSCC proposes to establish the following fees for AIP transfers:
• $1.50 per transfer for higher volume Eligible AIP Products.
• $5.00 per transfer for lower volume Eligible AIP Products.
NSCC will implement the new transfer fees beginning March 26, 2015, or such later date as NSCC may announce through Important Notice.
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC. In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D)
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4751(h) to introduce the Market Hours Immediate or Cancel Time in Force for use on BX and to modify the processing of Good-til-market close-designated orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to expand the number of Time in Force designations currently available for use in the BX System by adopting a Market Hours Immediate or Cancel (“Market Hours IOC” or “MIOC”) Time in Force. Time in Force is a characteristic of an order that limits the period of time that the System will hold an order for potential execution. Currently the Exchange offers the following six Times in Force: (1) System Hours Immediate or Cancel; (2) System Hours Day; (3) System Hours Good-till-Cancelled; (4) System Hours Expire Time; (5) Market Hours GTC; and (6) Good-til-market close.
The Exchange notes that the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) currently has a MIOC Time in Force, which was adopted in 2006.
The Exchange is also proposing to modify the processing of orders designated as Good-til-market close (“GTMC”).
BX believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The proposed changes to the processing of GTMC-designated orders further these objectives because the changes simplify processing of such orders when entered after the close of Regular Market Hours. Rather than converting GTMC-designated orders to an order with a different time-in-force if entered after the market close, the Exchange will no longer accept them after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, which is consistent with a market participant's intent to execute during the period from 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. To the extent a member firm would like to participate in post-market hours trading, it may enter a new order eligible to participate in post-market trading. Moreover, simplifying the processing of GTMC-designated orders will remove complication in the handling of such orders, thereby further improving the operation of the market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance BX's competitiveness by providing its market participants with an additional option to limit when their orders may be executed. As discussed above, the MIOC Time in Force is available on NASDAQ, and providing it on BX will allow it to compete with NASDAQ and any other market venue that provides similar Time in Force functionality. This may, in turn, increase the extent of liquidity available on BX and increase its ability to compete with other execution venues to attract orders that are seeking immediate execution during Regular Market Hours. The Exchange further believes that the introduction of the MIOC Time in Force will not impair in any manner the ability of market participants or other execution venues to compete. The proposed changes to GTMC Time in Force are designed to promote consistency and stability in the closing process and in the handling of orders after Regular Market Hours has [sic] ended. Such changes do not place a burden on competition between market participants as the changes are applied consistently to all BX market participants. Moreover, the proposed changes may foster competition among exchanges and other markets, to the extent they make BX a more attractive venue to market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to modify the Market Maker Trading Permit Fee.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its Trading Permit fees to increase the monthly Trading Permit fees that apply
The Exchange issues Trading Permits that confer the ability to transact on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to modify its MM Trading Permit fee to increase the monthly Trading Permit fee that applies to MMs. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Increase the monthly Trading Permit fee that applies to MMs for MM Assignments in up to 250 options classes from $5,500 to $15,000; (ii) increase the monthly Trading Permit fee that applies to MMs for MM Assignments in all classes from $7,000 to $22,000; and (iii) eliminate the Trading Permit fee that applies to MMs for MM Assignments in up to 100 options classes.
Members receiving Trading Permits during the month will be assessed Trading Permit Fees according to the above schedule, except that the calculation of the Trading Permit fee for the first month in which the Trading Permit is issued will be pro-rated based on the number of trading days occurring after the date on which the Trading Permit was in effect during that first month divided by the total number of trading days in such month multiplied by the monthly rate.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to add some clarifying language to the Fee Schedule in order to specify that the $22,000 Trading Permit Fee applies to MMs Assignments over 250 up to all options classes listed on MIAX. The Exchange believes that the proposed change will help avoid the potential for confusion on behalf of MMs as to which fee level applies to MMs Assignments over 250 options classes.
The Exchange proposes to implement the Trading Permit fees beginning April 1, 2015.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Permit fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed Trading Permit fees are reasonable in that they are within the range of comparable fees at other competing options exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal increases both intermarket and intramarket competition by increasing Trading Permit fees for Market Makers on the Exchange in a manner that allows all Market Makers to be subject to the same fee based on the number of assignments regardless of type and yet still be in the range of comparable fees on other exchanges. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal reflects this competitive environment because it increases the Exchange's fees in a manner that continues to encourage market participants to register as Market Makers on the Exchange, to provide liquidity, and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
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 the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to increase the fees for MEI Ports to Market Makers. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Increase the MEI Port Fee for the first matching engine used, from $1,000 to $2,500 per month; (ii) increase the MEI Port Fee for each of matching engines 2 through 5, from $500 to $1,200 per month; (iii) increase the MEI Port Fee for each of matching engines 6 and above, from $250 to $700 per month; and (iv) increase the fee for additional Limited Service MEI Ports from $10 to $50 per month.
Currently, MIAX assesses monthly MEI Port Fees on Market Makers based upon the number of MIAX matching engines
The Exchange notes that another competing exchange charges substantially more for the use of similar ports.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes beginning April 1, 2015.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers are free to add and remove MEI Ports and will only be charged for the amount of MEI Ports that they desire to use. The proposed fee is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because it applies equally to all Market Makers regardless of type. All similarly situated Market Makers, with the same number of MEI Ports, will be subject to the same fee, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable in that the rates are within the range of that charged by another competing options exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange believes that the proposal increases both intermarket and intramarket competition by increasing MEI Port fees for Market Makers on the Exchange in the range of comparable fees on another exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and in order to attract market participants to use its services. The Exchange believes that the proposal reflects this competitive environment because it increases the Exchange's fees in a manner that continues to encourage market participants to register as Market Makers on the Exchange, to provide liquidity, and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity.
Written comments were neither solicited nor 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)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify that a member organization may request that the Exchange aggregate its eligible activity with activity of the member organization's affiliates for purposes of charges or credits based on volume. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to specify that member organizations may request that the Exchange aggregate their eligible activity with activity of member organization's affiliates for purposes of charges or credits based on volume. The proposed rule change is based on NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) Rule 7027, NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Chapter XV, and the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) Pricing Schedule.
As proposed, for purposes of applying any provision of the Exchange's Price List where the charge assessed, or credit provided, by the Exchange depends on the volume of a member organization's activity, a member organization may request that the Exchange aggregate its eligible activity with activity of such member organization's affiliates. The Exchange further proposes that a member organization requesting aggregation of eligible affiliate activity would be required to (1) certify to the Exchange the affiliate status of member organizations whose activity it seeks to aggregate prior to receiving approval for aggregation, and (2) inform the Exchange immediately of any event that causes an entity to cease being an affiliate. The Exchange would review available information regarding the entities and reserves the right to request additional information to verify the affiliate status of an entity. As further proposed, the Exchange would approve a request, unless it determines that the certificate is not accurate.
The Exchange also proposes that if two or more member organizations become affiliated on or prior to the sixteenth day of a month, and submit the required request for aggregation on or prior to the twenty-second day of the month, an approval of the request would be deemed to be effective as of the first day of that month. If two or more member organizations become affiliated after the sixteenth day of a month, or submit a request for aggregation after the twenty second day of the month, an approval of the request would be deemed to be effective as of the first day of the next calendar month.
The Exchange further proposes to provide that for purposes of applying any provision of the Price List where the charge assessed, or credit provided, by the Exchange depends upon the volume of a member organization's activity, references to an entity would be deemed to include the entity and its affiliates that have been approved for aggregation.
Finally, the Exchange proposes that for purposes of the Price List, the term “affiliate” would mean any member organization under 75% common ownership or control of that member organization.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable because it establishes a manner for the Exchange to treat affiliated member organizations for purposes of assessing charges or credits that are based on volume. The provision is equitable because all member organizations seeking to aggregate their activity are subject to the same parameters, in accordance with a standard that recognizes an affiliation as of the month's beginning or close in time to when the affiliation occurs, provided the member organization submits a timely request. Moreover, the proposed billing aggregation language, which would lower the Exchange's administrative burden, is substantially similar to aggregation language adopted by other exchanges.
The Exchange further notes that the proposal would serve to reduce disparity of treatment between member organizations with regard to the pricing of different services and reduce any potential for confusion on how activity can be aggregated. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change avoids disparate treatment of member organizations that have divided their various business activities between separate corporate entities as compared to member organizations that operate those business activities within a single corporate entity. The Exchange further notes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by harmonizing the manner by which the Exchanges permits member organizations to aggregate volume with other exchanges. In particular, the Exchange notes that NASDAQ, PHLX and BX all have the same standard that the Exchange is proposing to adopt.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 601 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210-2805.
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-6879, or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is a business trust organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Trust is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company and will offer multiple series.
2. John Hancock Advisers, LLC will be the investment adviser to the Initial Fund (defined below). Each of John Hancock Advisers, LLC and John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). Any other Adviser (defined below) will also be registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with one or more investment advisers to act as sub-advisers to particular Funds (each, a “Sub-Adviser”). Any Sub-Adviser will either be registered under the Advisers Act or will not be required to register thereunder.
3. The Trust will enter into a distribution agreement with one or more distributors, including John Hancock Funds, LLC. Each distributor will act as distributor and principal underwriter (“Distributor”) of one or more of the Funds. Each Distributor will be a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). The Distributor of any Fund may be an affiliated person or an affiliated person of an affiliated person of that Fund's Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser(s). The Distributor will not be affiliated with any Exchange (defined below).
4. Applicants request that the order apply to the initial series of the Trust described in the application (“Initial Fund”), and any additional series of the Trust, and any other open-end management investment company or series thereof, that may be created in the future (“Future Funds”), each of which will operate as an exchanged-traded fund (“ETF”) and will track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/or fixed income securities (each, an “Underlying Index”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by John Hancock Advisers, LLC, John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC, or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with John Hancock Advisers, LLC or John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC (each, an “Adviser”) and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application. The Initial Fund and Future Funds, together, are the “Funds.”
5. Applicants state that a Fund may operate as a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure (“Feeder Fund”). Applicants request that the order permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act (“Master-Feeder Relief”). Applicants may structure certain Feeder Funds to generate economies of scale and incur lower overhead costs.
6. Each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will hold certain securities, currencies, other assets and other investment positions (“Portfolio Holdings”) selected to correspond generally to the performance of its Underlying Index. Certain of the Funds will be based on Underlying Indexes that will be comprised solely of equity and/or fixed income securities issued by one or more of the following categories of issuers: (i) Domestic issuers and (ii) non-domestic issuers meeting the requirements for trading in U.S. markets. Other Funds will be based on Underlying Indexes that will be comprised solely of foreign and domestic, or solely foreign, equity and/or fixed income securities (“Foreign Funds”).
7. Applicants represent that each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will invest at least 80% of its assets (excluding securities lending collateral) in the component securities of its respective Underlying Index (“Component Securities”), or in the case of Fixed Income Funds,
8. The Trust may issue Funds that seek to track Underlying Indexes constructed using 130/30 investment strategies (“130/30 Funds”) or other long/short investment strategies (“Long/Short Funds”). Each Long/Short Fund will establish (i) exposures equal to approximately 100% of the long positions specified by the Long/Short Index
9. A Fund will utilize either a replication or representative sampling strategy to track its Underlying Index. A Fund using a replication strategy will invest in the Component Securities of its Underlying Index in the same approximate proportions as in such Underlying Index. A Fund using a representative sampling strategy will hold some, but not necessarily all of the Component Securities of its Underlying Index. Applicants state that a Fund using a representative sampling strategy will not be expected to track the performance of its Underlying Index with the same degree of accuracy as would an investment vehicle that invested in every Component Security of the Underlying Index with the same weighting as the Underlying Index. Applicants expect that each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will have an annual tracking error relative to the performance of its Underlying Index of less than 5%.
10. The Funds will be entitled to use their Underlying Indexes pursuant to either a licensing agreement with the entity that compiles, creates, sponsors or maintains an Underlying Index (each, an “Index Provider”) or a sub-licensing arrangement with the Adviser, which will have a licensing agreement with such Index Provider.
11. Applicants recognize that Self-Indexing Funds could raise concerns regarding the ability of the Affiliated Index Provider to manipulate the Underlying Index to the benefit or detriment of the Self-Indexing Fund. Applicants further recognize the potential for conflicts that may arise with respect to the personal trading activity of personnel of the Affiliated Index Provider who have knowledge of changes to an Underlying Index prior to the time that information is publicly disseminated.
12. Applicants propose that each day that a Fund, the NYSE and the national securities exchange (as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act) (an “Exchange”) on which the Fund's Shares are primarily listed (“Listing Exchange”) are open for business, including any day that a Fund is required to be open under section 22(e) of the Act (a “Business Day”), each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Listing Exchange, the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Holdings that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the Business Day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to maintain full portfolio transparency will provide an additional mechanism for addressing any such potential conflicts of interest.
13. Applicants represent that each Self-Indexing Fund's Portfolio Holdings will be as transparent as the portfolio holdings of existing actively managed ETFs. Unlike passively-managed ETFs, actively-managed ETFs do not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index but rather seek to achieve their investment objectives by using an “active” management strategy. Applicants contend that the structure of actively managed ETFs presents potential conflicts of interest that are the same as those presented by Self-Indexing Funds because the portfolio managers of an actively managed ETF by definition have advance knowledge of pending portfolio changes. Applicants believe that actively managed ETFs address these potential conflicts of interest appropriately through full portfolio transparency, as the conditions to their relevant exemptive relief require.
14. In addition, applicants do not believe the potential for conflicts of interest raised by the Adviser's use of the Underlying Indexes in connection with the management of the Self Indexing Funds and the Affiliated Accounts will be substantially different from the potential conflicts presented by an adviser managing two or more registered funds. Both the Act and the Advisers Act contain various protections to address conflicts of interest where an adviser is managing two or more registered funds and these protections will also help address these conflicts with respect to the Self-Indexing Funds.
15. Each Adviser and any Sub-Adviser has adopted or will adopt, pursuant to Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act, written policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder. These include policies and procedures designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest among the Self-Indexing Funds and the Affiliated Accounts, such as cross trading policies, as well as those designed to ensure the equitable allocation of portfolio transactions and brokerage commissions. In addition, John Hancock has adopted policies and procedures as required under section 204A of the Advisers Act, which are reasonably designed in light of the nature of its business to prevent the misuse, in violation of the Advisers Act or the Exchange Act or the rules thereunder, of material non-public information by John Hancock or associated persons (“Inside Information Policy”). Any other Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser will be required to adopt and maintain a similar Inside Information Policy. In accordance with the Code of Ethics
16. To the extent the Self-Indexing Funds transact with an Affiliated Person of the Adviser or Sub-Adviser, such transactions will comply with the Act, the rules thereunder and the terms and conditions of the requested order. In this regard, each Self-Indexing Fund's board of directors or trustees (“Board”) will periodically review the Self-Indexing Fund's use of an Affiliated Index Provider. Subject to the approval of the Self-Indexing Fund's Board, the Adviser, Affiliated Persons of the Adviser (“Adviser Affiliates”) and Affiliated Persons of any Sub-Adviser (“Sub-Adviser Affiliates”) may be authorized to provide custody, fund accounting and administration and transfer agency services to the Self-Indexing Funds. Any services provided by the Adviser, Adviser Affiliates, Sub-Adviser and Sub-Adviser Affiliates will be performed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules under the Act and any relevant guidelines from the staff of the Commission.
17. The Shares of each Fund will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments
18. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Cash Amount; (b) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, the Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash;
19. Creation Units will consist of specified large aggregations of Shares,
20. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the Listing Exchange, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments, as well as the estimated Cash Amount (if any), for that day. The list of Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will apply until a new list is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the list except to correct errors in the published list. Each Listing Exchange will disseminate, every 15 seconds during regular Exchange trading hours, through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association, an amount for each Fund stated on a per individual Share basis representing the sum of (i) the estimated Cash Amount and (ii) the current value of the Deposit Instruments.
21. Transaction expenses, including operational processing and brokerage costs, will be incurred by a Fund when investors purchase or redeem Creation Units in-kind and such costs have the potential to dilute the interests of the Fund's existing shareholders. Each Fund will impose purchase or redemption transaction fees (“Transaction Fees”) in connection with effecting such purchases or redemptions of Creation Units. With respect to Feeder Funds, the Transaction Fee would be paid indirectly to the Master
22. Shares of each Fund will be listed and traded individually on an Exchange. It is expected that one or more member firms of an Exchange will be designated to act as a market maker (each, a “Market Maker”) and maintain a market for Shares trading on the Exchange. Prices of Shares trading on an Exchange will be based on the current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the sale of Shares on an Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
23. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Market Makers, acting in their roles to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for the Shares, may from time to time find it appropriate to purchase or redeem Creation Units. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors.
24. Shares will not be individually redeemable, and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund, or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption requests must be placed through an Authorized Participant. A redeeming investor may pay a Transaction Fee, calculated in the same manner as a Transaction Fee payable in connection with purchases of Creation Units.
25. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed or otherwise held out as a traditional open-end investment company or a “mutual fund.” Instead, each such Fund will be marketed as an “ETF.” All marketing materials that describe the features or method of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units, or Shares traded on an Exchange, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and will disclose that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only. The Funds will provide copies of their annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC Participants for distribution to beneficial owners of Shares.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the owner, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through an underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and (c) ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the price at which Shares trade will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the option continually to purchase or redeem Shares in Creation Units, which should help prevent Shares from trading at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants state that settlement of redemptions for Foreign Funds will be contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the United States market, but also on current delivery cycles in local markets for the underlying foreign securities held by a Foreign Fund. Applicants state that the delivery cycles currently practicable for transferring Redemption Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, may require a delivery process of up to fifteen (15) calendar days.
8. Applicants believe that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants propose that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Foreign Fund to be made within fifteen calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants suggest that a redemption payment occurring within fifteen calendar days following a redemption request would adequately afford investor protection.
9. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Foreign Funds that do not effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind.
10. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring securities of an investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter and any other broker-dealer from knowingly selling the investment company's shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
11. Applicants request an exemption to permit registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that are not advised or sponsored by the Adviser and are not part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as the Funds (such management investment companies are referred to as “Investing Management Companies,” such UITs are referred to as “Investing Trusts,” and Investing Management Companies and Investing Trusts are collectively referred to as “Funds of Funds”), to acquire Shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any Broker registered under the Exchange Act, to sell Shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
12. Each Investing Management Company will be advised by an investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act (the “Fund of Funds Adviser”) and may be sub-advised by investment advisers within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (each a “Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser”). Any investment adviser to an Investing Management Company will be registered under the Advisers Act. Each Investing Trust will be sponsored by a sponsor (“Sponsor”).
13. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief adequately address the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B), which include concerns about undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees and overly complex fund structures. Applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
14. Applicants believe that neither a Fund of Funds nor a Fund of Funds Affiliate would be able to exert undue influence over a Fund.
15. Applicants propose other conditions to limit the potential for undue influence over the Funds, including that no Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate (“Affiliated Underwriting”). An “Underwriting Affiliate” is a principal underwriter in any underwriting or selling syndicate that is an officer, director, member of an advisory board, Fund of Funds Adviser, Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, employee or Sponsor of the Fund of Funds, or a person of which any such officer, director, member of an advisory board, Fund of Funds Adviser or Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, employee or Sponsor is an affiliated person (except that any person whose relationship to the Fund is covered by section 10(f) of the Act is not an Underwriting Affiliate).
16. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. The board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“disinterested directors or trustees”), will find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in which the Investing Management Company may invest. In addition, under condition B.5., a Fund of Funds Adviser, or a Fund of Funds' trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or its affiliated person by a Fund, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. Applicants state that any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
17. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that no Fund, nor its respective Master Fund, will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes or pursuant to the Master-Feeder Relief. To ensure a Fund of Funds is aware of the terms and conditions of the requested order, the Fund of Funds will enter into an agreement with the Fund (“FOF Participation Agreement”). The FOF Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgement from the Fund of Funds that it may rely on the order only to invest in the Funds and not in any other investment company.
18. Applicants also note that a Fund may choose to reject a direct purchase of Shares in Creation Units by a Fund of Funds. To the extent that a Fund of Funds purchases Shares in the secondary market, a Fund would still retain its ability to reject any initial investment by a Fund of Funds in excess of the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) by declining to enter into a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund of Funds.
19. Applicants also are seeking the Master-Feeder Relief to permit the Feeder Funds to perform creations and redemptions of Shares in-kind in a master-feeder structure. Applicants assert that this structure is substantially identical to traditional master-feeder structures permitted pursuant to the exception provided in section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(E) provides that the percentage limitations of section 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) shall not apply to a security issued by an investment company (in this case, the shares of the applicable Master Fund) if, among other things, that security is the only investment security held by the investing investment company (in this case, the Feeder Fund). Applicants believe the proposed master-feeder structure complies with section 12(d)(1)(E) because each Feeder Fund will hold only investment securities issued by its corresponding Master Fund; however, the Feeder Funds may receive securities other than securities of its corresponding Master Fund if a Feeder Fund accepts an in-kind creation. To the extent that a Feeder Fund may be deemed to be holding both shares of the Master Fund and other securities, applicants request relief from section 12(d)(1)(A) and (B). The Feeder Funds would operate in compliance with all other provisions of section 12(d)(1)(E).
20. Sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person, from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person, (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with the power to vote by the other person, and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company, and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of a company's voting securities. The Funds may be deemed to be controlled by the Adviser or an entity controlling,
21. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons of the Funds, or Second-Tier Affiliates of the Funds, solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25%, of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the shares of one or more Affiliated Funds, to effectuate purchases and redemptions “in-kind.”
22. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making “in-kind” purchases or “in-kind” redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for “in-kind” purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for “in-kind” redemptions of Creation Units will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions, regardless of size or number. There will be no discrimination between purchasers or redeemers. Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments for each Fund will be valued in the identical manner as those Portfolio Holdings currently held by such Fund and the valuation of the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be made in an identical manner regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer. Applicants do not believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching, but rather assert that such procedures will be implemented consistently with each Fund's objectives and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will be made on terms reasonable to applicants and any affiliated persons because they will be valued pursuant to verifiable objective standards. The method of valuing Portfolio Holdings held by a Fund is identical to that used for calculating “in-kind” purchase or redemption values and therefore creates no opportunity for affiliated persons or Second-Tier Affiliates of applicants to effect a transaction detrimental to the other holders of Shares of that Fund. Similarly, applicants submit that, by using the same standards for valuing Portfolio Holdings held by a Fund as are used for calculating “in-kind” redemptions or purchases, the Fund will ensure that its NAV will not be adversely affected by such securities transactions. Applicants also note that the ability to take deposits and make redemptions “in-kind” will help each Fund to track closely its Underlying Index and therefore aid in achieving the Fund's objectives.
23. Applicants also seek relief under sections 6(c) and 17(b) from section 17(a) to permit a Fund that is an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of a Fund of Funds to sell its Shares to and redeem its Shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
24. To the extent that a Fund operates in a master-feeder structure, applicants also request relief permitting the Feeder Funds to engage in in-kind creations and redemptions with the applicable Master Fund. Applicants state that the customary section 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) relief would not be sufficient to permit such transactions because the Feeder Funds and the applicable Master Fund could also be affiliated by virtue of having the same investment adviser. However, applicants believe that in-kind creations and redemptions between a Feeder Fund and a Master Fund advised by the same investment adviser do not involve “overreaching” by an affiliated person. Such transactions will occur only at the Feeder Fund's proportionate share of the Master Fund's net assets, and the distributed securities will be valued in the same manner as they are valued for the purposes of calculating the applicable Master Fund's NAV. Further, all such transactions will be effected with respect to pre-determined securities and on the same terms with respect to all investors. Finally, such transaction would only occur as a result of, and to effectuate, a creation or redemption transaction between the Feeder Fund and a third-party investor. Applicants believe that the terms of the proposed transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, the proposed transactions are consistent with the policy of each Fund and will be consistent with the investment objectives and policies of each Fund of Funds, and the proposed transactions are consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The requested relief will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of index-based ETFs.
2. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, Shares of such Fund will be listed on an Exchange.
3. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.
4. The Web site, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis for each Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
5. Each Self-Indexing Fund, Long/Short Fund and 130/30 Fund will post on the Web site on each Business Day, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Exchange, the Fund's, or its respective Master Fund's, Portfolio Holdings.
6. No Adviser or any Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, will cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, through a transaction in which the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, could not engage directly.
1. The members of a Fund of Funds' Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of a Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Fund of Funds' Advisory Group or the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group with respect to a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, for which the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Fund of Funds in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate and the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Fund of Funds Adviser and Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or a Fund of Funds Affiliate from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, or Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of a Fund exceeds the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“non-interested Board members”), will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to the Fund of Funds or a Fund of Funds Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, under rule 12b-l under the Act) received from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, by the Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of the Investing Trust, or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of the Investing Trust, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust, or its affiliated person by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. Any Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, by the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser or its affiliated person by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Fund made at the direction of the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser. In the event that the Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.
6. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, including a majority of the non-interested Board members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. The Board will consider, among other things: (i) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund, or its respective Master Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable
8. Each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the Board's determinations were made.
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A), a Fund of Funds and the Trust will execute a FOF Participation Agreement stating without limitation that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), a Fund of Funds will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Fund of Funds will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Fund of Funds Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Fund of Funds will notify the Fund of any changes to the list of the names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Fund of Funds will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the FOF Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be fully recorded in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will acquire securities of an investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent (i) the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, acquires securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes or (ii) the Fund acquires securities of the Master Fund pursuant to the Master-Feeder Relief.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to postpone implementation of changes to Rule 4751(h)(5).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ is proposing to delay implementation of changes to Rule 4751(h)(5) relating to processing of Market Hours IOC (“MIOC”) orders and to make clarifying changes to the rule, which are effective but not yet implemented. On March 6, 2015, the Exchange filed an immediately effective filing
The Exchange had originally anticipated implementing the changes on April 13, 2015. The Exchange, however, has experienced unanticipated delay in the development of the changes to its systems, which has made the original implementation date unachievable. The Exchange believes it will be able to implement the changes sometime in the second quarter of 2015, and will provide notice of the implementation date of the changes in an Equity Trader Alert not less than 30 days prior to implementation.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
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.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that waiving the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to postpone implementation of the previously proposed changes immediately, prior to the operative date of those changes. For this reason, the Commission waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.35 (Appointment of Market Makers) to refine the appointment process utilized by the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.35 to refine the appointment process utilized by the Exchange. The Exchange believes this proposal, which is consistent with the rules of other option exchanges,
To register as a Market Maker, an applicant must file an application with the Exchange on a form or forms prescribed by the Exchange.
In addition to having the authority to appoint one Lead Market Maker (“LMM”)
Under the current Rule, “Market Makers may change the option issues in their appointment, subject to the approval of the Exchange” provided requests for changes are “made in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange.”
Finally, under the current Rule, the Exchange periodically conducts evaluations of Market Makers to determine whether they have fulfilled performance standards.
The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.35 to refine the current appointment process. Presently, Market Makers must apply for an appointment in an options class, which, as discussed further below, is done by submitting an email to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.35(a) to provide that, rather than apply for an appointment, “a Market Maker may register for an appointment in one or more classes of option contracts,” in a form and manner prescribed the Exchange.
In addition, to simplify a Market Maker's ability to select and make changes to its appointment, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.35(c) to replace the existing rule text with text that provides that “[a] Market Maker may select or withdraw option issues included in their appointment by submitting a request via an Exchange-approved electronic interface with the Exchange on a day when the Exchange is open for business.”
Consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange proposes to delete paragraphs (e) and (f) of Rule 6.35, which describe how Market Makers can change their appointment or withdraw from issues in their appointment because these provisions are rendered superfluous by the proposed changes to Rule 6.35(c).
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to how Market Makers select and modify their appoints would enable Market Makers to manage their appointments with more flexibility and in a timelier manner which, in turn, would reduce the time and resources expended by Market Makers and the Exchange on the appointment process. The Exchange believes this proposal would provide Market Makers with more efficient access to the securities in which they want to make markets and disseminate competitive quotations, which would provide additional liquidity and enhance competition in those securities. The Exchange would retain the ability to suspend or terminate any appointment of a Market Maker if necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market.
As noted above, paragraph (d) of Rule 6.35 sets forth the number of OTPs a Market Maker must have in order to have a specified number of options issues included in the Market Maker's appointment. The Exchange recently amended the Arca Options Fee Schedule to include this information together with its OTP fees for Market Makers.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the text in paragraph (h) of the Rule. As proposed, a Market Maker would continue to be permitted to “seek review of any action taken by the Exchange, in accordance with Rule 10, as applicable.” However, to clarify the rule text, the Exchange proposes to delete the unnecessary clause “including the denial of the appointment for, or the termination or suspension of, a Market Maker's appointment in an option issue or issues.”
Rule 6.35(j) states that the Exchange will conduct periodic evaluations of Market Makers to determine whether they have fulfilled the requisite performance standards. The Exchange proposes to add “the financial resources available to the Market Maker” and “the Market Maker's operational capability” as factors the Exchange will consider in its evaluations conducted pursuant to Rule 6.35(j).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 6.35(j)(2) to reflect the proposed changes to the Market Maker appointment process. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to change the reference to a Market Maker being “re-appointed” by the Exchange if an option issue or issues has been terminated pursuant to this subsection (j), and to instead provide that “the Exchange may restrict a Market Maker's registration as a Market Maker in that option issue or issues for a period not to exceed 6 months.”
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to a free and open market because it would enable Market Makers to manage their appointments with more flexibility and in a timelier manner. The Exchange believes the
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to allow Market Makers to make selections or changes to their appointment without first obtaining explicit Exchange approval is likewise consistent with the Act. First, because financial resources and operational capability are important considerations in a Market Maker's performance, the Exchange proposes to retain these factors for consideration in the Exchange's periodic evaluation of Market Maker performance. The Exchange believes that adding these factors to the Exchange's consideration would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and would benefit investors and the public interest. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange would continue to have authority to suspend or terminate any Market Maker appointment in the interest of a fair and orderly market, including if necessary to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and protect investors, or if a Market Maker does not satisfy its obligations with respect to an appointment.
The proposed rule change would not result in unfair discrimination, as it applies to all Market Makers. Further, the proposed rule change would reduce the burden on Market Makers to manage their appointments and thus provide liquidity to the Exchange. Nevertheless, Market Makers would still be required to comply with certain obligations to maintain their status as a Market Maker, including that they provide continuous, two-sided quotations in their appointed securities.
Finally, as noted above, the proposed modifications to the appointment process would align the rules of the Exchange with the rules of other options exchanges, where Market Makers presently have the ability to select and make changes to their appointment via an Exchange-approved electronic interface.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it provides the same relief to a group of similarly situated market participants—Market Makers. The proposed rule change would reduce the burden on Market Makers to manage their appointments and thus provide liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would help Market Makers to the detriment of market participants on other exchanges, particularly because the proposed functionality is similar to functionality already available on other exchanges.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
Applicants request an order that would permit (a) series of certain open-end management investment companies to issue shares (“Shares”) redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares; and (f) certain series to perform creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 151 Detroit Street, Denver, Colorado 80206.
David J. Marcinkus, Senior Counsel at (202) 551-6882, or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Janus ETF Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust will be registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
2. The Initial Adviser is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and will be the investment adviser to the initial series of the Trust (the “Initial Fund”). Any other Adviser (defined below) will also be registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Each Adviser may enter into sub-advisory agreements with one or more investment advisers to act as sub-advisers to particular Funds (each, a “Sub-Adviser”). Any Sub-Adviser will either be registered under the Advisers Act or will not be required to register thereunder.
3. The Trust will enter into a distribution agreement with the Distributor. The distributor for the Initial Fund will be the Distributor. The Distributor is a broker-dealer (“Broker”) registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and will act as distributor and principal underwriter of one or more of the Funds. The distributor of any Fund may be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of that Fund's Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers. No distributor will be affiliated with any Exchange (defined below).
4. Applicants request that the order apply to the Initial Fund and any additional series of the Trust, and any other open-end management investment company or series thereof, that may be created in the future that operate as an exchanged-traded fund (“ETF”) and that track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/or fixed income securities (each, an “Underlying Index”) (together, the “Future Funds”). Any Future Fund will (a) be advised by the Initial Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Initial Adviser (each, an “Adviser”) and (b) comply
5. Applicants state that a Fund may operate as a feeder fund in a master-feeder structure (“Feeder Fund”). Applicants request that the order permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act (“Master-Feeder Relief”). Applicants may structure certain Feeder Funds to generate economies of scale and incur lower overhead costs.
6. Each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will hold certain securities, currencies, other assets and other investment positions (“Portfolio Holdings”) selected to correspond generally to the performance of its Underlying Index. Certain of the Funds will be based on Underlying Indexes that will be comprised solely of equity and/or fixed income securities issued by one or more of the following categories of issuers: (i) Domestic issuers and (ii) non-domestic issuers meeting the requirements for trading in U.S. markets. Other Funds will be based on Underlying Indexes that will be comprised solely of foreign and domestic, or solely foreign, equity and/or fixed income securities (“Foreign Funds”).
7. Applicants represent that each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will invest at least 80% of its assets (excluding securities lending collateral) in the component securities of its respective Underlying Index (“Component Securities”) and TBA Transactions
8. Future Funds may seek to track Underlying Indexes constructed using 130/30 investment strategies (“130/30 Funds”) or other long/short investment strategies (“Long/Short Funds”). Each Long/Short Fund will establish (i) exposures equal to approximately 100% of the long positions specified by the Long/Short Index
9. A Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will utilize either a replication or representative sampling strategy to track its Underlying Index. A Fund, or its respective Master Fund, using a replication strategy will invest in the Component Securities of its Underlying Index in the same approximate proportions as in such Underlying Index. A Fund, or its respective Master Fund, using a representative sampling strategy will hold some, but not necessarily all of the Component Securities of its Underlying Index. Applicants state that a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, using a representative sampling strategy will not be expected to track the performance of its Underlying Index with the same degree of accuracy as would an investment vehicle that invested in every Component Security of the Underlying Index with the same weighting as the Underlying Index. Applicants expect that each Fund will have an annual tracking error relative to the performance of its Underlying Index of less than 5%.
10. Each Fund will be entitled to use its Underlying Index pursuant to either a licensing agreement with the entity that compiles, creates, sponsors or maintains the Underlying Index (each, an “Index Provider”) or a sub-licensing arrangement with the applicable Adviser, which will have a licensing agreement with such Index Provider.
11. Applicants recognize that Self-Indexing Funds could raise concerns regarding the ability of the Affiliated Index Provider to manipulate the Underlying Index to the benefit or detriment of the Self-Indexing Fund. Applicants further recognize the potential for conflicts that may arise with respect to the personal trading activity of personnel of the Affiliated Index Provider who have knowledge of changes to an Underlying Index prior to the time that information is publicly disseminated. Prior orders granted to self-indexing ETFs (“Prior Self-Indexing Orders”) addressed these concerns by creating a framework that required: (i) Transparency of the Underlying Indexes; (ii) the adoption of policies and procedures not otherwise required by the Act designed to mitigate such conflicts of interest; (iii) limitations on the ability to change the rules for index compilation and the component securities of the index; (iv) that the index provider enter into an agreement with an unaffiliated third party to act as “Calculation Agent”; and (v) certain limitations designed to separate employees of the index provider, adviser and Calculation Agent (clauses (ii) through (v) are hereinafter referred to as “Policies and Procedures”).
12. Instead of adopting the same or similar Policies and Procedures, Applicants propose that each day that a Fund, the NYSE and the national securities exchange (as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act) (an “Exchange”) on which the Fund's Shares are primarily listed (“Listing Exchange”) are open for business, including any day that a Fund is required to be open under section 22(e) of the Act (a “Business Day”), each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Listing Exchange, the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Holdings that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the Business Day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds, and their respective Master Funds, to maintain full portfolio transparency will provide an effective alternative mechanism for addressing any such potential conflicts of interest.
13. Applicants represent that each Self-Indexing Fund's Portfolio Holdings will be as transparent as the portfolio holdings of existing actively managed ETFs. Applicants observe that the framework set forth in the Prior Self-Indexing Orders was established before the Commission began issuing exemptive relief to allow the offering of actively managed ETFs.
14. In addition, Applicants do not believe the potential for conflicts of interest raised by an Adviser's use of the Underlying Indexes in connection with the management of the Self Indexing Funds, their respective Master Funds, and the Affiliated Accounts will be substantially different from the potential conflicts presented by an adviser managing two or more registered funds. Both the Act and the Advisers Act contain various protections to address conflicts of interest where an adviser is managing two or more registered funds and these protections will also help address these conflicts with respect to the Self-Indexing Funds.
15. Each Adviser and any Sub-Adviser has adopted or will adopt, pursuant to Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act, written policies and procedures designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder. These include policies and procedures designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest among the Self-Indexing Funds, their respective Master Funds, and the Affiliated Accounts, such as cross trading policies, as well as those designed to ensure the equitable allocation of portfolio transactions and brokerage commissions. In addition, each Adviser has adopted policies and procedures as required under section 204A of the Advisers Act, which are reasonably designed in light of the nature of its business to prevent the misuse, in violation of the Advisers Act or the Exchange Act or the rules thereunder, of material non-public information by the Adviser or an associated person (“Inside Information Policy”). Any Sub-Adviser will be required to adopt and maintain a similar Inside Information Policy. In accordance with the Code of Ethics
16. To the extent the Self-Indexing Funds or their respective Master Funds transact with an Affiliated Person of an Adviser or Sub-Adviser, such transactions will comply with the Act, the rules thereunder and the terms and conditions of the requested order. In this regard, each Self-Indexing Fund's board of directors or trustees (“Board”) will periodically review the Self-Indexing Fund's use of an Affiliated Index Provider. Subject to the approval of the Self-Indexing Fund's Board, an Adviser, Affiliated Persons of the Adviser (“Adviser Affiliates”) and Affiliated Persons of any Sub-Adviser (“Sub-Adviser Affiliates”) may be authorized to provide custody, fund accounting and administration and transfer agency services to the Self-Indexing Funds. Any services provided by an Adviser, Adviser Affiliates, Sub-Adviser and Sub-Adviser Affiliates will be performed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules under the Act and any relevant guidelines from the staff of the Commission.
17. In light of the foregoing, Applicants believe it is appropriate to allow the Self-Indexing Funds and their respective Master Funds to be fully transparent in lieu of Policies and Procedures from the Prior Self-Indexing Orders discussed above.
18. The Shares of each Fund will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified below, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).
19. Purchases and redemptions of Creation Units may be made in whole or in part on a cash basis, rather than in kind, solely under the following circumstances: (a) To the extent there is a Cash Amount; (b) if, on a given Business Day, the Fund announces before the open of trading that all purchases, all redemptions or all purchases and redemptions on that day will be made entirely in cash; (c) if, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, the Fund determines to require the purchase or redemption, as applicable, to be made entirely in cash;
20. Creation Units will consist of specified large aggregations of Shares,
21. Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the Listing Exchange, each Fund will cause to be published through the NSCC the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments, as well as the estimated Cash Amount (if any), for that day. The list of Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will apply until a new list is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the list except to correct errors in the published list. Each Listing Exchange will disseminate, every 15 seconds during regular Exchange trading hours, through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association, an amount for each Fund stated on a per individual Share basis representing the sum of (i) the estimated Cash Amount and (ii) the current value of the Deposit Instruments.
22. Transaction expenses, including operational processing and brokerage costs, will be incurred by a Fund when investors purchase or redeem Creation Units in-kind and such costs have the potential to dilute the interests of the Fund's existing shareholders. Each Fund will impose purchase or redemption transaction fees (“Transaction Fees”) in connection with effecting such purchases or redemptions of Creation Units. With respect to Feeder Funds, the Transaction Fee would be paid indirectly to the Master Fund.
23. Shares of each Fund will be listed and traded individually on an Exchange. It is expected that one or more member firms of an Exchange will be designated to act as a market maker (each, a “Market Maker”) and maintain a market for Shares trading on the Exchange. Prices of Shares trading on an Exchange will be based on the current bid/offer market. Transactions involving the sale of Shares on an Exchange will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
24. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Units will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs. Market Makers, acting in their roles to provide a fair and orderly secondary market for the Shares, may from time to time find it appropriate to purchase or redeem Creation Units. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of Shares will include both institutional and retail investors.
25. Shares will not be individually redeemable, and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund, or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor must accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption requests must be placed through an Authorized Participant. A redeeming investor may pay a Transaction Fee, calculated in the same manner as a Transaction Fee payable in connection with purchases of Creation Units.
26. Neither the Trusts nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed or otherwise held out as a traditional open-end investment company or a “mutual fund.” Instead, each such Fund will be marketed as an “ETF.” All marketing materials that describe the features or method of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units, or Shares traded on an Exchange, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and will disclose that the owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund or tender such Shares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Units only. The Funds will provide copies of their annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC Participants for distribution to beneficial owners of Shares.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the owner, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue Shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through an underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers, and (c) ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in Shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in Shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in Shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the price at which Shares trade will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the option continually to purchase or redeem Shares in Creation Units, which should help prevent Shares from trading at a material discount or premium in relation to their NAV.
7. Section 22(e) of the Act generally prohibits a registered investment company from suspending the right of redemption or postponing the date of payment of redemption proceeds for more than seven days after the tender of a security for redemption. Applicants state that settlement of redemptions for Foreign Funds will be contingent not only on the settlement cycle of the United States market, but also on current delivery cycles in local markets for the underlying foreign securities held by a Foreign Fund. Applicants state that the delivery cycles currently practicable for transferring Redemption Instruments to redeeming investors, coupled with local market holiday schedules, may require a delivery process of up to fifteen (15) calendar days.
8. Applicants believe that Congress adopted section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds. Applicants propose that allowing redemption payments for Creation Units of a Foreign Fund to be made within fifteen calendar days would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e). Applicants suggest that a redemption payment occurring within fifteen calendar days following a redemption request would adequately afford investor protection.
9. Applicants are not seeking relief from section 22(e) with respect to Foreign Funds that do not effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind.
10. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring securities of an investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter and any other broker-dealer from knowingly selling the investment company's shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
11. Applicants request an exemption to permit registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts (“UITs”) that are not advised or sponsored by the Advisers and are not part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act as the Funds (such management investment
12. Each Investing Management Company will be advised by an investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act (the “Fund of Funds Adviser”) and may be sub-advised by investment advisers within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (each a “Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser”). Any investment adviser to an Investing Management Company will be registered under the Advisers Act. Each Investing Trust will be sponsored by a sponsor (“Sponsor”).
13. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the requested relief adequately address the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B), which include concerns about undue influence by a fund of funds over underlying funds, excessive layering of fees and overly complex fund structures. Applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
14. Applicants believe that neither a Fund of Funds nor a Fund of Funds Affiliate would be able to exert undue influence over a Fund.
15. Applicants propose other conditions to limit the potential for undue influence over the Funds, including that no Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of an underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate (“Affiliated Underwriting”). An “Underwriting Affiliate” is a principal underwriter in any underwriting or selling syndicate that is an officer, director, member of an advisory board, Fund of Funds Adviser, Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, employee or Sponsor of the Fund of Funds, or a person of which any such officer, director, member of an advisory board, Fund of Funds Adviser or Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser, employee or Sponsor is an affiliated person (except that any person whose relationship to the Fund is covered by section 10(f) of the Act is not an Underwriting Affiliate).
16. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. The board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“disinterested directors or trustees”), will find that the advisory fees charged under the contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract of any Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in which the Investing Management Company may invest. In addition, under condition B.5., a Fund of Funds Adviser, or a Fund of Funds' trustee or Sponsor, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from a Fund by the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Fund of Funds Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or its affiliated person by a Fund, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. Applicants state that any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
17. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that no Fund, nor its respective Master Fund, will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to purchase shares of other investment companies for short-term cash management purposes or pursuant to the Master-Feeder Relief. To ensure a Fund of Funds is aware of the terms and conditions of the requested order, the Fund of Funds will enter into an agreement with the Fund (“FOF Participation Agreement”). The FOF Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgement from the Fund of Funds that it may rely on the order only to invest in the Funds and not in any other investment company.
18. Applicants also note that a Fund may choose to reject a direct purchase of Shares in Creation Units by a Fund of Funds. To the extent that a Fund of Funds purchases Shares in the secondary market, a Fund would still retain its ability to reject any initial investment by a Fund of Funds in excess of the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) by declining to enter into a FOF Participation Agreement with the Fund of Funds.
19. Applicants also are seeking the Master-Feeder Relief to permit the Feeder Funds to perform creations and redemptions of Shares in-kind in a master-feeder structure. Applicants assert that this structure is substantially identical to traditional master-feeder structures permitted pursuant to the exception provided in section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. Section
20. Sections 17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act generally prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such a person, from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person, (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with the power to vote by the other person, and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines “control” as the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company, and provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of a company's voting securities. The Funds may be deemed to be controlled by an Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. In addition, the Funds may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by an Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”). Any investor, including Market Makers, owning 5% or holding in excess of 25% of the Trust or such Funds, may be deemed affiliated persons of the Trust or such Funds. In addition, an investor could own 5% or more, or in excess of 25% of the outstanding shares of one or more Affiliated Funds making that investor a Second-Tier Affiliate of the Funds.
21. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons of the Funds, or Second-Tier Affiliates of the Funds, solely by virtue of one or more of the following: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25%, of the outstanding Shares of one or more Funds; (b) an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the shares of one or more Affiliated Funds, to effectuate purchases and redemptions “in-kind.”
22. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting such affiliated persons from making “in-kind” purchases or “in-kind” redemptions of Shares of a Fund in Creation Units. Both the deposit procedures for “in-kind” purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for “in-kind” redemptions of Creation Units will be effected in exactly the same manner for all purchases and redemptions, regardless of size or number. There will be no discrimination between purchasers or redeemers. Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments for each Fund will be valued in the identical manner as those Portfolio Holdings currently held by such Fund and the valuation of the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be made in an identical manner regardless of the identity of the purchaser or redeemer. Applicants do not believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching, but rather assert that such procedures will be implemented consistently with each Fund's objectives and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants believe that “in-kind” purchases and redemptions will be made on terms reasonable to applicants and any affiliated persons because they will be valued pursuant to verifiable objective standards. The method of valuing Portfolio Holdings held by a Fund is identical to that used for calculating “in-kind” purchase or redemption values and therefore creates no opportunity for affiliated persons or Second-Tier Affiliates of applicants to effect a transaction detrimental to the other holders of Shares of that Fund. Similarly, applicants submit that, by using the same standards for valuing Portfolio Holdings held by a Fund as are used for calculating “in-kind” redemptions or purchases, the Fund will ensure that its NAV will not be adversely affected by such securities transactions. Applicants also note that the ability to take deposits and make redemptions “in-kind” will help each Fund to track closely its Underlying Index and therefore aid in achieving the Fund's objectives.
23. Applicants also seek relief under sections 6(c) and 17(b) from section 17(a) to permit a Fund that is an affiliated person, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of a Fund of Funds to sell its Shares to and redeem its Shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
24. To the extent that a Fund operates in a master-feeder structure, applicants also request relief permitting the Feeder Funds to engage in in-kind creations and redemptions with the applicable Master Fund. Applicants state that the customary section 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) relief would not be sufficient to permit such transactions because the Feeder Funds and the applicable Master Fund could also be affiliated by virtue of having the same investment adviser. However, applicants believe that in-kind creations and redemptions between a Feeder Fund and a Master Fund advised by the same investment adviser do not involve “overreaching” by an affiliated person. Such transactions will occur only at the Feeder Fund's proportionate share of the Master Fund's net assets, and the distributed securities will be valued in the same manner as they are valued for the purposes of calculating the applicable Master Fund's NAV. Further, all such transactions will be effected with respect to pre-determined securities and on the same terms with respect to all investors. Finally, such transaction would only occur as a result of, and to effectuate, a creation or redemption transaction between the Feeder Fund and a third-party investor. Applicants believe that the terms of the proposed transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, the proposed transactions are consistent with the policy of each Fund and will be consistent with the investment objectives and policies of each Fund of Funds, and the proposed transactions are consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The requested relief, other than the section 12(d)(1) Relief and the section 17 relief related to a master-feeder structure, will expire on the effective date of any Commission rule under the Act that provides relief permitting the operation of index-based ETFs.
2. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, Shares of such Fund will be listed on an Exchange.
3. Neither the Trusts nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end investment company or a mutual fund. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to a Fund in Creation Units only.
4. Each Fund's Web site, which is and will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain, on a per Share basis for the Fund, the prior Business Day's NAV and the market closing price or the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the time of the calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of the market closing price or Bid/Ask Price against such NAV.
5. Each Self-Indexing Fund, Long/Short Fund and 130/30 Fund will post on its Web site on each Business Day, before commencement of trading of Shares on the Exchange, the Fund's, or its respective Master Fund's, Portfolio Holdings.
6. Neither Adviser nor any Sub-Adviser to a Self-Indexing Fund, directly or indirectly, will cause any Authorized Participant (or any investor on whose behalf an Authorized Participant may transact with the Self-Indexing Fund) to acquire any Deposit Instrument for a Self-Indexing Fund, or its respective Master Fund, through a transaction in which the Self-Indexing Fund, or its respective Master Fund, could not engage directly.
1. The members of a Fund of Funds' Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of a Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, the Fund of Funds' Advisory Group or the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a Fund, it will vote its Shares of the Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Fund's Shares. This condition does not apply to the Fund of Funds' Sub-Advisory Group with respect to a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, for which the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser or a person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Fund of Funds' Sub-Adviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
2. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Fund of Funds in a Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate and the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, or a Fund Affiliate.
3. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Fund of Funds Adviser and Fund of Funds Sub-Adviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or a Fund of Funds Affiliate from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, or Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of a Fund exceeds the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Board of the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“non-interested Board members”), will determine that any consideration paid by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to the Fund of Funds or a Fund of Funds Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. The Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust, as applicable, will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, under rule 12b-l under the Act) received from a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, by the Fund of Funds Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of the
6. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to a Fund) will cause a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.
7. The Board of a Fund, or its respective Master Fund, including a majority of the non-interested Board members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in an Affiliated Underwriting, once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Fund. The Board will consider, among other things: (i) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund, or its respective Master Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to ensure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interest of shareholders of the Fund.
8. Each Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the Board's determinations were made.
9. Before investing in a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A), a Fund of Funds and the Trust will execute a FOF Participation Agreement stating without limitation that their respective boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, or trustee and Sponsor, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of a Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), a Fund of Funds will notify the Fund of the investment. At such time, the Fund of Funds will also transmit to the Fund a list of the names of each Fund of Funds Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Fund of Funds will notify the Fund of any changes to the list of the names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Fund and the Fund of Funds will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the FOF Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
10. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Fund, or its respective Master Fund, in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be fully recorded in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Fund, or its respective Master Fund, will acquire securities of an investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent (i) the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, acquires securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting the Fund, or its respective Master Fund, to acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes or (ii) the Fund acquires securities of the Master Fund pursuant to the Master-Feeder Relief.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 2.125 (2
Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to June 8, 2015.
Direct any comments on this request to Sumitra Siram, Program Officer, Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Office of Admissions, 2025 E Street NW., Washington DC, 20522.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Sumitra Siram, Program Officer, PRM/Office of Admissions, 2025 E Street NW., Washington DC, 20522-0908, who may be reached on 202-453-9250 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 51 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective April 8, 2015. The exemptions expire on April 10, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
FMCSA grants 51 individuals an exemption from section 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,
On February 14, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 51 individuals. The comment period ended on March 17, 2014. In response to the notice, FMCSA received one comment from Ann Sherman, who supports the idea of deaf drivers having the opportunity to get training and seek employment “like everyone else”. FMCSA has determined that the following 51 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 51 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 51 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 51 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Andresen, 34, holds a driver's license in Utah.
Mr. Belousov, 37, holds a driver's license in Maryland.
Mr. Boggs, 37, holds a driver's license in Ohio.
Mr. Bowling, 35, holds a driver's license in Kentucky.
Mr. Boyd, 23, holds a driver's license in Mississippi.
Mr. Breidenthal, 62, holds a driver's license in California.
Mr. Brown, 32, holds a driver's license in Texas.
Mr. Carpenter, 29, holds a driver's license in Ohio.
Mr. Dillon, 49, holds a driver's license in California.
Mr. Dobson, 50, holds a driver's license in California.
Mr. Dominik, 54, holds a driver's license in Texas.
Mr. Douglas, 39, holds a driver's license in Ohio.
Mr. Eberhart, 43, holds a driver's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Farinacci, 50, holds a driver's license in Ohio.
Mr. Finley, 48, holds a driver's license in California.
Mr. Fisk, 57, holds a driver's license in Colorado.
Mr. Fitzwater, 27, holds a driver's license in Virginia.
Mr. Frilando, 46, holds a driver's license in New York.
Mr. Gallagher, 51, holds a driver's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Harper, 33, holds a driver's license in Illinois.
Mr. Harris, 39, holds a driver's license in Missouri.
Ms. Helgerson, 49, holds a driver's license in Wisconsin.
Ms. Hicks, 47, holds a driver's license in Illinois.
Mr. Hinds, 56, holds a driver's license in Colorado.
Mr. Howard, 41, holds a driver's license in New York.
Mr. Ingram, 28, holds a driver's license in North Carolina.
Mr. LaFayette, 59, holds a driver's license in California.
Mr. Lucki, 32, holds a driver's license in Illinois.
Mr. Matlow, 34, holds a driver's license in Texas.
Ms. Mazique, 31, holds a driver's license in Illinois.
Mr. McCoy, 63, holds a driver's license in California.
Ms. Mitcham, 56, holds a driver's license Texas.
Mr. Moore, 35, holds a driver's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Morgan, 25, holds a driver's license in Massachusetts.
Mr. Murphy, 32, holds a driver's license in Wisconsin.
Mr. Noble, 63, holds a driver's license in New York.
Mr. Panteleimonov, 34, holds a driver's license in California.
Mr. Pulvermacher, 27, holds a driver's license in Wisconsin.
Mr. Reams, 37, holds a driver's license in Kentucky.
Mr. Robinson, 31, holds a driver's license in Louisiana.
Mr. Rutley, 32, holds a driver's license in New York.
Mr. Sherman, 36, holds a driver's license in Minnesota.
Mr. Shevchenko, 22, holds a driver's license in Minnesota.
Mr. Smith, 33, holds a driver's license in Texas.
Ms. Smith, 52, holds a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) in Florida.
Mr. Templeton, 44, holds a driver's license in Georgia.
Mr. Terpak, 28, holds a driver's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thrush, 27, holds a driver's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Torres, 30, holds a driver's license in Florida.
Mr. Turner, 49, holds a driver's license in Colorado.
Mr. Weaver, 32, holds a driver's license in Georgia.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 51 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 51 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the CMV industry will gain 51 additional CMV drivers. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 51 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Brooks Andresen (UT); Alexey Belousov (MD); Richard Boggs (OH); Conley Bowling (KY); Marquarius Boyd (MS); Charles Breidenthal (CA); Adam Brown (TX); Kwinton Carpenter (OH); Ronald Dillon, Jr. (CA); Clark Dobson (CA); Louis Dominik (TX); Kareem M. Douglas (OH); Craig Eberhart (PA); Anthony Farinacci (OH); Timothy D. Finley (CA); Danny E. Fisk (CO); Christopher Fitzwater (VA); Kenneth Frilando (NY); Timothy Gallagher (PA); John R. Harper, Jr. (IL); Kenneth E. Harris (MO); Susan D. Helgerson (WI); Kimberly Hicks (IL); Devon T. Hinds (CO); Ryan S. Howard (NY); Gregory Ingram (NC); Bernard LaFayette (CA); Christopher Lucki (IL); Joshua Matlow (TX); Kathy Mazique (IL); David W. McCoy (CA); Clair Mitcham (TX); Jeffrey S. Moore (PA); Christopher Morgan (MA); Quinton Murphy (WI); William Noble (NY); Veniamin Panteleimonov (CA); Kelly Pulvermacher (WI); Jeremy Reams (KY); Victor M. Robinson (LA); Darrin A. Rutley (NY); Samuel Sherman (MN); Andrey Shevchenko (MN); Ronald K. Smith, Jr. (TX); Willine D. Smith (FL); William Templeton (GA); Timothy A. Terpak (PA); Jeremy L. Thrush (PA); Carlos A. Torres (FL); John K. Turner, III (CO); and Chad Weaver (GA).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 39 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective April 8, 2015. The exemptions expire on April 10, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA grants 39 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV
FMCSA announced the exemption applications and requested public comment for each of the applicants in one of the notices below. For those applicants discussed in a previous notice but who are not mentioned in this notice, the Agency announced its decision in a previous notice.
On May 3, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 9 individuals. The comment period ended on June 3, 2013. In response to the notice, FMCSA received three comments. All three commenters support the idea of granting exemptions.
On May 6, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 16 individuals. The comment period ended on June 5, 2013. In response to the notice, FMCSA received four comments. All four commenters support the idea of granting exemptions.
On July 16, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 27 individuals. The comment period ended on August 15, 2013. In response to the notice, FMCSA received seven comments. All seven commenters support the idea of granting exemptions.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 39 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 39 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 39 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Alcozer, 30, holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Allen, 47, holds an operator's license from Vermont.
Mr. Beebe, 51, holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Bumbalough, 41, holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. Carpenter, 57, holds an operator's license from South Dakota.
Mr. Cerino-Perez, 36, holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Cofield, 37, holds an operator's license from Mississippi.
Mr. Cook, 31, holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Crisman, 53, holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Desarmeaux, 53, holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Douglas, 47, holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Faulk, 33, holds an operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Fuller, 30, holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Grossinger, 27, holds an operator's license from Maryland.
Mr. Hill, 38, holds an operator's license from Mississippi.
Mr. Hornung, 25, holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Jardine, 60, holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Jenkins, 33, holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Landa, 37, holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Macfarlane, 33, holds an operator's license from Vermont.
Mr. Malhi, 25, holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Martin, 60, holds an operator's license from Michigan.
Mr. Moothart, 36, holds an operator's license from Oregon.
Mr. Munson, 63, holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Lawson, 39, holds an operator's license from Arkansas.
Mr. Nicholson, 43, holds an operator's license from New Mexico.
Mr. Nordquist, 46, holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Oakes, 44, holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Pagenkopf, 30, holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Paullin, 38, holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Pope, 37, holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Potterfield, 31, holds an operator's license from South Carolina.
Mr. Prickett, 45, holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Ramirez-Savon, 45, holds a class A commercial driver's license from New Mexico.
Mr. Reno, 43, holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Rutter, 50, holds an operator's license from Arizona.
Mr. Smith, 44, holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Weir, 41, holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. White, 42, holds an operator's license from Texas.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The driver must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption. This includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5 and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 39 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 39 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the CMV industry will gain 39 additional CMV drivers. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 39 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Andrew Alcozer (IL); James Allen (VT); Michael Beebe (NJ); Shayne Bumbalough (WA); Barry Carpenter (SD); Gregorio Cerino-Perez (VA); Charles Cofield (MS); Chase Cook (VA); Barry Crisman (CA); Michael Desarmeaux (OH); Robert Douglas (CA); William Faulk (AL); Michael Fuller (NC); Daniel Grossinger (MD); Gregory Hill (MS); Kyle Hornung (WI); Ronald Jardine (NJ); Michael Jenkins (VA); Roman Landa (CA); Bryan Macfarlane (VT); Aminder Malhi (CA); Mark Martin (MI); Joshua Moothart (OR); Robert Munson (NJ); Jayson Lawson (AR); Albert Nicholson (NM); Darren Nordquist (WI); Edwin Oakes II (NY); Jeffrey Pagenkopf (MN); Jacob Paullin (WI); Ryan Pope (CA); Thomas Potterfield (SC); Thomas Prickett (MN); Fernando Ramirez-Savon (NM); Ralph Reno (PA); Ronald Rutter (AZ); Russell Smith (OH); James Weir (WA); and Billy White (TX).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of applications for exemptions request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 49 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2015.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0057 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 49 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Alba, 35, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Alba understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Alba meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Beverly, 65, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Beverly understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Beverly meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Bledsoe, 65, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bledsoe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bledsoe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
Mr. Bowlin, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bowlin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bowlin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Brannon, 59, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brannon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brannon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Carril, 64, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carril understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carril meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Cole, 66, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cole understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cole meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Collins, 45, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the
Mr. Colosimo, 64, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Colosimo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Colosimo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Cook, 40, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cook understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cook meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Coombs, 52, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Coombs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coombs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Daniels, 60, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Daniels understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Daniels meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine.
Mr. Dias, 47, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dias understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dias meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Emerick, 74, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Emerick understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Emerick meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Foss, 38, has had ITDM since 1982. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Foss understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Foss meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wyoming.
Mr. Gardner, 44, has had ITDM since 1981. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gardner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gardner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Gill, 61, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him
Mr. Gilmour, 55, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gilmour understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gilmour meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Gonzalez, 60, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gonzalez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gonzalez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.
Mr. Griffith, 71, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Griffith understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Griffith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Gudaitis, 50, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gudaitis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gudaitis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hanlon, 58, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hanlon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hanlon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Harker, 24, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Florida.
Mr. Head, 63, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Head understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Head meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Henderson, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Henderson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist
Mr. Holdeman, 32, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holdeman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holdeman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.
Mr. Holt, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Holwegner, 57, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holwegner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holwegner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Jacobs, 65, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jacobs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jacobs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Janik, 61, has had ITDM since 1973. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Janik understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Janik meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Kenny, 52, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kenny understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kenny meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Key, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Key understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Key meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.
Mr. Lancial, 56, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lancial understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lancial meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Michigan.
Mr. Mowers, 81, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
Mr. Nichols, 51, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nichols understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nichols meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Michigan.
Mr. Nunn, 57, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nunn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nunn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oregon.
Mr. Rose, 70, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rose understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rose meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Rush, 42, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rush understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rush meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Scougal, 35, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Scougal understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Scougal meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Silva, 59, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Silva understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Silva meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Skinner, 46, has had ITDM since 1975. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Skinner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Skinner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Terry, 53, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Terry understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Terry meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Torres, 54, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him
Mr. Vaillancourt, 27, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vaillancourt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vaillancourt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Weitzel, 55, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weitzel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weitzel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Winkels, 30, has had ITDM since 2014. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2014 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Winkels understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Winkels meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2015 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Wolvers, 56, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wolvers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wolvers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.
Mr. Wood, 75, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2015 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wood understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Zimmerman, 70, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Zimmerman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zimmerman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2015 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441)
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
This document denies a July 7, 2014 petition from Mr. Brian Rosa of Union, NJ, requesting that the agency open an investigation into an alleged defect resulting in engine stall without warning after refueling in a model year (MY) 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan minivan. The petitioner's vehicle is a Chrysler RS platform minivan. The RS platform includes MY 2003 through 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan, Dodge Caravan, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler Voyager minivans. NHTSA evaluated the petition by analyzing consumer complaints submitted to the Agency, analyzing field data and reviewing technical information provided by Chrysler in response to an information request letter from the Agency, and testing an RS minivan that was the subject of a post-refuel engine stall complaint to NHTSA. After completing this evaluation, NHTSA has concluded that further investigation of the alleged defect in the subject vehicles is unlikely to result in a determination that a safety-related defect exists. The agency accordingly denies the petition.
Mr. Paul Simmons, Vehicle Control Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2315.
The petitioner alleges that his MY 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan vehicle experienced multiple incidents of engine stall without warning after refueling. The petitioner discovered that the defective part is a valve that is integral to the fuel tank, requiring tank replacement to repair the problem. The petitioner alleged that stalling without warning is an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and requests the agency take action by opening a Preliminary Evaluation fully evaluate the defect.
The United States Code for Motor Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter 301) defines motor vehicle safety as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.” NHTSA considers several factors when assessing the safety risk posed by conditions that may result in engine stall while driving. These include the speeds at which stalling may occur, the ability of the driver to restart the vehicle, the warning available to the driver prior to stalling, the effects of engine stall on vehicle controllability, when and where the stalling will occur and the effects of the condition on other safety systems of the vehicle. In general, conditions that result in engine stall during low-speed operation at idle, such as when slowing to a stop, and which do not affect the operator's ability to immediately restart the engine are considered the least hazardous types of stalling problems and, absent other safety factors, are not considered to be unreasonable risks to safety.
On February 10, 2014, ODI closed an investigation of an alleged defect in approximately 153,817 MY 2006 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum vehicles (LX cars) that may result in engine stall shortly after refueling (PE13-016). In response to ODI's information request for PE13-016, Chrysler identified a problem with the multifunction control valve (MFCV) fuel shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon fuel tanks in certain LX vehicles. According to Chrysler, the float may swell after exposure to fuels with high ethanol content, which may cause the valve to stick. A float valve that is stuck open during refueling, could result in fuel tank overfill and allow raw fuel to enter the purge line. This could result in problems with engine driveability (
ODI's analysis of complaints related to this condition determined that most of the incidents of engine stall were occurring when the vehicles were stopped or travelling at low speeds and there were no reports of any difficulty restarting the engines after such incidents. No crashes or injuries were identified in the subject vehicles, which had been in service for 7 to 8 years. The investigation was closed with no safety recall due to the low safety risk associated with the alleged defect condition.
In response to ODI's information request letter for DP14-002, Chrysler indicated that the RS Minivans may experience a condition with MFCV float sticking similar to the one investigated in the LX Cars in PE13-016:
“The failure mechanism is a result of a swollen refueling float within the multifunction control valve. Studies have proven that elevated ethanol additives cause the float and housing to swell, which, in turn, causes the float to intermittently stick. Once stuck, a limited amount of fuel will pass beyond the refuel float and enter the vapor recovery system before the fill pressure threshold is reached and shuts the fuel nozzle off.
“Once fuel has entered into in the vapor recovery system, it can then be purged into the engine's intake system in place of anticipated vapor within the first minute of starting the engine. The result of fuel rather than vapor entering in the engine intake system will cause the engine to stumble or, when the vehicle is not in motion and/or the engine at idle, a stall can occur. The condition is often contained to a momentary engine stumble as the purge event is immediately turned off when a rich fuel condition is detected by the Powertrain Control Module.
“Chrysler believes there is no unreasonable risk to motor safety because an engine stumble or rough idle will occur at a low driving speed, and while a stall is most likely to occur at an idle or stop. There have been no reported accidents or property damage in over 1.8 million vehicles. Additionally, when a refuel valve does stick, there is sufficient back pressure in the fuel system to shut off the fuel pump and limit the amount of the fuel into the purge line.”
ODI's analysis of complaints, field reports, legal claims and warranty data related to the alleged defect in Chrysler RS Minivans identified a total of 720 post-refueling engine stall incidents in approximately 1.8 million vehicles, resulting in an overall rate of 0.39 per incidents per thousand vehicles (IPTV). Similar to the LX Car analysis in PE13-016, the engine stalls were mostly occurring when the vehicle was stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. There were no allegations of difficulty restarting the engines immediately after the stalls occurred. There were no allegations of crash or injury.
Differences in tank design, exhaust routing and purge strategy may influence the incident rate at which the MFCV float sticking condition occurs and/or the potential for engine stall or other performance concerns. As a result, ODI's analysis examined incident rates over the full range of RS Minivan production to assess the effects of changes in tank design and purge control logic. This analysis identified an elevated incident rate for approximately 208,000 MY 2004 and 2005 RS Minivans built during a seventh month period from September 2003 through March 2004, which exhibited a failure rate similar to the LX Cars investigated in PE13-016. Table 1 summarizes the field data for DP14-002 and PE13-016.
As part of its evaluation of this defect petition, NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted testing on a 2005 Chrysler Town & Country LMT (3.6L SFI, 20 gal. fuel tank) vehicle that was the subject of an ODI complaint (VOQ 10641603) that provided the following description of the problem:
VRTC conducted tests on the complaint vehicle to assess engine performance after refueling, including the driving conditions and ease of engine restart associated with any observed engine stalls. When refueling the vehicle up to the initial shut-off of the filling station pump nozzle, the VRTC testing was able to reproduce stalling incidents when the vehicle was stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. The vehicle did not stall 4 out of 5 times when travelling at 5 mph, but minor hesitation was noted. No stalls and only minor hesitation were occurred when travelling at 10 mph or above in tanks filled to the initial nozzle shut-off. Stalling was more likely to occur if the tank was overfilled (
In the Agency's view, additional investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists given the limited conditions under which the subject condition may result in engine stall, the low failure rate in vehicles with approximately 8 to 13 years in service and the absence of any reports of crashes or injuries. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA limited resources to best accomplish the Agency's safety mission, the petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.
49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F-
UP has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the Line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication) and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will become effective on May 8, 2015, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Mack H. Shumate, Jr., Senior General Attorney, 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (D&H), a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Railway Company, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
The Lines traverse United States Postal Service Zip Codes as follows: (1) Pennsylvania—17110, 17020, 17053, 17025, 17011, 17043, 17070, 17319, 17370, 17345, 17347, 17406, 17547, 17512, 17582, 17516, 17565, 17532, 17518, 17563, 17101, 17102, 17120, 17104, 17113, 17057, 17502, 17801, 17823, 17830, 17017, 17061, 17032, 17018, 17112, 18240, 18229, 18235, 18071, 18058, 18080, 18088, 18059, 18067, 18052, 18032, 18109, 18018, 18015, 18017, 18020, 18045, 18042, 18103, 18049, 18062, 18011, 19539, 19562, 19530, 19522, 19510, 19605, 19604, 19601, 19602, 19606, 19508, 19518, 19464, 19468, 19460, 19406, 19401, 19428, 19035, 19072, 19004, 19131, 19121, 19129, 19132, 19133, 19122, 19123, 19107, 19147, 19148, 19145, 19106, 19112, 17103, 17111, 17036, 17033, 17078, 17042, 17046, 17067, 17087, 17073, 19567, 19551, 19565, 19608, 19609, 19610, 19611, 18641, 18640, 18702, 18706, 18707, 18661, 18255, 18701, 18704, and 18705; (2) Maryland—21918, 21904, 21903, 21078, 21001, 21040, 21010, 21220, 21221, 21237, 21224, 21205, 21203, 21212, 21201, 21217, 21223, 21229, 21227, 21090, 21076, 21240, 21077, 21144, 21113, 20775, 20715, 20720, 20769, 20706, 20784, 20785, and 20743; (3) District of Columbia—20003, 20019, and 20024; (4) Virginia—22202; (5) New Jersey—07102, 07105, 07114, 07112, 07205, 07083, 07204, 07203, 07016, 07027, 07090, 07076, 07023, 07062, 07060, 07063, 08812, 08846, 08805, 08807, 08835, 08844, 08853, 08822, 08887, 08801, 08867, 08827, 08802, 08804, and 08865; and (6) New York—13748, 13790, 13901, 13903, and 13905.
D&H has certified that (1) no local traffic has moved over the Lines for at least two years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Lines (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service on the Lines either is pending with the Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will be effective on May 8, 2015,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to D&H's representative: W. Karl Hansen, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN 55402.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No .8 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
Notice is hereby given that the Certificate of Authority issued by the Treasury to Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company (NAIC #12157) under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is terminated immediately. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2014 Revision, to reflect this change.
With respect to any bonds, including continuous bonds, currently in force with above listed Company, bond-approving officers should secure new bonds with acceptable sureties in those instances where a significant amount of liability remains outstanding. In addition, in no event, should bonds that are continuous in nature be renewed.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Fiscal Service, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Section, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 6 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following company:
Bondex Insurance Company (NAIC# 12965), BUSINESS ADDRESS: 30A Vreeland Road, Suite 120, Florham Park, NJ 07932. PHONE: (973) 377-7000. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/: $274,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: NJ. INCORPORATED IN: NJ.
Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2014 Revision, to reflect this addition.
Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 9 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
Notice is hereby given that the Certificate of Authority issued by the Treasury to American Service Insurance Company, Inc. (NAIC #42897) under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is terminated effective
With respect to any bonds currently in force with this company, bond approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from this company and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Section, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 7 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following companies:
BUSINESS ADDRESS: One Travelers Square, Hartford, CT 06183, PHONE: (860) 277-0111. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/:$24,592,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: Connecticut.
BUSINESS ADDRESS: One Travelers Square, Hartford, CT 06183, PHONE: (860) 277-0111. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/:$48,701,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: Connecticut.
BUSINESS ADDRESS: One Travelers Square, Hartford, CT 06183, PHONE: (860) 277-0111. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/:$36,557,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, VI, WA, WV, WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: Connecticut.
BUSINESS ADDRESS: One Travelers Square, Hartford, CT 06183, PHONE: (860) 277-0111. UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/:$19,451,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. INCORPORATED IN: Connecticut.
Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2014 Revision, to reflect this addition.
Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 5 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.
Notice is hereby given that Arch Reinsurance Company (NAIC#10348) has redomesticated from the state of Nebraska to the state of Delaware effective September 15, 2014. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2014 Revision, to reflect this change.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Central Utah Project Completion Act, Interior; Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, as Joint Lead Agencies, have prepared and made available to the public a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that discloses the effects of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project (Project) which is a recovery action within the approved June Sucker Recovery Plan of 1999.
The Joint Lead Agencies will not make a decision on the proposed action until at least 30 days after the release of the FEIS. After the 30-day waiting period, The Department of the Interior and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission will each complete a separate Record of Decision. These documents will state the action that will be implemented and will discuss all factors leading to the decision.
Send written correspondence or requests for copies to Mr. Richard Mingo, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 South 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, UT 84102; or by email to
Mr. Richard Mingo, 801-524-3146; or by email to
The Department of the Interior's Record of Decision for the Diamond Fork System Final Supplement to the Diamond Fork Power System Final Environmental Impact Statement, signed September 29, 1999, commits the Joint Lead Agencies to “. . . participate in the development of a Recovery Implementation Program for June sucker.” Moreover, “. . . [a]ny future development of the Bonneville Unit of CUP [Central Utah Project] will be contingent on the RIP [June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program (JSRIP)] making `sufficient progress' towards recovery of June sucker.” The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission signed its own Record of Decision for the Diamond Fork System Project on November 19, 1999. The JSRIP was established in 2002, and the Joint Lead Agencies are participants. The goals of the JSRIP are to recover June sucker so that it no longer requires protection under the Endangered Species Act and allow continued operation of existing water facilities and future development of water resources for human uses within the Utah Lake Basin in Utah.
The June sucker exists naturally only in Utah Lake and spawns primarily in the lower Provo River, a Utah Lake tributary. Monitoring indicates young June sucker hatching in the lower Provo River do not survive to the adult stage due to habitat inadequacies in the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake related to flow, food supply, and shelter. A compounding factor is likely predation by nonnative fishes. Dredging and channelization for flood control has eliminated the shallow, warm, complex wetland habitat at the mouth of the Provo River where it enters Utah Lake.
The Project would restore the lower Provo River to a more natural deltaic ecosystem. The delta and associated habitat would provide needed habitat for the recovery of the endangered June sucker. These improvements would be accomplished through the implementation of one or any combination of the action alternatives and/or options analyzed in the FEIS.
The Project has been identified as an essential action needed to recover the endangered June sucker. It would restore functional habitat conditions in the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake that are needed for spawning, hatching, larval transport, survival, rearing and recruitment of young into the population on a self-sustaining basis.
The purposes of the Project are to:
• Implement the specific criteria of the June Sucker Recovery Plan to restore a naturally functioning Provo River delta ecosystem essential for recruitment of June sucker;
• provide recreational improvements and opportunities associated with the Project;
• adopt flow regime targets for the lower Provo River and provide delivery of supplemental water to the lower Provo River, including additional conserved water.
The FEIS describes and analyzes the potential effects of three action alternatives, a no action alternative, and two options for the existing Provo River channel.
This alternative considers the consequences of taking “no action” with respect to the purpose and need of the Project. Under the No Action Alternative, the planned Project would not be implemented, but remaining actions in the June Sucker Recovery Plan and JSRIP would proceed as planned, subject to National Environmental Policy Act compliance as appropriate. Private lands would not be acquired for the Project.
Alternative A would maximize the available rearing and spawning habitat for June sucker. The acquisition boundary for this alternative encompasses 507.3 acres.
Alternative B was developed with substantial involvement from study area landowners and other stakeholders. It is the agency preferred alternative. It would reduce the amount of private land required for the Project and preserve the highest-value agricultural land, while still meeting June sucker spawning and rearing habitat improvement needs. The acquisition boundary for this alternative encompasses 310.3 acres.
Alternative C would exclude most of the existing peat wetlands located on the east and north sides of the Project area from restoration activities but, as a consequence, would be constructed on the higher-value agricultural lands. Alternative C would meet June sucker spawning and rearing habitat improvement needs for the Project by using lands to the south of these wetlands. The acquisition boundary for this alternative encompasses 298.3 acres.
Two options were considered for use of the existing Provo River Channel. Either of the two options could be paired with any of the three action alternatives. Option 1 would leave the existing Provo River Channel open to Utah Lake, allowing for fluctuating water levels at various times of the year. Option 2 would maintain the existing channel at a relatively constant elevation by constructing a small dam at the downstream mouth of the channel near Utah Lake State Park. Under both options, an aeration system would be installed and operated to improve water quality and a minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per second would be provided to the existing Provo River channel which would be retained and managed for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
A Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the
Copies of the FEIS are available for public review at:
• Department of the Interior, Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, Utah 84606-7317
• Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 South 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
• Central Utah Water Conservancy District, 355 West University Parkway, Orem, Utah 84058-7303
• Provo City Public Library, 550 North University Avenue, Provo, Utah 84601
• Salt Lake City Public Library, 210 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address certain regional haze and visibility transport requirements for the State of Arkansas. This FIP would address the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) and interstate visibility transport for those portions of Arkansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP) we disapproved in our final action published on March 12, 2012. Specifically, the proposed FIP addresses the requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for those sources for which we did not approve Arkansas' BART determinations, Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs), reasonable progress controls and a long-term strategy, as well as the interstate visibility transport requirements for pollutants that affect visibility in Class I areas in nearby states. Specific to the reasonable progress controls requirement, we are proposing in the alternative two options for controlling the emissions from the Entergy Independence Plant that is not subject to BART. Under Option 1, we are proposing controls for emissions of SO
Public hearing: 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. (break from 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m.)
Information Session: 1 p.m.-1:45 p.m. (break from 1:45 p.m.-2 p.m.)
Public hearing: 2 p.m.-7:30 p.m. (including break from 4 p.m.-4:30 p.m.).
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present information and opinions to us concerning our proposal. Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearings. When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to all significant oral and written comments received on our proposal. To provide opportunities for questions and discussion, we will hold an information session prior to the public hearing. During the information session, EPA staff will be available to informally answer questions on our proposed action. Any comments made to EPA staff during an information session must still be provided orally during the public hearing, or formally in writing within 30 days after completion of the hearings, in order to be considered in the record. At the public hearings, the hearing officer may limit the time available for each commenter to address the proposal to three minutes or less if the hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will not be providing equipment for commenters to
To schedule your inspection, contact Ms. Dayana Medina at (214) 665-7241 or via electronic mail at
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. The average visual range
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999.
We are proposing to promulgate a FIP as described in this notice and summarized in this section to address those portions of Arkansas' regional haze SIP that we disapproved on March 12, 2012.
The FIP we are proposing includes BART control determinations for sources in Arkansas without previously approved BART determinations and associated compliance schedules and requirements for equipment maintenance, monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting for all affected sources and units. The BART sources addressed in this FIP cause or contribute to visibility impairment at one or more Class I areas in Arkansas and Missouri. The two Class I areas in Arkansas are the Caney Creek Wilderness Area and the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area. The two Class I areas in Missouri are the Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area and the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. In this FIP, we are proposing SO
We propose that a combination of those portions of the Arkansas regional haze SIP that we previously approved and the measures in the FIP will satisfy the visibility requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM
As discussed above, Arkansas submitted a SIP revision on April 2, 2008, to address the interstate transport visibility requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM
Our partial disapproval of the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP included a disapproval of the following BART determinations made by Arkansas:
• SO
• SO
• SO
• SO
• SO
• NO
• SO
• SO
• SO
In our final action, we also disapproved Arkansas' determinations that the Georgia Pacific-Crossett Mill 6A Boiler is not BART-eligible, and that the 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to BART. By partially disapproving Arkansas' BART determinations, we also partially disapproved the corresponding provisions of APCEC Regulation 19, Chapter 15. We also disapproved Arkansas' RPGs for its two Class I areas, the Caney Creek Wilderness Area and the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, because Arkansas did not meet the requirement under section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to consider the four statutory factors when establishing its RPGs. Additionally, we partially disapproved Arkansas' long-term strategy because it relied on other disapproved portions of the SIP.
Under section 110(c) of the Act, whenever we disapprove a mandatory SIP submission in whole or in part, we are required to promulgate a FIP within 2 years unless we approve a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies before promulgating a FIP. Specifically, CAA section 110(c) provides that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP within 2 years after the Administrator disapproves a state implementation plan submission “unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.” The term “Federal implementation plan” is defined in section 302(y) of the CAA in pertinent part as a plan promulgated by the Administrator to correct an inadequacy in a SIP.
Thus, because we partially disapproved the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP and the SIP submittal addressing the interstate transport visibility requirement, we are required to promulgate a FIP for Arkansas, unless we first approve a SIP revision that corrects the disapproved portions of these SIP submittals. As Arkansas has not as yet submitted a revised SIP following our partial disapproval, we are proposing a FIP to address those portions of the SIP that we disapproved.
Following our 2012 disapproval of the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP, Arkansas began the process of generating additional technical information and analysis for the BART determinations. Arkansas gathered technical documentation from the companies whose BART determinations we disapproved. These documents were provided to us and are the basis for our evaluation of BART determinations for the facilities with prior disapproved BART determinations.
States are required to identify all the BART-eligible sources within their boundaries by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and the RHR (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s) began operation on or after August 6, 1962, and the unit was in existence on August 6, 1977; and (3) the potential emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year. Sources that meet these three criteria are considered BART-eligible. Once a list of the BART-eligible sources within a state has been compiled, states must determine whether to make BART determinations for all of them or to consider exempting some of them from BART because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The BART Guidelines present several options that rely on modeling and/or emissions analyses to determine if a source may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area. A source that may not be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area is not “subject to BART,” and for such sources, a state need not apply the five statutory factors to make a BART determination.
In our March 12, 2012 final action, we approved Arkansas' identification of BART-eligible sources except for the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill 6A Boiler. We also approved Arkansas' determination of which sources are subject to BART, with the exception of its determination that the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to BART. Our basis and analyses for our disapproval of Arkansas' determinations that the 6A Boiler is not BART-eligible and that the 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to BART is found in our October 17, 2011 proposed rulemaking, March 12, 2012 final rulemaking, and the associated TSDs.
A revised Title V permit for the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill was issued on August 4, 2011, and again on May 23, 2012. Although no pollution controls were installed, the permitted emission limits for SO
Following discussions with us and ADEQ, Georgia-Pacific provided additional information and documentation to support its contention that the 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to BART. Georgia-Pacific calculated maximum 24-hour emission rates from the 2001-2003 baseline period using fuel usage data, and then showed that these estimated maximum 24-hour emission rates are below the revised emission rates it used in the 2011 BART screening modeling. In a letter dated April 1, 2013, Georgia-Pacific provided spreadsheets with fuel usage data for the 6A and 9A Boilers for each day during the 2001-2003 baseline period.
Georgia-Pacific then compared the calculated maximum 24-hour emission rates from the baseline period with the emission rates it modeled in the 2011 BART screening modeling and with the current Title V permit limits (see table below).
Because the 2011 BART screening modeling showed visibility impacts below 0.5 dv from the 6A and 9A Boilers and the recently estimated maximum 24-hour emission rates from the 2001-2003 baseline period are below the modeled emission rates, we propose that it is reasonable to conclude that the boilers had visibility impacts below 0.5 dv during the baseline period. Accordingly, we believe that Georgia‐Pacific's newly provided analysis and documentation, as described above and in our TSD in more detail, is appropriate to demonstrate that the 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to BART. In comparison to the information available to us when we issued our March 12, 2012 final action on the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP, we believe this newly provided analysis allows for a more accurate assessment of whether or not the 6A and 9A Boilers are subject to BART. Based on this newly provided information, we are proposing to find that while the 6A Boiler is a BART-eligible source, it is not subject to BART. The 9A Boiler is also BART-eligible (as the State determined in the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP), but we are also proposing to find that the 9A Boiler is not subject to BART. Therefore, it is not necessary to perform a BART five factor analysis or to make BART determinations for the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill 6A and 9A Boilers.
In our March 12, 2012 final action on the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP, we noted that the original meteorological databases generated by the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) and used by Arkansas to conduct its modeling analyses did not include surface and upper air meteorological observations as EPA guidance recommends. Thus, in its evaluation to determine if a source exceeds the 0.5 dv contribution threshold at potentially affected Class I areas, Arkansas used the maximum value (
Following our March 12, 2012 final action on the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP, AECC hired a consultant to conduct revised modeling of AECC Bailey Unit 1. Unlike the modeling submitted in the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP, the revised modeling shows visibility impacts from Bailey Unit 1 below 0.5 dv, which is the threshold used by Arkansas to determine if a source is subject to BART. However, we already approved Arkansas' determination that the AECC Bailey Unit 1 is subject to BART in our March 12, 2012 final action on the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP.
We do not have the discretion to reopen the issue of whether the source is subject to BART because we already approved the portion of the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP in which Arkansas determined AECC Bailey Unit 1 is subject to BART and Arkansas has not provided us a SIP revision to replace the previous determination.
The purpose of the BART analysis is to identify and evaluate the best system of continuous emission reduction based on the BART Guidelines.
Step 1—Identify all available retrofit control technologies.
Step 2—Eliminate technically infeasible options.
Step 3—Evaluate control effectiveness of remaining control technologies.
Step 4—Evaluate impacts and document the results.
• Factor 1: Costs of compliance.
• Factor 2: Energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance.
• Factor 3: Existing pollution control technology in use at the source.
• Factor 4: Remaining useful life of the facility.
Step 5—Evaluate Visibility Impacts
• Factor 5: Degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
The AECC Bailey Unit 1 is a wall-fired boiler with a gross output of 122 megawatts (MW) and a maximum heat input rate of 1,350 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). The unit is currently permitted to burn natural gas and fuel oil. The fuel oil burned is currently subject to a sulfur content limit of 2.3% by weight. AECC hired a consultant to perform a BART five factor analysis for Bailey Unit 1.
The table below summarizes the baseline emission rates modeled for the source. The SO
The NO
AECC's modeling for the baseline emission rates uses the CALPUFF dispersion model to determine the baseline visibility impairment attributable to Bailey Unit 1 at the four Class I areas impacted by emissions from BART sources in Arkansas. These Class I areas are the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The baseline (
a.
AECC's BART evaluation considered both flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and fuel switching as possible controls. AECC found that FGD applications have not been used historically for SO
AECC estimated the average cost-effectiveness of switching Bailey Unit 1 to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content to be $1,198 per ton of SO
AECC's evaluation did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with switching to 1% sulfur No. 6 fuel oil, 0.5% sulfur No. 6 fuel oil, or diesel. The evaluation noted that switching to natural gas may have energy impacts during periods of natural gas curtailment. During periods of natural gas curtailment, natural gas infrastructure maintenance, and other emergencies, the AECC Bailey Generating Station relies on the fuel oil stored at the plant to maintain electrical reliability. AECC's evaluation notes that because of this, it is important to maintain the ability to burn fuel oil at AECC Bailey, even if fuel oil is currently more expensive than natural gas.
With regard to consideration of the remaining useful life of Unit 1, this factor does not impact the SO
AECC assessed the visibility improvement associated with fuel switching by comparing the 98th percentile modeled visibility impact of the baseline scenario to the 98th percentile modeled visibility impact of each control scenario. The table below shows a comparison of the baseline visibility impacts and the visibility impacts of the different fuel switching control scenarios that were evaluated, including the cumulative visibility benefits.
The table above shows that switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content at Bailey Unit 1 is projected to result in 0.173 dv visibility improvement at Mingo (based on the 98th percentile modeled visibility impacts). The visibility improvement at each of the other three affected Class I areas is projected to be slightly less than that amount, while the cumulative visibility improvement at the four Class I areas is projected to be 0.626 dv. Switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content is projected to result in meaningful visibility improvement. It is projected to result in 0.233 dv visibility improvement at Hercules-Glades. The visibility improvement at each of the other three affected Class I areas is projected to be slightly less than that amount, while the cumulative visibility improvement at the four Class I areas is projected to be 0.851 dv. Switching to diesel or natural gas is also projected to result in meaningful visibility improvement. The visibility improvement at Hercules-Glades is projected to be 0.299 dv for switching to diesel and 0.295 dv for switching to natural gas, and slightly less than that amount at each of the other three affected Class I areas. The cumulative visibility improvement at the four Class I areas is projected to be 1.108 dv for switching to diesel and 1.095 dv for switching to natural gas.
b.
For NO
AECC evaluated three control scenarios: A combination of combustion controls (FGR, OFA, and LNB); the combination of combustion controls and SNCR; and SCR. Based on literature estimates, AECC found that the estimated NO
AECC's cost analysis for NO
AECC
AECC did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of LNB, OFA, or FGR. As for SCR and SNCR, we are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that could create non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of these controls greater than experienced elsewhere and that may therefore provide a basis for their elimination as BART (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). Therefore, we do not believe there are any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with NO
AECC assessed the visibility improvement associated with NO
The tables above show that the installation and operation of NO
c.
AECC's evaluation noted that the particulate matter from oil-fired boilers tends to be sticky and small, affecting the collection efficiency of dry ESPs and fabric filters. Dry ESPs operate by placing a charge on the particles through a series of electrodes, and then capturing the charged particles on collection plates, while fabric filters work by filtering the PM in the flue gas through filter bags. The collected particles are periodically removed from the filter bag through a pulse jet or reverse flow mechanism. Because of the sticky nature of particles from oil-fired boilers, dry ESPs and fabric filters are deemed technically infeasible for use at Bailey Unit 1. Wet ESPs, cyclones, wet scrubbers, and fuel switching were identified as technically feasible options for Bailey Unit 1. AECC noted that although cyclones and wet scrubbers are considered technically feasible for use at these boiler types, they are not very efficient at controlling particles in the smaller size fraction, particularly particles smaller than a few microns. However, the majority of the PM emissions from Bailey Unit 1 are greater than a few microns in size.
AECC estimated that switching to a lower sulfur fuel has a PM control efficiency ranging from approximately 44%-99%, depending on the fuel type. The other technically feasible control technologies are estimated to have the following PM control efficiency: Wet ESP—up to 90%, cyclone—85%, and wet scrubber—55%.
AECC evaluated the capital costs, operating costs, and average cost-effectiveness of wet ESPs, cyclones, and wet scrubbers. It also evaluated the average cost-effectiveness of switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content, No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content, diesel, and natural gas. AECC developed the capital and operating costs of a wet ESP and wet scrubber using the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) Integrated Emissions Control Cost Estimating Workbook (IECCOST) Software. The capital costs of controls (except for fuel switching) were annualized over a 15-year period and then added to the annual operating costs to obtain the total annualized costs. The table below summarizes the average cost-effectiveness of PM controls. The average cost-effectiveness was determined by dividing the annualized cost of controls by the annual PM emissions reductions. The annual emissions reductions were determined by subtracting the estimated controlled annual emission rates from the baseline annual emission rates. AECC estimated the baseline and controlled annual emission rates by conducting a mass balance on the sulfur content of the various fuels evaluated.
We disagree with two aspects of AECC's cost evaluation for PM controls. First, the total annual cost numbers associated with fuel switching should be the same as those used in the SO
The table above shows that the average cost-effectiveness values of all add-on PM control technology options evaluated for AECC Bailey Unit 1 ranged from approximately $55,000 per ton of PM removed to more than $3.5 million per ton of PM removed. The incremental cost-effectiveness of add-on PM control technology options ranged from $236,168 to $125,387,517 per ton of PM removed. Switching to No. 6 fuel oil with either a 1% or 0.5% sulfur content was found to be within the range of what we generally consider cost-effective for BART. Switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content is estimated to cost $1,164 per ton of PM removed, while switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content is estimated to cost $2,997 per ton of PM removed. As discussed in the SO
AECC did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with fuel switching, but did identify impacts associated with the use of wet ESPs and wet scrubbers due to their electricity usage. Energy use in and of itself does not disqualify a technology (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.h.1.). In addition, the cost of the electricity needed to operate this equipment has already been factored into the cost of controls. AECC also
As previously discussed, we are not aware of any enforceable shutdown date for the AECC Bailey Generating Station, nor did AECC's evaluation indicate any future planned shutdown. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to assume a 30-year amortization period in the PM BART analysis as the remaining useful life of the unit. Assuming a 30-year amortization period, these controls would have a lower estimated total annual cost and would therefore have an improved cost-effectiveness (
As switching to lower sulfur fuels has impacts on both SO
The table above shows that the operation of a wet ESP, wet scrubber, or cyclone at Bailey Unit 1 is projected to result in minimal visibility improvement at the four affected Class I areas. The modeled visibility improvement from switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content, No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content, diesel, or natural gas is summarized in Table 8. The modeled visibility improvement shown in Table 8 reflects both SO
We are proposing to determine that PM BART for Bailey Unit 1 is switching to fuels with 0.5% or lower sulfur
The AECC McClellan Unit 1 is subject to BART. As mentioned previously, we disapproved Arkansas' BART determinations for SO
The table below summarizes the baseline emission rates for the source. The SO
The NO
AECC modeled the baseline emission rates using the CALPUFF dispersion model to determine the baseline visibility impairment attributable to McClellan Unit 1 at the four Class I areas impacted by emissions from BART sources in Arkansas. These Class I areas are the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The baseline (
a.
The AECC evaluation considered both FGD and fuel switching as possible controls. AECC found that FGD applications have not been used historically for SO
AECC estimated the average cost-effectiveness of switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content to be $2,613 per ton of SO
The AECC BART evaluation did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with switching to 1% sulfur No. 6 fuel oil, 0.5% sulfur No. 6 fuel oil, or diesel. The evaluation noted that switching to natural gas may have energy impacts during periods of natural gas curtailment. During periods of natural gas curtailment, natural gas infrastructure maintenance, and other emergencies, the McClellan Generating Station relies on the fuel oil stored at the plant to maintain electrical reliability. The AECC evaluation notes that because of this, it is important to maintain the ability to burn fuel oil at McClellan, even if fuel oil is currently more expensive to burn than natural gas.
With regard to consideration of the remaining useful life of Unit 1, this factor does not impact the SO
AECC assessed the visibility improvement associated with fuel switching by comparing the 98th percentile modeled visibility impact of the baseline scenario (
The table above shows that switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content at McClellan Unit 1 is projected to result in visibility improvement of 0.085 dv at Caney Creek. The visibility improvement at each of the other three affected Class I areas is projected to be 0.035 dv or less, while the cumulative visibility improvement at the four Class I areas is projected to be 0.184 dv. Switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content is projected to result in considerable visibility improvement. It is projected to result in 0.3 dv visibility improvement at Caney Creek. The visibility improvement at each of the other three affected Class I areas is projected to be 0.12 dv or less, while the cumulative visibility improvement at the four Class I areas is projected to be 0.628 dv. Switching to diesel or natural gas is also projected to result in considerable visibility improvement. The visibility improvement at Caney Creek is projected to be 0.448 dv for switching to diesel and 0.497 dv for switching to natural gas. The cumulative visibility improvement at the four Class I areas is projected to be 0.958 dv for switching to diesel and 1.072 dv for switching to natural gas.
b.
For NO
AECC evaluated three control scenarios: A combination of combustion controls (FGR, OFA, and LNB); the combination of combustion controls and SNCR; and SCR. Based on literature estimates, AECC found that the estimated NO
AECC's cost analysis for NO
AECC estimated the average cost-effectiveness of installing and operating combustion controls to be $6,261 per ton of NO
AECC did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of LNB, OFA, or FGR. As for SCR and SNCR, we are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that could create non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of these controls greater than experienced elsewhere and that may therefore provide a basis for their elimination as BART (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). Therefore, we do not believe there are any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with NO
AECC assessed the visibility improvement associated with NO
The tables above show that the installation and operation of NO
c.
The AECC evaluation noted that the particulate matter from oil-fired boilers tends to be sticky and small, affecting the collection efficiency of dry ESPs and fabric filters. Dry ESPs operate by placing a charge on the particles through a series of electrodes, and then capturing the charged particles on collection plates, while fabric filters work by filtering the PM in the flue gas through filter bags. The collected particles are periodically removed from the filter bag through a pulse jet or reverse flow mechanism. Because of the sticky nature of particles from oil-fired boilers, dry ESPs and fabric filters are deemed technically infeasible for use at McClellan Unit 1. Wet ESPs, cyclones, wet scrubbers, and fuel switching were identified as technically feasible options for McClellan Unit 1. AECC noted that although cyclones and wet scrubbers are considered technically feasible for use at these boiler types, they are not very efficient at controlling particles in the smaller size fraction, particularly particles smaller than a few microns. However, the majority of the PM emissions from McClellan Unit 1 are greater than a few microns in size.
AECC estimated that switching to a lower sulfur fuel has a PM control efficiency ranging from approximately 44%-99%, depending on the fuel type. The other technically feasible control technologies are estimated to have the following PM control efficiency: Wet ESP—up to 90%, cyclone—85%, and wet scrubber—55%.
AECC evaluated the capital costs, operating costs, and average cost-effectiveness of wet ESPs, cyclones, and wet scrubbers. AECC also evaluated the average cost-effectiveness of switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content, No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content, diesel, and natural gas. AECC developed the capital and operating costs of a wet ESP and wet scrubber using the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) Integrated Emissions Control Cost Estimating Workbook (IECCOST) Software. The capital costs of controls (except for fuel switching) were annualized over a 15-year period and then added to the annual operating costs to obtain the total annualized costs. The table below summarizes the average cost-effectiveness of PM controls. The average cost-effectiveness was determined by dividing the annualized cost of controls by the annual PM emissions reductions. The annual emissions reductions were determined by subtracting the estimated controlled annual emission rates from the baseline annual emission rates. AECC estimated the baseline and controlled annual emission rates by conducting a mass balance on the sulfur content of the various fuels evaluated.
We disagree with two aspects of AECC's cost evaluation for PM controls for McClellan Unit 1. First, the total annual cost numbers associated with fuel switching should be the same as those used in the SO
The table above shows that the average cost-effectiveness values of all add-on PM control technology options evaluated for McClellan Unit 1 ranged in cost-effectiveness from approximately $15,000 to $700,000 per ton of PM removed, based on AECC's cost estimates. The incremental cost-effectiveness of add-on PM control technology options ranged from $343,018 to $16,811,350 per ton of PM removed. Switching to No. 6 fuel oil with either a 1% or 0.5% sulfur content was found to be within the range of what we generally consider cost-effective for BART. Switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content is estimated to cost $2,456 per ton of PM removed, while switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content is estimated to cost $4,553 per ton of PM removed at McClellan Unit 1. As discussed in the SO
AECC did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with fuel switching, but did identify impacts associated with the use of wet ESPs and wet scrubbers due to their electricity usage. Energy use in and of itself does not disqualify a technology (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.h.1.). In addition, the cost of the electricity needed to operate this equipment has already been factored into the cost of controls. AECC also noted that both wet ESPs and wet scrubbers generate wastewater streams that must either be treated on-site or sent to a waste water treatment plant, and the wastewater treatment process will generate a filter cake that would likely require landfilling. The BART Guidelines provide that the fact that a control device creates liquid and solid waste that must be disposed of does not necessarily argue against selection of that technology as BART, particularly if the control device has been applied to similar facilities elsewhere and the solid or liquid waste is similar to those other applications (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). We are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the AECC McClellan Generating Station that could potentially create greater problems than experienced elsewhere related to the treatment of wastewater and any necessary landfilling, nor did the AECC BART evaluation discuss or mention any such unusual circumstances. Therefore, the need to treat wastewater or landfill any filter cake or other waste in and of itself does not provide a basis for disqualification or elimination of a wet ESP or wet scrubber.
As previously discussed, we are not aware of any enforceable shutdown date for the AECC McClellan Generating Station, nor did the AECC evaluation indicate any future planned shutdown. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to assume a 30-year amortization period in the PM BART analysis as the remaining useful life of the unit. Assuming a 30-year amortization period, these controls would have a lower estimated total annual cost and would therefore have an improved cost-effectiveness (
As switching to lower sulfur fuels has impacts on both SO
The table above shows that the operation of a wet ESP, wet scrubber, and cyclone at McClellan Unit 1 is projected to result in minimal visibility improvement at the four affected Class I areas. The modeled visibility improvement from switching to No. 6 fuel oil with 1% sulfur content; No. 6 fuel oil with 0.5% sulfur content; diesel; and natural gas are summarized in Table 18. The modeled visibility improvement shown in Table 18 reflects both SO
We are proposing to determine that PM BART for McClellan Unit 1 is switching to fuels with 0.5% or lower sulfur content by weight. We propose to require that the facility purchase no fuel after the effective date of the rule that does not meet the sulfur content requirement and that 5 years from the effective date of the rule no fuel be burned that does not meet the requirement. We propose that any higher sulfur fuel oil that remains from the facility's 2009 fuel oil shipment cannot be burned past this point. As discussed above, the unit's baseline fuel is No. 6 fuel oil with 1.38% sulfur content, based on the average sulfur content of the fuel oil from the most recent shipment received by the facility in 2009. Based on our discussions with the facility, it is our understanding that the unit burns fuel oil primarily during periods of natural gas curtailment and during periodic testing and that the facility still has stockpiles of fuel oil from the most recent fuel oil shipment. Because the unit burns primarily natural gas and does not ordinarily burn fuel oil on a frequent basis, we believe it is appropriate to allow the facility 5 years to burn its existing supply of No. 6 fuel oil, as the normal course of business dictates and in accordance with any operating restrictions enforced by ADEQ. We believe that a shorter compliance date may result in the facility burning its existing supply of higher sulfur No. 6 fuel oil relatively quickly, resulting in a high amount of SO
The AEP Flint Creek Power Plant Unit 1 is subject to BART. We previously disapproved Arkansas' BART determination for SO
The table below summarizes the baseline emission rates for this source. The SO
AEP modeled the baseline emission rates using the CALPUFF dispersion model to determine the baseline visibility impairment attributable to Flint Creek Unit 1 at the four Class I areas impacted by emissions from BART sources in Arkansas. These Class I areas are the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The baseline (
a.
The AEP evaluation considered Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI), dry FGD (
The estimated capital and operating costs of wet FGD and dry FGD (NID) developed by AEP and used in the cost-effectiveness calculations were based on EPA's Control Cost Manual and supplemented, where available, with vendor and site-specific information obtained by AEP. AEP annualized the capital cost of controls over a 30-year amortization period and then added these to the annual operating costs to obtain the total annualized costs. The average cost-effectiveness was calculated by dividing the total annualized cost of controls by the annual SO
We disagree with one aspect of AEP's cost analysis.
AEP's evaluation noted that the potential negative energy and non-air quality environmental impacts are greater with wet FGD systems than dry FGD systems. AEP noted that wet FGD requires increased water use and generates large volumes of wastewater and solid waste/sludge that must be treated or stabilized before landfilling, placing additional burden on the wastewater treatment and solid waste management capabilities. We do not expect that water availability would affect the feasibility of wet FGD at Flint Creek Unit 1 because the facility is not located in an exceptionally arid region. Additionally, the BART Guidelines provide that the fact that a control device creates liquid and solid waste that must be disposed of does not necessarily argue against selection of that technology as BART, particularly if the control device has been applied to similar facilities elsewhere (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). In cases where the facility can demonstrate that there are unusual circumstances that would create greater problems than experienced elsewhere, this may provide a basis for the elimination of that control option as BART. But in this case, AEP has not indicated that there are any such unusual circumstances. Another potential negative energy and non-air quality environmental impact associated with wet FGD is the potential for increased power requirements and greater reagent usage compared to dry FGD. The costs associated with increased power requirements and greater reagent usage have already been factored into the cost analysis for wet FGD.
AEP assessed the visibility improvement associated with wet FGD and NID technology by modeling the SO
The table above shows that the installation and operation of SO
b.
For NO
AEP estimated the capital costs, operating costs, and average cost-effectiveness of controls based on vendor estimates and published calculation methods. AEP noted that the EPA Control Cost Manual was followed to the extent possible and estimates were supplemented with vendor and site-specific information where available. The cost analysis assumed a 30-year amortization period for LNB/OFA and for SCR, and a 20-year amortization period for SNCR. We discuss the appropriateness of the choice of amortization periods below. The total annual costs were estimated by annualizing the capital cost of controls over either a 30-year or 20-year period and then adding to this value the annual operating cost of controls. AEP determined the annual tons reduced associated with each NO
AEP estimated the average cost-effectiveness of installing and operating LNB/OFA to be $1,761 per ton of NO
AEP did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of LNB/OFA. As for SCR and SNCR, we are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that could create non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of these controls greater than experienced elsewhere and that may therefore provide a basis for their elimination as BART (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). Therefore, we do not believe there are any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of NO
Flint Creek Unit 1 is currently equipped with early generation low NO
We are not aware of any enforceable shutdown date for the AEP Flint Creek Power Plant, nor did AEP's evaluation indicate any future planned shutdown. This means that the anticipated useful life of the boiler is expected to be at least as long as the capital cost recovery period of controls. AEP assumed a 30-year amortization period in the evaluation of LNB, OFA, and SCR as the remaining useful life of the unit, and a 20-year amortization period in the evaluation of SNCR. We disagree with AEP's assumption of a 20-year amortization period in the cost analysis of SNCR. Any air pollution controls on the unit are expected to have the same
AEP assessed the visibility improvement associated with NO
As shown in the table above, the installation and operation of LNB/OFA is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.081 dv at any single Class I area, based on the 98th percentile visibility impairment. The installation and operation of LNB/OFA + SNCR is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.114 dv over the baseline. The installation and operation of SCR is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.245 dv in any single Class I area. The combination of LNB/OFA + SNCR would result in slight incremental visibility benefit over LNB/OFA at Caney Creek and in negligible incremental visibility benefit at the other three affected Class I areas. SCR would result in 0.131 dv incremental visibility benefit over LNB/OFA + SNCR at Caney Creek and less than half as much incremental visibility benefit at the other three affected Class I areas.
The operation of SCR is projected to result in visibility improvement ranging from 0.043 to 0.245 dv at each Class I area, and has an average cost-effectiveness of $3,559 per ton of NO
The Entergy White Bluff Plant Unit 1, Unit 2, and the Auxiliary Boiler are subject to BART. As mentioned previously, we disapproved Arkansas' BART determinations for SO
Entergy hired a consultant to conduct a BART five-factor analysis for White Bluff Units 1, 2, and the Auxiliary Boiler (Entergy BART analysis).
Entergy modeled the baseline emission rates using the CALPUFF dispersion model to determine the baseline visibility impairment attributable to White Bluff Unit 1, Unit 2, and the Auxiliary Boiler at the four Class I areas impacted by emissions from BART sources in Arkansas. These Class I areas are the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, and Mingo National
a.
The Entergy BART analysis
We have reviewed the cost analysis that is part of Entergy's evaluation and have analyzed it for compliance with the Regional Haze Rule, and disagree with several aspects of the cost analysis and have made adjustments to it as necessary.
As with its dry FGD cost estimates, Entergy designed its wet FGD systems to burn coal corresponding to an uncontrolled SO
Entergy's evaluation noted that the potential negative non-air quality environmental impacts are greater with wet FGD systems than dry FGD systems. Entergy noted that wet scrubbers require increased water use and generate large
Entergy assessed the visibility improvement associated with wet FGD and a dry FGD by modeling the SO
The tables above show that the installation and operation of SO
b.
For NO
Entergy estimated the capital costs, operating costs, and average cost-effectiveness of LNB, SOFA, SNCR, and SCR. The capital and operating costs of controls were based on vendor estimates specific to Units 1 and 2. The total annual costs were estimated by annualizing the capital cost of controls over a 30-year period and then adding to this value the annual operating cost of controls. Entergy determined the annual emissions reductions associated with each NO
We note that Entergy's cost estimate for each NO
Entergy did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of LNB/SOFA. As for SCR and SNCR, we are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that could create non-air quality
Consideration of the presence of existing pollution control technology at each source is reflected in the BART analysis in two ways: First, in the consideration of available control technologies, and second, in the development of baseline emission rates for use in cost calculations and visibility modeling. Other than the installation of a neural net system in 2006 to optimize boiler combustion efficiency that resulted in lower NO
Entergy assessed the visibility improvement associated with NO
The tables above show that the installation and operation of LNB/SOFA is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.176 dv at any single Class I area for Unit 1 and 0.225 dv for Unit 2, based on the 98th percentile visibility impairment. The installation and operation of LNB/SOFA + SNCR is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.2 dv in any single Class I area for Unit 1 and 0.258 dv for Unit 2. The installation and operation of LNB/SOFA + SCR is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.269 dv in any single Class I area for Unit 1 and 0.327 dv for Unit 2. The combination of LNB/SOFA + SNCR would result in minimal incremental visibility benefit over LNB/SOFA at all affected Class I areas for both units. The combination of LNB/SOFA + SCR at Unit 1 would result in incremental visibility benefit over LNB/SOFA + SNCR of 0.069 dv at Caney Creek; 0.038 dv at Upper Buffalo; 0.012 dv at Hercules-Glades; and 0.025 dv at Mingo. The combination of LNB/SOFA + SCR at Unit 2 would result in incremental visibility benefit over LNB/SOFA + SNCR of 0.069 dv of at Caney Creek; 0.038 dv at Upper Buffalo; 0.011 dv at Hercules-Glades; and 0.026 dv at Mingo.
The operation of LNB/SOFA + SCR at Unit 1 is projected to result in up to 0.269 dv visibility improvement over the baseline at any single Class I area, and based on our adjustments to Entergy's cost analysis, has an average cost-effectiveness of $3,552 per ton of NO
c.
“Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible.” (70 FR 39116).
Given the very small baseline visibility impacts from the Auxiliary Boiler, we believe it is appropriate to take a streamlined approach for determining BART in this case. Because of the very low baseline visibility impacts from the Auxiliary Boiler at each modeled Class I area, we believe that the visibility improvement that could be achieved through the installation and operation of controls would be negligible, such that the cost of those controls could not be justified. Therefore, we are proposing that the existing emission limits satisfy BART for SO
The Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4 is subject to BART. We previously disapproved Arkansas' BART determinations for NO
The table below summarizes the baseline emission rates for Lake Catherine Unit 4. The SO
Entergy modeled the baseline emission rates using the CALPUFF dispersion model to determine the baseline visibility impairment attributable to Lake Catherine Unit 4 at the four Class I areas impacted by emissions from BART sources in Arkansas. These Class I areas are the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The baseline (
a.
For NO
The baseline NO
In its evaluation, Entergy noted that the Sargent & Lundy NO
The controlled annual emission rates were based on the lb/MMBtu levels believed to be achievable from the control technologies multiplied by the annual heat input. The average cost-effectiveness of NO
We disagree with two aspects of Entergy's cost analysis.
Entergy did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of BOOS, LNB, or SOFA. As for SCR and SNCR, we are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that could create non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of these controls greater than experienced elsewhere and that may therefore provide a basis for their elimination as BART (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). Therefore, we do not believe there are any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of NO
Lake Catherine Unit 4 is not currently equipped with any NO
Entergy assessed the visibility improvement associated with NO
The table above shows that the installation and operation of BOOS is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.596 dv at any single Class I area (based on the 98th percentile modeled visibility impacts), while LNB/SOFA is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.688 dv. The installation and operation of the combination of LNB/SOFA + SNCR is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 0.842 dv at any single Class I area, while the combination of LNB/SOFA + SCR is projected to result in visibility improvement of up to 1.208 dv. The installation and operation of LNB/SOFA is projected to result in 0.092 dv of incremental visibility benefit over BOOS at Caney Creek, and much lower incremental visibility benefit over BOOS at the other Class I areas. The combination of LNB/SOFA + SNCR is projected to result in 0.154 dv of incremental visibility benefit over LNB/SOFA at Caney Creek, and 0.057 dv or less incremental visibility benefit at the other affected Class I areas. The combination of LNB/SOFA + SCR is projected to result in 0.366 dv of incremental visibility benefit over LNB/SOFA + SNCR at Caney Creek, 0.136 dv at Upper Buffalo, 0.098 Δdv at Hercules-Glades, and 0.112 dv at Mingo.
The Domtar Ashdown Paper Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 are subject to BART. As mentioned previously, we disapproved Arkansas' BART determinations for SO
The table below summarizes the baseline emission rates for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. The SO
Domtar modeled the baseline emission rates using the CALPUFF dispersion model to determine the baseline visibility impairment attributable to the Domtar Ashdown Mill's Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 at the four Class I areas impacted by emissions from BART sources in Arkansas. These Class I areas are the Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The baseline visibility impairment attributable to the source at each Class I area is summarized in the table below.
a.
As noted
b.
MdN utilizes the injection of natural gas together with recirculated flue gases to create an oxygen-rich zone above the combustion grate. Air is then injected at a higher furnace elevation to burn the combustibles. In response to comments provided by us regarding Domtar's 2014 BART analysis, Domtar stated that discussions regarding the technical infeasibility of MdN in the 2006/2007 Domtar BART analysis, submitted as part of the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP, remain correct.
Domtar's 2014 BART analysis evaluated SNCR at removal efficiencies of 20%, 32.5%, and 45% for Power Boiler No. 1. The estimated 32.5% and 45% removal efficiencies were based on equipment vendor estimates that came from the vendor's proposal,
In Domtar's 2014 BART analysis, the capital costs, operating costs, and cost-effectiveness of SNCR were calculated based on methods and assumptions found in our Control Cost Manual, and supplemented with mill-specific cost information for water, fuels, and ash disposal and urea solution usage estimates from the equipment vendor. The capital cost was annualized over a 30-year period and then added to the annual operating cost to obtain the total annualized costs. The annual emissions reductions associated with each NO
Domtar's 2014 BART analysis did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of SNCR. We are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that create greater non-air quality environmental impacts than experienced elsewhere that may provide a basis for the elimination of these control options as BART (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). Therefore, we do not believe there are any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of NO
Consideration of the presence of existing pollution control technology at the source is reflected in the BART analysis in two ways: First, in the consideration of available control technologies, and second, in the development of baseline emission rates for use in cost calculations and visibility modeling. Power Boiler No. 1 is currently equipped with a combustion air system to optimize boiler combustion efficiency, which has the co-benefit of reducing emissions. The baseline emission rate used in the cost calculations and visibility modeling reflects the use of the existing combustion air system.
In the 2014 BART analysis, Domtar assessed the visibility improvement associated with SNCR by modeling the NO
The table above shows that the installation and operation of SNCR is projected to result in visibility improvements of up to 0.136 dv at any single Class I area when operated at 45% removal efficiency, 0.098 dv when operated at 32.5% removal efficiency, and 0.061 dv when operated at 20%
c.
Domtar's estimates of the capital and operating and maintenance costs of add-on spray scrubbers for Power Boiler No. 2 were based on the equipment vendor's budget proposal and on calculation methods from our Control Cost Manual. Domtar annualized the capital cost of the add-on spray scrubbers over a 30-year amortization period and then added these to the annual operating costs to obtain the total annualized cost.
Domtar's 2014 BART analysis did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of add-on spray scrubbers. We are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that create non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of add-on spray scrubbers greater than experienced elsewhere that may therefore provide a basis for the elimination of this control option as BART (40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.i.2.). Therefore, we do not believe there are any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with this control option at Power Boiler No. 2 that would affect our proposed BART determination.
Consideration of the presence of existing pollution control technology at the source is reflected in the BART analysis in two ways: First, in the consideration of available control technologies, and second, in the development of baseline emission rates for use in cost calculations and visibility modeling. Power Boiler No. 2 is equipped with multiclones for particulate removal and two venturi scrubbers in parallel for control of SO
In the 2014 BART analysis, Domtar assessed the visibility improvement associated with the add-on spray scrubbers by modeling the controlled SO
As
Domtar provided monthly average data for 2011, 2012, and 2013 on monitored SO
d.
MdN utilizes the injection of natural gas together with recirculated flue gases to create an oxygen-rich zone above the combustion grate. Air is then injected at a higher furnace elevation to burn the combustibles. In response to comments provided by us regarding Domtar 2014 BART analysis, Domtar stated that discussions regarding the technical infeasibility of MdN in the 2006/2007 Domtar BART analysis, submitted as part of the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP,
Based on vendor estimates, the 2006/2007 Domtar BART analysis estimated the potential control efficiency of LNB to be 30%. In Domtar's 2014 BART analysis, SNCR was evaluated at a control efficiency of 27.5% and 35% for Power Boiler No. 2. These values were based on SNCR control efficiency estimates that came from the equipment vendor's proposal,
In the 2006/2007 Domtar BART analysis, the capital cost, operating cost, and cost-effectiveness of LNB were estimated based on vendor estimates. The analysis was based on a 10-year amortization period, based on the equipment's life expectancy. However, since we believe a 30-year equipment life is a more appropriate estimate for LNB, we have revised the cost estimate for LNB.
In Domtar's 2014 BART analysis, the capital costs, operating costs, and cost-effectiveness of SNCR were calculated based on methods and assumptions found in our Control Cost Manual, and supplemented with mill-specific cost information for water, fuels, and ash disposal and urea solution usage estimates from the equipment vendor. The two SNCR control scenarios evaluated were 27.5% and 35% control efficiencies. The capital cost was annualized over a 30-year period and then added to the annual operating cost to obtain the total annualized costs. The annual emissions reductions associated with each NO
Domtar's 2014 BART analysis did not identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the use of LNB or SNCR. We are not aware of any unusual circumstances at the facility that could create non-air quality environmental impacts associated with the operation of NO
Consideration of the presence of existing pollution control technology at the source is reflected in the BART analysis in two ways: First, in the consideration of available control technologies, and second, in the development of baseline emission rates for use in cost calculations and visibility modeling. Power Boiler No. 2 is equipped with multiclones for particulate removal and two venturi scrubbers in parallel for control of SO
In the 2014 BART analysis, Domtar assessed the visibility improvement associated with LNB and SNCR by modeling the NO
The table above shows that the installation and operation of SNCR when operated at 35% control efficiency, if feasible, is projected to result in visibility improvement of 0.212 dv at Caney Creek and 0.017 dv or less at each of the other Class I areas. When operated at 27.5% control efficiency, if feasible, SNCR is projected to result in visibility improvement of 0.166 dv at Caney Creek and 0.012 dv or less at each of the other Class I areas. The installation and operation of LNB is projected to result in visibility improvement of 0.181 dv at Caney Creek and 0.014 dv or less at each of the other Class I areas.
e.
Because
The Regional Haze Rule does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress towards achieving the national visibility goal, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for “reasonable progress” toward achieving natural (
In our final action on the Arkansas RH SIP published on March 12, 2012, we disapproved the RPGs established by Arkansas for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo because Arkansas did not establish the RPGs in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and the RHR.
A discussion of the particular pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment at Arkansas' two Class I areas was provided in our October 17, 2011 proposed action on the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP (see 76 FR 64186). In that proposed action, we explained that CENRAP used CAMx with its Particulate Source Apportionment (PSAT) tool to provide source apportionment by geographic region and major source category (
The CENRAP's 2018 visibility projections show the total extinction at Caney Creek for the 20% worst days is estimated to be 85.84 Mm−1, which is a reduction of approximately 36% from 2002 levels (see table below). The total extinction at Upper Buffalo for the 20% worst days in 2018 is estimated to be 86.16 Mm
As a starting point in our analysis to determine whether additional controls on Arkansas sources are reasonable in the first regional haze planning period, we examined the most recent SO
Because in our March 12, 2012 final partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP we made a finding that Arkansas did not complete a reasonable progress analysis and did not properly demonstrate that additional controls were not reasonable under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and we disapproved the RPGs it established for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo, we are required to complete the reasonable progress analysis and establish revised RPGs, unless we first approve a SIP revision that corrects the disapproved portions of the SIP submittal. As Arkansas has not as yet submitted a revised SIP following our partial disapproval, we must now complete the reasonable progress analysis and establish revised RPGs for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo. We believe it is appropriate that our evaluation of the reasonable progress factors focuses on the Entergy Independence Power Plant
We believe it is appropriate to evaluate Entergy Independence even though Arkansas Class I areas and those outside of Arkansas most significantly impacted by Arkansas sources are projected to meet the URP for the first planning period. This is because we believe that in determining whether reasonable progress is being achieved, it would be unreasonable to ignore a source representing more than a third of the State's SO
In this proposed rulemaking, we are proposing controls for the largest and third largest point sources for both NO
a.
Consistent with the cost estimate we developed for White Bluff, we estimated a total annual cost for dry FGD at Independence of approximately $31,981,230 at each unit.
Because our proposed BART determination for the White Bluff facility is that dry FGD is more cost-effective (lower $/ton) than wet FGD, and that the additional visibility benefits obtained as a result of the greater level of control wet FGD offers over dry FGD are not worth the additional cost of wet FGD, we expect that the same would apply to Independence Units 1 and 2. Therefore, our evaluation of SO
b.
As part of our analysis for Independence, we performed modeling using CALPUFF to assess the facility's individual visibility impact and the visibility benefit of controls, as was done for the subject-to-BART units discussed above including the sister facility, White Bluff. CALPUFF is the recommended model
In evaluating CALPUFF modeling results for BART, the 98th percentile ranked impact (H8H) was used consistent with our guideline techniques in conducting the CALPUFF modeling. CALPUFF modeling provides an assessment of the near maximum (98th percentile) visibility impairment on nearby Class I areas from the source of interest based on the facility's maximum short term emissions modeled over a three year period. It is important to note that a specific facility's maximum impact on a Class I area may not correlate with the same meteorological conditions or days when visibility is most impaired at a particular Class I area since CALPUFF modeling is only for one facility and does not include other facilities and emissions sources. Because of the nature of visibility impairment, we consider it appropriate to assess visibility impacts from a single source against a natural background. Visibility impairment on the 20% worst days may be driven by impacts from other facilities and different meteorological conditions. Identification of the 20% worst days is determined by IMPROVE monitor data during the baseline period at each Class I area. The source apportionment results for the 20% worst days are then based on CAMx modeling using a single year of meteorological data (2002) and using estimates of actual emissions from 2002 and projected to 2018 for all emission sources in the modeling domain (continental U.S.). Due in large part to the difference in metrics between the maximum impact as modeled by CALPUFF and the average impact during the 20% worst days, the CALPUFF modeling results discussed below indicate a more significant impact than suggested by the source apportionment CAMx results. We also note that differences in the metrics examined (maximum 98th percentile impact versus average impact during the 20% worst days), emissions modeled (single-source maximum 24-hour actual emissions versus actual emissions from all emission sources
The single source CALPUFF modeling shows that sizeable reductions to the maximum 98th percentile visibility impact from the Independence facility may be achieved through NO
As discussed above, due to the similarity of these facilities, we applied the total annualized LNB/SOFA cost developed by Entergy for White Bluff Units 1 and 2, with one line item revision made by us, to Independence Units 1 and 2.
Consistent with the cost estimate developed for White Bluff, we estimated a total annual cost for LNB/SOFA at Independence of approximately $1,085,904 at Unit 1 and $1,403,376 at Unit 2.
In addition to options 1 and 2, we also solicit public comment on any alternative SO
We propose RPGs for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo that are consistent with the combination of control measures from the approved portion of the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP and our proposed Arkansas RH FIP. In total, these final and proposed controls to meet the BART and RP requirements will result in higher emissions reductions and commensurate visibility improvements beyond what was in the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP. Development of refined numerical RPGs for Arkansas' Class I areas would require photochemical grid modeling of a multistate area, involving thousands of emission sources, unlike the comparatively simple single-source CALPUFF modeling used for individual BART assessments. In order to accurately reflect all emissions reductions expected to occur during this planning period, the new photochemical modeling would require an update of the emissions inventory for Arkansas and the surrounding states to include not just the actions under this FIP, but all EPA and state regulatory actions on point, area, and mobile sources. After the inventory is developed and reviewed by the affected states for accuracy, it must be converted to a model-ready format before air quality modeling can be used to estimate the future visibility levels at the Class I areas. This modeling would require specialized and extensive computing hardware and expertise. Developing all of the necessary input files, running the photochemical model, and post-processing the model outputs would take several months at a minimum. Therefore, we are not conducting new photochemical grid modeling to establish revised numeric RPGs for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo.
In order to provide RPGs that account for emission reductions from the FIP controls, we have used a method similar to the one used in our Regional Haze FIP for Hawaii
Section 169A(b) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) require that states include in their SIP a 10 to 15-year strategy, referred to as the long-term strategy, for making reasonable progress for each Class I area within their state. This long-term strategy is the compilation of all control measures a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet any applicable RPGs for a particular Class I area. The long-term strategy must include “enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals” for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that a state consider certain factors (the long-term strategy factors) in developing its long-term strategy for each Class I area. These factors are the following: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. Since states are required to consider emissions limitations and schedules of compliance to achieve the RPGs for each Class I area, the BART emission limits that are in the state's regional haze SIP are an element of the state's long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)) for each Class I area. In our March 11, 2012 final action on the 2008 Arkansas RH SIP, since we disapproved a portion of Arkansas' BART determinations and both RPGs for Arkansas' two Class I areas, we also disapproved these elements and approved all other elements of Arkansas' long-term strategy. The BART limits and two RPGs for Arkansas' Class I areas that are in this proposed FIP address our March 11, 2011 disapproval of Arkansas' BART limits and two RPGs. We propose to find that the proposed BART limits and two RPGs that are in this proposed FIP also correct the deficiency in Arkansas' long-term strategy for each of its Class I areas.
We received the Arkansas Interstate Visibility Transport SIP that addresses the interstate visibility transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM
We propose to promulgate a FIP to address those portions of Arkansas' regional haze SIP that we disapproved on March 12, 2012, which include requirements for BART, reasonable progress, and the long-term strategy.
We propose to find that the deficiencies we identified in our prior disapproval action on the Arkansas Interstate Visibility Transport SIP to address the requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM
This proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The proposed FIP would not constitute a rule of general applicability, because it only proposes source specific requirements for particular, identified facilities (six total).
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's 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-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP action under Section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements on small entities but simply approves or disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various consequences (
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section
EPA has determined that Title II of UMRA does not apply to this proposed rule. In 2 U.S.C. Section 1502(1) all terms in Title II of UMRA have the meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. Section 658, which further provides that the terms “regulation” and “rule” have the meanings set forth in 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2), “the term `rule' does not include a rule of particular applicability relating to . . . facilities.” Because this proposed rule is a rule of particular applicability relating to six named facilities, EPA has determined that it is not a “rule” for the purposes of Title II of UMRA.
This proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This proposed federal rule limits emissions of NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available control technology.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) Requirements for AECC Carl E. Bailey Unit 1; AECC John L. McClellan Unit 1; AEP Flint Creek Unit 1; Entergy White Bluff Units 1, 2, and Auxiliary Boiler; Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4; Domtar Ashdown Paper Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2; and Entergy Independence Units 1 and 2 affecting visibility.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii)
(iii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for NO
(iv) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the units listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring NO
(6)
(7)
(8)
(ii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for SO
(iii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the units listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring SO
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(ii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for NO
(iii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the unit listed in paragraph (c)(11) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring NO
(14)
(15)
(16)
(ii) To demonstrate compliance with the NO
(iii) Each boiler-operating-day of the thirty-day rolling average for the power boiler shall be determined by adding together the pounds of SO
(17)
(18)
(19)
(ii) NO
(iii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for SO
(iv) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the units listed in paragraph (c)(17) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring SO
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(ii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for SO
(iii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the units listed in paragraph (c)(23) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring SO
(26)
(i) For each emissions limit under paragraph (c) of this section where compliance shall be determined by using data from a CEMS, comply with the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for CEMS compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d).
(ii) For each day, provide the total SO
(27)
(28)
(ii) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a violation of the applicable emission limit.
(d)
(2) [Reserved]
| 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 |