| Page Range | 19193-19509 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 19193 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia | |
| 80 FR 19320 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Correction | |
| 80 FR 19206 - Preregistration and Registration of Claims to Copyright | |
| 80 FR 19370 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 19385 - In the Matter of eCareer Holdings, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 19195 - Modification of CDFI Certification Requirements | |
| 80 FR 19400 - Notice of Guarantee Availability (NOGA) Inviting Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications for the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Bond Guarantee Program | |
| 80 FR 19327 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19339 - Tennessee; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 19334 - Imposition of Conditions of Entry for Certain Vessels Arriving to the United States From Libya | |
| 80 FR 19201 - Safety Zone; Naval Helicopter Association (NHA) Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA | |
| 80 FR 19338 - West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 19203 - Safety Zone; Barge-Based Fireworks, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin | |
| 80 FR 19335 - New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 19200 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD | |
| 80 FR 19335 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 19391 - Tennessee Disaster #TN-00087 | |
| 80 FR 19276 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Polaris Industries, Inc., Subzone 167B (Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines); Osceola, Wisconsin | |
| 80 FR 19393 - West Virginia Disaster #WV-00035 | |
| 80 FR 19278 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
| 80 FR 19276 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 23 Under Alternative Site Framework Buffalo, New York | |
| 80 FR 19252 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Missouri River, Atchison, KS | |
| 80 FR 19277 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 19316 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 19298 - Applications for New Awards; Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program | |
| 80 FR 19337 - Maine; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 80 FR 19336 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program. | |
| 80 FR 19241 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 80 FR 19338 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 80 FR 19358 - Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Station | |
| 80 FR 19394 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Van Gogh: Irises and Roses” and “Masterpiece in Focus: Van Gogh” | |
| 80 FR 19504 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Further Amendments to Equal Employment Opportunity | |
| 80 FR 19394 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Electronic Commerce-Identity Management and Related Trust Services; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19394 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19508 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Small Entity Compliance Guide | |
| 80 FR 19393 - Annual Meeting of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards; Office of the National Ombudsman | |
| 80 FR 19279 - Request for Applicants for the Appointment to the United States-India CEO Forum | |
| 80 FR 19328 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19328 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 19327 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 19329 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
| 80 FR 19323 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19323 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19391 - Announcement of Growth Accelerator Fund Competition | |
| 80 FR 19324 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19325 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19320 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 19320 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 80 FR 19504 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-81; Introduction | |
| 80 FR 19290 - Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Upgrade and Storage of Beryllium Metal at the DLA Strategic Materials Hammond, IN | |
| 80 FR 19415 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans | |
| 80 FR 19316 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 19354 - Silicomanganese from Australia; Determination | |
| 80 FR 19298 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; An Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals | |
| 80 FR 19358 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19331 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19263 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Wyoming | |
| 80 FR 19346 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan, Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kalawao and Maui Counties, Hawaii | |
| 80 FR 19285 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19284 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings | |
| 80 FR 19283 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 80 FR 19346 - Notice of Amendment of the Site for the May 6-7, 2015, Meeting of the National Park System Advisory Board | |
| 80 FR 19352 - Information Collection Activities: Well Control and Production Safety Training; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19348 - Information Collection Activities: Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way (ROW); Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19342 - Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species Permits | |
| 80 FR 19286 - Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 80 FR 19380 - Van Eck Associates Corporation, et al.; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 19399 - Retooling Recalls Workshop | |
| 80 FR 19255 - Notice of Public Hearings: Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies | |
| 80 FR 19344 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Central California Resource Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 19395 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 80 FR 19399 - Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad Company-Trackage Rights Exemption-Norfolk Southern Railway Company | |
| 80 FR 19343 - Notice of Public Meetings: Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada | |
| 80 FR 19341 - Draft Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances, Receipt of Application for an Enhancement of Survival Permit for the Greater Sage-Grouse on Oregon Department of State Lands, and Draft Environmental Assessment; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 80 FR 19345 - Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey | |
| 80 FR 19355 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Pre-Apprenticeship Database | |
| 80 FR 19396 - Research, Technical Assistance, and Training Programs: Application Instructions and Program Management Guidelines | |
| 80 FR 19333 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19280 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
| 80 FR 19297 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; School Leadership Grant Program Annual Performance Report | |
| 80 FR 19296 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Plan To Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators; Frequently Asked Questions | |
| 80 FR 19295 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) | |
| 80 FR 19296 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) | |
| 80 FR 19310 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 80 FR 19308 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-567 and FERC-587); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension | |
| 80 FR 19305 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-65, FERC-65A, FERC-65B, FERC-585, and FERC-921); Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19315 - Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project | |
| 80 FR 19312 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 80 FR 19313 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gulf Markets Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 80 FR 19308 - City of Wadsworth, Ohio; Notice of Teleconference | |
| 80 FR 19308 - Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 19311 - Erie Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 19315 - Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 19310 - Municipal Energy of PA, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 19311 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 19354 - Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines and Components Thereof Notice of Final Determination of No Violation; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 80 FR 19287 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 19226 - Secondary (C13 | |
| 80 FR 19370 - Notice of Technical Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19329 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19292 - Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19355 - Notice of Availability of Funds and Funding Opportunity Announcement for YouthBuild | |
| 80 FR 19356 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey | |
| 80 FR 19341 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 80 FR 19381 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints | |
| 80 FR 19385 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
| 80 FR 19388 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of the Rule Change To Allow Market Orders To Sell in No-bid Series To Be Entered Into the Electronic Order Book From a PAR Workstation | |
| 80 FR 19371 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the Tuttle Tactical Management Multi-Strategy Income ETF of ETFis Series Trust I | |
| 80 FR 19378 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Proposed Rule Change Regarding Open Interest Reporting | |
| 80 FR 19377 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Deletion of Rule 2.50 | |
| 80 FR 19389 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 1000-Equities To Reflect That Exchange Systems Will Reject Incoming Orders of Over 1,000,000 Shares That Are Marketable Upon Arrival | |
| 80 FR 19383 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 1000 To Reflect That Exchange Systems Will Reject Incoming Orders of Over 1,000,000 Shares That Are Marketable Upon Arrival | |
| 80 FR 19385 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Adopting New Rule 124 To Conduct a Midday Auction and Amending Rule 104 To Codify the Obligation of Designated Market Makers To Facilitate the Midday Auction | |
| 80 FR 19293 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 19238 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for “Marriage”, “Spouse”, and “Domestic Partnership” | |
| 80 FR 19318 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0028, 3064-0097, 3064-0121, 3064-0134, 3064-0151) | |
| 80 FR 19319 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10014, Ameribank, Inc., Northfolk, West Virginia | |
| 80 FR 19344 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Grand Junction Field Office, Colorado | |
| 80 FR 19396 - Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision for the Trunk Highway 41 River Crossing Tier I Final Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 80 FR 19256 - EPAAR Clause for Level of Effort-Cost-Reimbursement Contract | |
| 80 FR 19285 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19285 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19317 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 19320 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 19357 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19243 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2015 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper | |
| 80 FR 19284 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19290 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 80 FR 19199 - Representation-Case Procedures | |
| 80 FR 19276 - Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee; and the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees for Trade; Renewal and Nominations; Correction | |
| 80 FR 19196 - Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights | |
| 80 FR 19347 - Notice of Availability of the Northwest Area Water Supply Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Burke, Bottineau, Divide, McHenry, McLean, Mountrail, Pierce, Renville, Ward, and Williams Counties, North Dakota | |
| 80 FR 19418 - Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008; the Application of Mental Health Parity Requirements to Coverage Offered by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Alternative Benefit Plans | |
| 80 FR 19326 - Office of Global Affairs Stakeholder Listening Session in Preparation for the 68th World Health Assembly | |
| 80 FR 19400 - Illinois Central Railroad Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Champaign County, Ill | |
| 80 FR 19231 - Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 80 FR 19248 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 19339 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
| 80 FR 19251 - Interpretation of the Flight Time Limitations | |
| 80 FR 19220 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration | |
| 80 FR 19282 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 80 FR 19206 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment Area | |
| 80 FR 19454 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes | |
| 80 FR 19244 - Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop Engines | |
| 80 FR 19259 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 10 Petitions | |
| 80 FR 19246 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 19321 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request |
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
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.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), Department of the Treasury.
Interim rule.
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) is amending the CDFI certification regulation with respect to the financing entity requirement and participation as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. This regulatory change creates a means for the CDFI Fund, in its discretion, to permit a CDFI's Affiliate, which applies for CDFI certification, to rely on the Controlling CDFI's activity or track record in order to meet the financing entity requirement, solely for the purpose of the Affiliate participating as an Eligible CDFI under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.
Effective on April 10, 2015.
All comments concerning this revised interim rule should be addressed to the Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220; by email to;
All properly submitted comments will be available for inspection and downloading at
David Meyer, Acting Manager, Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation, by mail to the CDFI Fund, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220; by email to
The CDFI Fund, Department of the Treasury, was established by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701
An important component of the CDFI Fund's authority is the certification of entities as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), which permits such entities to have access to financial assistance through the Community Development Financial Institutions Program (CDFI Program) and other CDFI Fund programs, including the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.
Through the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Secretary of the Treasury provides a Guarantee for Bond(s) issued by a Qualified Issuer as part of a Bond Issue. In turn, the Qualified Issuer uses Bond Proceeds to make Bond Loans to Eligible CDFIs for Eligible Purposes, as those terms are defined in 12 CFR 1808.102. Under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, for a CDFI to be an Eligible CDFI, the CDFI must be certified by the CDFI Fund as meeting certification requirements (see 12 CFR 1808.202(a)).
In order for an entity to be certified as a CDFI, it must meet six criteria that are set forth in the regulation that governs CDFI certification: (i) Primary mission (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(1)); (ii) financing entity (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(2)); (iii) Target Market (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)); (iv) Development Services (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(4)); (v) accountability (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(5)); and (vi) non-government entity (12 CFR 1805.201(b)(6)).
The CDFI Fund is amending the CDFI certification regulation only with respect to the financing entity requirement and participation as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. This regulatory change creates a means for the CDFI Fund, in its discretion, to permit a CDFI's Affiliate (as defined in 12 CFR 1805.104(b)), which applies for CDFI certification, to rely on the Controlling CDFI's activity or track record in order to meet the financing entity requirement, solely for the purpose of the Affiliate participating as an Eligible CDFI under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.
In other words, this revised regulation states that, for purposes of participating in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Eligible CDFI, if it is an Affiliate of a CDFI, need not meet the financing entity requirement based on its own merit or activity but may instead rely on the financing entity track record of the
Further, in this revised regulation, the CDFI Fund reserves the authority, in its discretion, to set additional parameters and restrictions on the financing entity requirement, which will be set forth in the Notice of Guarantee Availability (NOGA) for a particular application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. Such additional parameters or restrictions may include, for example, (i) a deadline by which the Affiliate must meet the financing entity requirement based on its own merit or activity, rather than relying on that of the affiliated CDFI, and (ii) a requirement that the affiliated CDFI must maintain its CDFI certification until such time that the Affiliate is able to meet all CDFI certification requirements based on its own merit or activity.
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.
The collections of information contained in this interim rule have been previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1559-0006, 1559-0021, and 1559-0022. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. This document restates the collections of information without substantive change.
This revised interim rule has been reviewed in accordance with 12 CFR part 1815. The CDFI Fund's Environmental Regulations under the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA) require that the CDFI Fund adequately consider the cumulative impact proposed activities have upon the human environment. It is the determination of the CDFI Fund that the interim rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the NEPA and the CDFI Fund Environmental Quality Regulations, 12 CFR part 1815, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Because this interim rule relates to loans and grants, notice and public procedure and a delayed effective date are not required pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
Community Development Financial Institutions Program—21.020.
Community development, Grant programs-housing and community development, Loan programs-housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the CDFI Fund is amending 12 CFR chapter XVII, part 1805 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4703, 4703 note, 4710, 4717; and 31 U.S.C. 321.
(b) * * *
(2)
(A) Depository Institution Holding Company;
(B) Insured Depository Institution, Insured Credit Union, or State-Insured Credit Union; or
(C) Organization that is deemed by the CDFI Fund to have such a predominant business activity as a result of analysis of its financial statements, organizing documents, and any other information required to be submitted as part of its application. In conducting such analysis, the CDFI Fund may take into consideration an Applicant's total assets and its use of personnel.
(ii) For the sole purpose of participating as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program (see 12 CFR part 1808), an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI may be deemed to meet the financing entity requirement of this subsection by relying on the CDFI Fund's determination that the Controlling CDFI has met said requirement; provided, however, that the CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to set additional parameters and restrictions on such, which parameters and restrictions shall be set forth in the applicable Notice of Guarantee Availability for a CDFI Bond Guarantee Program application round.
(iii) Further, for the sole purpose of participating as an Eligible CDFI in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the provision of Financial Products, Development Services, and/or other similar financing by an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI need not be arms-length if such transaction is by and between the Affiliate and the Controlling CDFI, pursuant to an operating agreement that includes management and ownership provisions and is in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Direct final rule.
NASA has adopted as final, without change, a proposed rule amending its patent waivers regulations to update citations and the patent waiver policy, and to clarify and update
This rule is effective May 11, 2015. Comments due on or before April 27, 2015. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Comments must be identified with RIN 2700-AE02 and may be sent to NASA via the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
Helen M. Galus, Office of the General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, telephone (202) 358-3437.
NASA published a proposed rule in the
The NASA Office of the General Counsel had no comments to consider. NASA has adopted the proposed rule as final with one additional section update. After the proposed rule was published, an outdated citation was found in § 1245.108 License to contractor. In paragraphs (b) and (c), 14 CFR 1245.2 was updated to 37 CFR part 404. Also, “Government-Owned” was substituted for “NASA” in paragraph (b), and “in accordance with applicable regulations in” was substituted for “under the Licensing of NASA Inventions” in order to clarify the sentence in paragraph (c).
No changes were made as a result of public comments.
No public comments were submitted.
NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves adopting a proposed rule amending its patent waivers regulations to update citations and the patent waiver policy, and to clarify and update the patent waiver procedures, so they are more in line with the National Aeronautics and Space Act (Space Act), the authorizing statute. This rule has one additional update to correct an outdated citation. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if NASA receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
This rule does not contain an information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule sets forth policies and procedures for submitting and reviewing petitions for waiver of the Government's rights to certain inventions made under government funded contracts, pursuant to section 20135(b)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20135(b)(1). The provisions do not apply to inventions made under any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a nonprofit organization or small business firm that are afforded the disposition of rights as provided in 35 U.S.C. 200-204 (Pub. L. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3019, 3020, 3022 and 3023; and Pub. L. 98-620, 98 Stat. 3364-3367). Therefore, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Inventions, Patents and waivers.
Accordingly, 14 CFR part 1245 is amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20135, 35 U.S.C. 200
This subpart prescribes regulations for the waiver of rights of the Government of the United States to inventions made under NASA contract in conformity with section 20135 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. Chapter 201).
The provisions of the subpart apply to all inventions made or which may be made under conditions enabling the Administrator to determine that the rights therein reside in the Government of the United States under section 20135(b)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20135(b)(1). The provisions do not apply to inventions made under any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with a nonprofit organization or small business firm that are afforded the disposition of rights as provided in 35 U.S.C. 200-204 (Pub. L. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3019, 3020, 3022 and 3023; and Pub. L. 98-620, 98 Stat. 3364-3367).
(c) Invention means any, new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, or any variety of plant, which is or may be patentable under the Patent Laws of the United States of America or any foreign country.
(d) Class of inventions means inventions directed to a particular process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or to a narrowly drawn, focused area of technology.
(a) In implementing the provisions of section 20135(g) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. Chapter 201), and in determining when the interests of the United States would be served by waiver of all or any part of the rights of the United States in an invention or class of inventions made in the performance of work under NASA contracts, the Administrator will be guided by the objectives set forth in the National Aeronautics and Space Act, by the basic policy of the Presidential Memorandum and Statement of Government Patent Policy to the Heads of the Executive Departments and agencies dated February 18, 1983, by the goals and objectives of its current Authorization Act, Strategic Plan, and other pertinent National policies or laws, such as the National Space Policy of the United States of America. Any such waiver may be made upon such terms and under such conditions as the Administrator shall determine to be required for the protection of the interests of the United States. Among the most important goals are to provide incentives to foster inventiveness and encourage the reporting of inventions made under NASA contracts, to provide for the widest practicable dissemination of new technology resulting from NASA programs, and to promote early utilization, expeditious development, and continued availability of this new technology for commercial purposes and the public benefit. In applying this regulation, both the need for incentives to draw forth private initiatives and the need to promote healthy competition in industry must be weighed.
(b) Several different situations arise when waiver of all or any part of the rights of the United States with respect to an invention or class of invention may be requested and are prescribed in §§ 1245.104 through 1245.106. Under § 1245.104, advance waiver of any or all of the rights of the United States with respect to any invention or class of inventions which may be made under a contract may be requested prior to the execution of the contract, or within 30 days after execution of the contract. Waiver of rights to an identified invention made and reported under a contract are to be requested under § 1245.105, and may be requested under this provision even though a request under § 1245.104 was not made, or if made, was not granted. Waiver of foreign rights under § 1245.106 may be requested concurrently with domestic rights under § 1245.104 or § 1245.105, or may be made independently.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) The provisions of this section apply to petitions for waiver of domestic rights of the United States with respect to any invention or class of inventions which may be made under a contract.
(b) The NASA Inventions and Contributions Board normally will recommend grant of a request for advance waiver of domestic rights submitted prior to execution of contract or within 30 days after execution of the contract unless the Board finds that the interests of the United States will be better served by restricting or denying all or part of the requested rights in one or more of the following situations:
(2) When a determination has been made by Government authority which is authorized by statute or Executive order to conduct foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence activities that the restriction or denial of the requested rights to any inventions made in the performance of work under the contract is necessary to protect the security of such activities; or
(3) Where the Board finds that exceptional circumstances exist, such that restriction or denial of the requested rights will better promote one or more of the following objectives:
(v) Ensuring that the Government retains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs of the Government and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions.
(c)(1) An advance waiver, when granted, will be subject to the reservations set forth in § 1245.107. Normally, the reservations of § 1245.107(a), License to the Government, and § 1245.107(b), March-in rights, will apply. However, should one or more of the situations set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3), of this section exist, rather than denying the advance waiver request, the Board may recommend granting to the contractor only part of the requested rights, to the extent necessary to address the particular situation, consistent with the policy and goals of § 1245.103. In that event, the waiver grant will be subject to additional reservations as provided for in § 1245.107(c).
(2) To meet the National Aeronautics and Space Act standard of “any invention or class of inventions,” for advance waivers, the petition shall identify the invention(s) and/or class(es) of inventions that the Contractor believes will be made under the contract and for which waiver of rights is being requested. Therefore, the petition must be directed to a specific invention(s) or to inventions directed to a particular process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or to a narrowly drawn, focused area(s) of technology.
(3) An advance waiver, when granted, will apply only to inventions reported to NASA under the applicable terms of the contract and a designation made within 6 months of the time of reporting (or a reasonable time thereafter permitted for good cause shown) that the contractor elects title to the invention and intends to file or has filed a U.S. patent application. Such election will be made by notification in writing to the patent representative designated in the contract. Title to all other inventions made under the contract are subject to section 20135(b)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20135(b)(1). The granting of the advance waiver does not otherwise relieve a contractor of any of the invention identification or reporting requirements set forth in the applicable patent rights clause in the contract.
(4) The advance waiver shall extend to the invention claimed in any patent application filed on the reported invention, including any subsequent divisional or continuation application thereof, provided the claims of the subsequent application do not substantially change the scope of the reported invention.
(d) When a petition for waiver is submitted under paragraph (b) of this section, prior to contract execution, it will be processed expeditiously so that a decision on the petition may be
(c) The Board will normally recommend the waiver of foreign rights be granted under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this section in any designated country unless:
(1) The Board finds that exceptional circumstances exist, such that restriction or denial of the requested foreign rights will better promote one or more of the objectives set forth in § 1245.104(b)(3)(i) through (v); or
(2) The Board finds that the economic interests of the United States will not be served thereby; or unless
(3) In the case of an individual identified invention under paragraph (b) of this section, NASA has determined, prior to the request, to file a patent application in the designated country.
(d) If, subsequent to the granting of the petition for foreign rights, the petitioner requests and designates additional countries in which it wishes to secure patents, the Chairperson may recommend such request, in whole or in part, without further action by the Board.
(b)
(b) The contractor's domestic license may be revoked or modified by the Administrator to the extent necessary to achieve expeditious practical application of the invention pursuant to an application for an exclusive license submitted in accordance with the Licensing of Government-Owned Inventions (37 CFR part 404). * * *
(c) * * * The contractor shall have the right to appeal, in accordance with applicable regulations in 37 CFR part 404, any decision concerning the revocation or modification of its license.
(b) Advance waiver petitions shall also identify the invention(s) and/or class(es) of inventions that the Contractor believes will be made under the contract and for which waiver of rights is being requested, in accordance with § 1245.104(c)(2).
(a)
(1) When it proposes to recommend to the Administrator that the petition be:
(i) Granted in an extent different from that requested; or
(ii) Denied.
(2) Of the reasons for the recommended action adverse to or different from the waiver of rights requested by the petitioner.
(b)
The invention described herein was made in the performance of work under NASA Contract No. lll, and is subject to the provisions of Section 20135 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act (51 U.S.C. Chapter 201).
(a) The exercise of march-in procedures shall be in conformance with 35 U.S.C. 203 and the applicable provisions of 37 CFR 401.6, entitled “Exercise of march-in rights for inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms.”
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule; correction.
On Monday, December 15, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule regarding representation case procedures, 79 FR 74307. Since the publication of the rule, a number of minor errors have been noted throughout the Supplementary Information preceding the amendatory language. The errata sheet below corrects those errors.
These corrections will be effective on April 14, 2015.
Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
On
1. On p. 74308:
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 17, correct “proceeding” to read “proceedings”.
2. On p. 74311:
In the third column, line 1, correct “51735” to read “3822”.
In the third column, lines 2-3, correct “[b]efore issuing a proposed regulation” to read “[b]efore issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking”.
In the third column, lines 13-14, correct “76 FR 36829” to read “76 FR 36817, n.34”.
3. On page 74332:
In the third column, second full paragraph, line 12, add “a” before “review”.
4. On page 74337:
In the first column, first full paragraph, line 49, add a period after “representation”.
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 13, correct “dissenting” to read “concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part”, and in line 3 of the block quotation from
5. On page 74346:
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 13, “practice” should be in internal quotation marks.
6. On page 74351:
In the second column, line 6, correct “employees' workplace” to read “employee”, and in line 7 remove “(emphasis added)”.
7. On page 74359:
In the third column, first full paragraph, line 11, correct “8(b)(a)” to read “8(b)(1)”.
8. On page 74372:
In the first column, second paragraph, line 4, delete “in any event”.
9. On page 74385:
In the third column, lines 19-20, correct “rules” to read “Rules” and correct “Procedures” to read “Procedure”.
10. On page 74391:
In the second column, line 6, correct “slip op. at 2” to read “slip op. at 1”.
In the second column, line 13, correct “petition” to read “proceeding”.
11. On page 74402:
In the second column, line 29, add an open quotation mark before “[a]rgument”.
12. On page 74423:
In the first column, in the continuation of footnote 513, line 10, add “slip op. at 10” after “No. 76”.
In the first column, in the continuation of footnote 513, line 13, add “slip op. at 8” after “No. 72”.
In the first column, in the continuation of footnote 513, line 14, correct “purposes” to read “purpose”.
13. On page 74432:
In the second column, line 16 of footnote 542, remove “National Labor Relations”.
14. On page 74433:
In the second column, line 9 of footnote 550, correct “102-103” to read “102”.
In the second column, line 9 of footnote 550, correct “[I]n” to read “In”.
15. On page 74440:
In the first column, line 6 of footnote 591, correct “processses” to read “processes”.
16. On page 74446:
In the third column, line 10 of footnote 623, correct “
17. On page 74452:
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 22, add “abstract” before “law”.
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 27, remove “s” from “communication”.
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 28, correct “Employer” to read “employer.”
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 30, correct “363-64” to read “364”.
18. On page 74460:
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 12, add quotation mark after “practice”.
19. On page 74461:
In the third column, second full paragraph, line 29, remove “proposed” before “rule”.
In the third column, second full paragraph, line 35, correct “5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4)” to read “5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5)”.
20. On p. 74465:
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 3, correct “2480” to read “2823” and correct “2,777” to read “2,974”.
In the second column, first full paragraph, lines 4 and 8, correct “89.3%” to read “94.9%”.
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 7, correct “2,239” to read “2,379”.
21. On p. 74467:
In the second column, first full paragraph, line 14, correct “29” to read “30”.
In the second column, line 4 of footnote 729, correct “29” to read “30”.
By direction of the Board.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the I-695 Bridge across Curtis Creek, mile 1.0, Baltimore, MD. This temporary deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position to facilitate an interim structural inspection and an in-depth electrical/mechanical inspection.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on April 13, 2015 to 5 p.m. on May 8, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0122] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Kashanda Booker, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6227, email
The Maryland Transportation Authority, who owns and operates this drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.557 to facilitate an interim structural inspection and an in-depth electrical/mechanical inspection.
Under the regular operating schedule, the I-695 Bridge draw must open on signal if at least one hour notice is given. The bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 58 feet above mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed to navigation position daily between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. but will be able to open for navigation with a 2 hour advance notice by contacting (410) 354-1374 or utilizing VHF Channel 13/16.
The bridge will operate under the normal operating schedule at all other times. Emergency openings can be provided with advance notice by contacting (410) 354-1374 or utilizing VHF Channel 13/16. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Curtis Creek.
Curtis Creek is used by a variety of vessels including military, tugs, commercial, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation. Mariners able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. However, mariners are advised to proceed with caution.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay for a helicopter aerial demonstration sponsored by the Naval Helicopter Association (NHA). This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of the helicopter aircrew, spectators, safety vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Unauthorized persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. The Coast Guard requests public comments on the temporary safety zone.
This rule is effective from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015. Public comments must be received by May 11, 2015.
Submit comments using
•
•
•
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0137]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on this temporary final rule. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2015-0137 and should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule safety zone for a planned fifteen minute air show over San Diego Bay without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be impracticable, because
Nevertheless, we are providing an opportunity for subsequent public comment and, should public comment show the need for modifications to the safety zone during the event, we may make those modifications during the event and will provide actual notice of those modifications to the affected public.
The legal basis and authorities for this temporary rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.
The Coast Guard believes a temporary safety zone is needed on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay to ensure public safety for the NHA Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration. This event involves a planned fifteen minute air show which flies over a portion of San Diego Bay. Because aerial stunt flying over busy waterways poses significant risk to public safety and property and the likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, and low flying could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities, a safety zone is necessary to safe guard spectators, vessels and the event pilots. For the safety concerns noted, it is important to have these regulations in effect during the event and impracticable to delay the regulations.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the helicopter aircrew, event spectators, safety patrol craft and to protect other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or their designated representative. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM). Just prior to the event and during the enforcement of the event, the Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF Channel 16.
This temporary safety zone will be bound by the following coordinates (North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984): 32°43.05 N, 117°10.54 W, 32°43.05 N, 117°10.46 W, 32°43.33 N, 117°10.54 W, 32°43.33 N, 117°13.46 W.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location and limited duration of the safety zone. This zone impacts a small designated area of the San Diego bay for less than one hour. Furthermore, vessel traffic can safely transit around the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of private and commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the San Diego Bay from 6:30 p.m. through 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone. The Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via VHF Channel 16 before the safety zone is enforced.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.01.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies in patrol and notification of the regulation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Sturgeon Bay in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Sturgeon Bay due to a fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015, until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0213. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, contact or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, at 414-747-7148 or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Specifically, the Coast Guard did not receive the final details for this event until March 4, 2015. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the barge-based fireworks display on May 15, 2015, which are discussed further below.
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
On May 15, 2015, the Coast Guard anticipates that a tug and barge will be anchored in the vicinity of the Sturgeon Bay Yacht Harbor on the waters of Sturgeon Bay in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin for the purpose of launching a fireworks display. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this fireworks display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include falling and/or flaming debris, and collisions among spectator vessels.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during the barge-based fireworks display from the waters of Sturgeon Bay. This zone is effective from 8:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015, until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 15, 2015. In the case that inclement weather forces a postponement of the fireworks display on May 15, 2015, this rule will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 16, 2015. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of Sturgeon Bay Yacht Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 420-foot radius from the fireworks launch site, located on a barge in approximate position 44°49.579′ N., 087°22.384′ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or her designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for only one day. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected portion of Sturgeon Bay on May 15 or May 16, 2015.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on her behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake
In Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 614, in § 202.2, in paragraph (b)(1), the second copyright symbol, following the words “. . . or, in the case of a sound recording, the symbol”, is corrected to read “℗”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the attainment demonstration and associated contingency measures and motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MD-VA, moderate ozone nonattainment area (Washington Area) for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) as submitted by the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia as revisions to each of their State Implementation Plans (SIPs). EPA has determined that each of the three SIP revisions including specifically the attainment demonstration, contingency measures and MVEBs meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), and EPA is approving each revision.
This final rule is effective on May 11, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0132. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or by email at
The District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted formal SIP revisions on June 12, 2007, June 4, 2007, and June 12, 2007, respectively (hereafter the June 2007 SIP revisions). These June 2007 SIP revisions were submitted to address CAA requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and included the 2002 base year emissions inventory, the 15 percent reasonable further progress plan (RFP) (15% RFP plan), RFP contingency measures, an attainment demonstration to show attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2010, a reasonably available control measures (RACM) analysis, and contingency measures for failure to attain. In addition, the submission included the transportation conformity 2008, 2009, and 2010 year MVEBs associated with the RFP plan, the attainment demonstration and contingency measures, respectively. The District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE), the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) (hereafter referred to as the three States) jointly developed the June 2007 SIP revisions.
These elements of the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan were required for the Washington Area by sections 172(c), 182(a), and 182(b)(1) of the CAA due to the classification of the Washington Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The boundaries of the Washington Area are defined in the tables for “1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)” in 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321 and 81.347.
On September 11, 2011 (76 FR 58116), EPA approved portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions for the three States including the 2002 base year emissions inventory, 15% RFP plan and associated MVEBs for 2008, RFP contingency measures, and the RACM analysis. In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving the remaining portions of the June 2007 SIP revisions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS including the attainment demonstration, the contingency measures, and the associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs.
The June 2007 SIP revisions addressed the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908, contingency measures, and the associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area. Specific requirements for CAA attainment demonstrations, contingency measures and MVEBs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the rationale for EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
Since the March 20, 2013 NPR, the three States have submitted and certified complete ambient air quality monitoring (AQ data) for the entire 2013 ozone monitoring season. EPA has released the final 2011-2013 design values and posted these at
EPA has also examined available 2014 ozone season AQ data. EPA notes that this AQ data is preliminary. EPA examined the data entered into EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) available as of February 10, 2015. It has not undergone all the quality assurance/quality control review and certification necessary to be used for regulatory purposes, and as of February 10, 2015 may not cover the entire 2014 ozone season for the Washington Area which ended October 31, 2014.
The highest
EPA has also prepared a supplement to the February 26, 2013 TSD, “Supplement to Technical Support Document for Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment Area,” dated February 12, 2015 (TSD Supplement);
EPA received comments adverse to the proposed approval of the attainment demonstration, MVEBs and contingency measures from the June 2007 SIP revisions. A summary of these adverse comments and EPA responses follows.
The CAA is very prescriptive in section 110(k)(3) concerning under what conditions EPA must approve a SIP revision: “[t]the Administrator
The applicable attainment date for areas classified as moderate like the Washington Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS was no later than June 15, 2010 pursuant to Table 1 of 40 CFR 51.903(a) (
The attainment demonstrations submitted by the three States addressed all of the applicable requirements for such plans in CAA sections 172 and 182 as explained in the March 20, 2013 NPR. In addition, the Washington Area did in fact attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by its attainment date of June 15, 2010.
If the states choose to submit a request to redesignate the Washington Area, they will need to demonstrate that they have met the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), including the requirement that the improvements in air quality are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; however, as EPA has explained, that issue is not relevant for determining whether the area demonstrated that it would attain the 1997 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
However, even though EPA believes a section 110(l) analysis is not required here as no applicable requirements are being removed or reduced, EPA does note that the volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO
The commenter does not make any specific claim regarding the analysis for the 2010 NO
The commenter's claim regarding interference with the 2008 ozone NAAQS also ignores the structure of the statute. Under the CAA, EPA is required to periodically review and revise as necessary the NAAQS. When EPA revises a NAAQS, a planning cycle begins for that new NAAQS. EPA is first required to designate areas and, for those areas designated nonattainment, a time clock for submission of plans to address nonattainment begins at the time of designation. EPA designated areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective June 2012, and nonattainment area SIPs for that standard are generally due in June 2015. The interpretation set forth by the commenter ignores that structure and instead suggests that once a new NAAQS is promulgated, the state must demonstrate any time it revises its SIP that such revisions will also fulfill requirements applicable for the new standard (
The commenter appears to be claiming that the identified NO
The commenter's interpretation that 40 CFR 51.908(d) supports a requirement that attainment demonstrations must include a demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS beyond the attainment date is also misplaced. The sole purpose of this regulatory provision was to make clear
Although not relevant for purposes of whether the attainment demonstration demonstrates attainment by the attainment date, EPA notes that EPA also disagrees with the characterization by the commenter that the transport rules are not reducing transported emissions. Despite the litigation regarding CAIR and CSAPR, the rules are providing a continuous mandate to states to address upwind transport as described in this response.
CAIR was promulgated May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162) and required 28 states and the District of Columbia to adopt and submit revisions to their SIPs to eliminate sulfur dioxide (SO
In 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in
Throughout the litigation described previously in this rulemaking action, EPA continued to implement CAIR
As explained in the March 20, 2013 NPR, in the February 26, 2013 TSD, in the TSD Supplement, and in response to prior comments, EPA based our decision to approve the attainment demonstrations upon the fact that the Washington Area did in fact attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the required June 15, 2010 attainment date and upon our evaluation that the Area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA believes the attainment demonstrations are in accordance with CAA requirements in sections 172 and 182 and believes the improving air quality data supports our decision to approve these attainment demonstrations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Thus, for the reasons detailed in the March 20, 2013 NPR and in this rulemaking action, EPA finds the attainment demonstration in accordance with CAA requirements, and EPA disagrees with commenters that any concerns with CAIR prevent our approval of these attainment demonstrations.
EPA notes that in the March 20, 2013 NPR, EPA stated that the modeling conducted by the three States for the June 2008 SIP revisions over predicted 2009 ozone design values relative to the actual monitored 2009 to 2011 design values for most cases and always for four monitors for which the modeled design values were in the range of 82 to 87 ppb.
At the time EPA issued the March 20, 2013 NPR, EPA did not have certified 2012 or 2013 data. When EPA proposed in 2013 to approve the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions, EPA considered the overall downward trend in monitored ozone air quality in the Washington Area and that the Area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date applicable under section 181 of the CAA. While the 2010-2012 air quality design value does show an increase over the design values EPA previously considered, EPA continues to believe the air quality data for the Washington Area supports our approval of the June 2007 SIP revisions as the 2011-2013 AQ data (and the 2012-2014 AQ data based upon the preliminary 2014 data) shows the Washington Area is attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
EPA agrees with the commenters that weather plays an important role in ozone formation. However, EPA believes that these considerations do not require EPA to disapprove the attainment demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP revisions. None of the design values predicted in the modeling from the three States in the June 2007 SIP revisions were above 87 ppb. Therefore, as explained in the February 26, 2013 TSD, a weight of evidence demonstration could be considered and was considered by EPA. The three States presented downward trends in design values (through 2006 as the States submitted the SIP in 2007), in numbers of exceedances, in nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide levels, and in emissions levels, as well as a decrease in the spatial extent of nonattainment in the Washington area and a decrease in the number of days the 1997 ozone NAAQS was exceeded when the maximum temperature exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit. For the proposed approval in the March 20, 2013 NPR, EPA also considered monitored ozone design values for years after 2006 which declined from an area-wide maximum 91 ppb for the 2004-2006 period to 80 ppb for the 2007-2009 (the effective applicable attainment period). At best, EPA believes that a modeled attainment demonstration with a supporting weight of evidence demonstration is a prediction about future events. For attainment
In general, EPA does not consider the monitored ambient air quality data for periods after the attainment date to be particularly dispositive when acting on an attainment demonstration due under section 182(b). As explained previously in response to prior comments, EPA must approve a SIP submission such as an attainment SIP if the SIP submission meets applicable requirements in CAA sections 172 and 182. If an area does attain by its applicable attainment date, EPA has no authority to reclassify the area even if the area subsequently violates the ozone NAAQS.
As noted in response to other comments, EPA believes that an attainment demonstration required under sections 172 and 182(b) need not demonstrate maintenance of the ozone NAAQS after the applicable attainment date and need only demonstrate timely attainment by the attainment date. While the commenters raise concerns for maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on the 2010-2012 design value for the Washington Area, the 2011-2013 design values (and preliminary data for 2012-2014) show attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS as mentioned previously. EPA did not in the March 20, 2013 NPR propose any sort of finding regarding sufficiency of any state's SIP with regards to maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Washington Area. In addition, maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS is not a requirement for our approval of an attainment SIP required by CAA sections 172 and 182 as discussed previously in response to a prior comment and will be addressed in a separate SIP if the Washington Area seeks redesignation.
Finally, EPA believes that section 110(k)(5) provides a separate remedy, outside the scope of this rulemaking action, via a “SIP call” which provides the necessary authority to require remedial action through additional measures for a SIP where an ozone nonattainment area attains the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date under section 181 but later violates that ozone NAAQS.
While the 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM
The air quality monitoring network in the Washington Area far exceeds the minimum required under 40 CFR part 58. The Washington Area is part of the larger Washington-Arlington-Alexandria (DC-VA-MD-WV) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (known as the Washington-A-A MSA). Under Table D-2 of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, the absolute minimum monitoring network for the Washington-A-A MSA based upon its population would be 3 ozone monitors, but the Washington-A-A MSA in fact contains 15 ozone monitors of which 13 are in the designated nonattainment area. Consistent with the factors found in section 4.1(b) of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, the additional monitors in the Washington Area are located based on a variety of reasons such as providing for more than one maximum concentration site within the MSA, characterizing
First, meteorological variability is addressed in the form of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In choosing the
Second, EPA notes that as an adjunct to the modeled attainment demonstration, the three States did assess for the June 2007 SIP revisions the potential effects of meteorological variations on the results of the modeled attainment test. The future year model-predicted ozone design value was determined by the three States by multiplying a baseline ozone design value derived from ambient air quality monitoring by the model-derived RRF.
EPA believes that, in practice, the choice of the “baseline design value” can be critical to the determination of the estimated future year design values. EPA's 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM
Thus, EPA concludes the three States considered meteorological variability in conducting its attainment demonstrations, and we assessed the
Furthermore, to the extent the commenters are suggesting that the modeled attainment demonstration is defective because it was based on 2002 meteorological conditions and not those from 2009 or a later year, EPA disagrees. Congress set explicit deadlines for submission of the attainment demonstration SIP due under section 182(b)(1), and the attainment demonstrations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS were required to be submitted by June 15, 2007. Thus, it was not feasible nor possible for the states to use meteorological conditions from future years for purposes of the attainment demonstration.
The States' choice of 2002 meteorological conditions was inherently reasonable and is well supported in Chapter 10 and Appendix G of the three States' May 23, 2007 plan document.
However, the States supported their selection of 2002 meteorology based upon a qualitative analysis and a quantitative analysis.
To the extent the commenters are suggesting that the States must remodel using meteorological conditions for years long after the 2007 submittal date (and after the attainment date), EPA notes that is neither mandated by the statute nor reasonable. Congress imposed deadlines on the States that clearly envisioned an end to the preparation of the attainment demonstration and did not establish any requirement for states to submit new, revised attainment demonstrations in the absence of a call from EPA pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6) to do so or to submit a new attainment demonstration for a new, future attainment date based on a failure to attain by the attainment date.
EPA is approving the attainment demonstrations, contingency measures, and associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs for the Washington Area which were submitted to EPA as SIP revisions by the three States in the June 2007 SIP revisions based on a determination that they meet applicable requirements in the CAA.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the approved SIP, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e)* * *
(h) EPA approves revisions to the District of Columbia State Implementation Plan consisting of the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the failure to attain contingency measures for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Acting Director of the District of Columbia Department of the Environment on June 12, 2007.
(i) EPA approves the following 2009 attainment demonstration and 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Acting Director of the District of Columbia Department of the Environment on June 12, 2007:
(e) * * *
(aa) EPA approves revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan consisting of the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the failure to attain contingency measures for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment on June 4, 2007.
(bb) EPA approves the following 2009 attainment demonstration and 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MDVA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment on June 4, 2007:
(e) * * *
(j) EPA approves revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan consisting of the attainment demonstration required under 40 CFR 51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the failure to attain contingency measures for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area submitted by the Director of the Virginia Department of Environment Quality on June 12, 2007.
(k) EPA approves the following 2009 attainment demonstration and 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MDVA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a source-specific revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) that establishes an alternative to best available retrofit technology (BART) for Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at Arizona Electric Power Cooperative's (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station (Apache). Under the BART Alternative, ST2 will be converted from a primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 will remain as a coal-fired unit and would be retrofitted with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) control technology. The SIP revision also revises the emission limit for nitrogen oxides (NO
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available electronically at
Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
• The words or initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The words
• The initials
• The initials
• The term
• The words
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
• The initials
On September 19, 2014, EPA proposed to approve a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP concerning Apache Generating Station (“Apache SIP Revision”).
EPA's proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. During this period, we received a comment letter from Earthjustice on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club (collectively, the “Conservation Organizations”). The comments and our responses are summarized below.
These differing assumptions concerning annual heat rates and capacity factors do not influence the visibility modeling, which is based on maximum 24-hour average emission rates.
In this case, the SNCR system on ST3 will not be capable of operating during portions of startup and shutdown periods.
Furthermore, as explained by ADEQ in its response to comments from the Conservation Organizations, one of the other scenarios modeled by AEPCO and included in its May 2013 petition, a scenario known as 9b PNGt, used more conservative emission factors.
. . . within a regional haze context, not every measure taken is required to achieve a visibility improvement at every class I area. BART is one component of long term strategies to make reasonable progress, but it is not the only component. The requirement that the alternative achieves greater progress based on the average improvement at all Class I areas assures that, by definition, the alternative will achieve greater progress overall. Though there may be cases where BART could produce greater improvement at one or more class I areas, the no-degradation prong assures that the alternative will not result in worsened conditions anywhere than would otherwise exist. . . .
In this instance, ADEQ found that the two-prong test as described in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) was not appropriate and therefore chose to apply the clear weight of evidence test. Nonetheless, as explained in our proposal, we applied a modified version of the two-prong test, using the 98th percentile impacts (averaged across three years), rather than the best twenty-percent days and worst twenty-percent days, as provided for in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
As explained in our proposal and this document, we have determined that the Apache SIP Revision would provide for greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. We have also determined that the Apache SIP Revision meets all other requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations with one exception: the Apache Permit Revision incorporates by reference certain state regulations that establish an affirmative defense for malfunctions (R-18-2-101, paragraph 65; R18-2-310, sections (A), (B), (D) and (E); and R18-2-310.01).
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ADEQ permit revision described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
This 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). This rule applies to only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this 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. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. AEPCO sold under 3 million megawatt hours in 2013 and is therefore a small entity.
After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
This 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 rule. The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175.
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This action addresses regional haze and visibility protection.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. This 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.
EPA has determined that this rule 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, at a lower cost than the FIP.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 9, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
In addition, pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) and (V) of the CAA, the Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Apache is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” The Administrator determines that the SIP approval portion of this action is also subject to 307(d). While the Administrator did not explicitly make this determination earlier, all of the procedural requirements,
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(165) The following plan was submitted May 13, 2014, by the Governor's designee:
(i)
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(1) Arizona State Implementation Plan, Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Incorporated, Apache Generating Station, excluding the appendices.
(f)
(2)
(3) * * *
(i)
(4) * * *
(ii) The owners/operators of each unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall comply with the applicable PM
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) At all times after the compliance date specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of each coal-fired unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure SO
(B) The owner/operator of each unit shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to these 40 CFR part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall be calculated for both the NO
(ii) * * *
(B) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of two secondary alkane (C
This regulation is effective April 10, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756, 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:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 9, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0756, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is limiting the tolerance exemption to pesticide formulations in which the maximum concentration of the secondary alkane sulfonates is 40% by weight. This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which can be found at
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for secondary alkane (C
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by secondary alkane (C
The Agency relied on data on CAS Reg. No. 85711-69-9 (sulfonic acids (C
The acute oral lethal dose (LD
A chronic toxicity study was conducted on SAS in rats and demonstrated a NOAEL of 4,000 parts per million (ppm) (equivalent to 168 milligram/kilogram body weight/day (mg/kg bw/day) in males and 227 mg/kg bw/day in females), and a LOAEL of 20,000 ppm (equivalent to 920 mg/kg bw/day in males and 1,281 mg/kg bw/day in females) based on reduced body weight, body weight gain, and the clinical signs of reduced grooming in males and females.
In a 2-generation reproduction study in rats dosed with SAS, there was no indication that offspring were more susceptible than the parental adults. The parental systemic LOAEL was 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day in males and 181 mg/kg bw/day in females), based on decreased body weight gain during premating and on reduced organ weight. The parental NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day for males and 66 mg/kg bw/day for females). The offspring LOAEL was 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day) based on decreased pre- and post-implantation loss and decreased weight gain in offspring. The offspring NOAEL was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day).
Secondary alkane (C
In a combined oral (dietary) chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study of SAS in rats, there were no treatment-related neoplastic or non-neoplastic microscopic findings observed up to 2.0% (equivalent to 805 mg/kg bw/day in males and 1,032 mg/kg bw/day in females), the highest dose tested. A LOAEL was not identified. Although body weight of high-dose males and females were lower by about 20% relative to controls throughout most of the study, decreased body weight was not viewed as an adverse effect since higher survival rates were observed in this group compared to controls.
In a dermal carcinogenicity study of SAS in mice, no indication of increased incidence relative to controls of malignant neoplasms was observed. No LOAEL was demonstrated. The NOAEL was 1.0% (equivalent to 0.6 mg/treatment), the highest concentration applied to the skin.
Secondary alkane (C
Although no immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity studies on SAS were available in the database, no evidence of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity was observed in the submitted studies.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors (UF) are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for secondary alkane (C
The 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats was selected for oral, dietary, dermal, and inhalation exposure scenarios (all durations) for this risk assessment. The parental systemic NOAEL in this study was 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 58.2 mg/kg bw/day for males) based on reduced body weight gain during premating and on reduced organ weight seen at the LOAEL of 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 177 mg/kg bw/day). The rationale for selecting this study for the dietary, dermal, and inhalation exposure scenario is based on the fact that this study provided the lowest and most conservative toxicity endpoint and route-specific studies are available.
A default 100% inhalation absorption will be used for inhalation exposure scenarios. A 50% dermal absorption rate will be used for dermal exposure scenarios based on the toxicokinetic dermal absorption study.
1.
i.
ii.
iii
2.
3.
Based on the use pattern for pesticide products containing SAS as an inert ingredient, there are no residential uses and thus no residential exposures are expected.
4.
EPA has not found secondary alkane (C
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for secondary alkane (C
ii. There is no indication that SAS is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility due to pre-or post-natal exposure to SAS in infants and children.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions utilizing a 100 ppb default value in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to secondary alkane (C
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Although EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of SAS that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for secondary alkane (C
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established
This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pyraclostrobin in or on the herb subgroup 19A, dill seed, the stone fruit group 12-12, and the tree nut group 14-12, except pistachio. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective April 10, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798, 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:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 9, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0798, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some commodities. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for pyraclostrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
There are no concerns for reproductive susceptibility, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, or immunotoxicity. The most consistently observed effects resulting from pyraclostrobin exposure across species, genders, and treatment durations were diarrhea and decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption. Pyraclostrobin also causes intestinal disturbances, as indicated by increased incidence of diarrhea or duodenum mucosal thickening. These intestinal effects appeared to be related to the irritating action on the mucus membranes as demonstrated by irritation seen in the primary eye irritation study. In the rat acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, neuropathology and behavior changes were not observed.
In the rat developmental toxicity study, developmental toxicity including an increased incidence of dilated renal pelvis and cervical ribs occurred at a dose greater than the dose causing maternal toxicity (including decreased body weights and body weight gains and reduced food consumption and reduced food efficiency). The rabbit developmental toxicity study indicates qualitative evidence of increased developmental susceptibility based on increased resorptions per litter, increased post-implantation loss and dams with total resorptions, in the presence of maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain, food consumption, and food efficiency). In a dose range-finding 1-generation reproduction study, systemic toxicity was manifested as decreased body weight and body weight gain in both the parents and offspring. The effects occurred at the same dose levels for both parental and the offspring, but the decrease in pup weight was more than that in the parental animals. However, the body weight effect was not found in the guideline 2-generation reproduction study in either parental or offspring animals at similar dose level. No reproductive toxicity was seen.
Pyraclostrobin has been classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans based on the lack of treated related increase in tumor incidence in adequately conducted carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. Pyraclostrobin did not cause mutagenicity or genotoxicity in the
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pyraclostrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyraclostrobin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16, which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003 through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues or highest field trial residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and empirical or default processing factors. Experimentally-derived processing factors were used for fruit juices, tomato, sugarcane, and wheat commodities. For all other processed commodities, DEEM default processing factors were assumed.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:
Almonds 40%; apples 15%; apricots 25%; barley 10%; green beans <2.5%; blueberries 45%; broccoli 5%; cabbage 10%; caneberries 50%; cantaloupes 15%; carrots 35%; cauliflower <2.5%; celery <2.5%; cherries 50%; corn 10%; cotton <2.5%; cotton (seed treatment) 10%; cucumber 10%; dry beans/peas 10%; garlic 10%; grapefruit 30%; grapes 30%; hazelnuts (filberts) 20%; lemons <2.5%; lettuce 5%; nectarines 10%; onions 25%; oranges 5%; peaches 20%; peanuts 25%; pears 15%; green peas 5%; pecans <2.5%; peppers 10%; pistachios 30%; plums/prunes 5%; potatoes 20%; pumpkins 20%; rice <1%; soybeans 5%; soybeans (seed treatment) 5%; spinach 5%; squash 15%; strawberries 65%; sugar beets 45%; sweet corn 5%; tangelos 15%; tangerines 10%; tomatoes 25%; walnuts <1%; watermelons 30%; wheat 5%; wheat (seed treatment) <1%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which pyraclostrobin may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater (PRZM-GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyraclostrobin for acute exposures are estimated to be 35.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 2.3 ppb for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 35.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 2.3 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential handler and post-application exposures: Treated gardens, fruit or nut trees, tomato transplants, and turf. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-term adult handler exposures via the dermal and inhalation routes resulting from application of pyraclostrobin to gardens, trees, and turf. Short-term dermal post-application exposures were assessed for adults, youth 11 to 16 years old, and children 6 to 11 years old. Short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures were assessed for children 1 to <2 years old. Based on the registered uses of pyraclostrobin on residential and golf course turf, intermediate-term post-application exposures are possible. However, since the short- and intermediate-term endpoints and PODs for dermal and oral routes are the same, the short-term exposure and risk estimates are considered to be protective of potential intermediate-term exposure and risk.
For the aggregate assessment, inhalation and dermal exposures were not aggregated together because the toxicity effect from the inhalation route of exposure was different than the effect from the dermal route of exposure. The scenarios with the highest residential exposures that were used in the short-term aggregate assessment for pyraclostrobin are as follows:
• Adult short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal post-application exposure via activities on treated turf.
• Youth (11-16 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal exposure from post-application golfing on treated turf.
• Children (6-11 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal exposures from post-application activities in treated gardens.
• Children (1<2 years old) short-term aggregate assessment—residential dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found pyraclostrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pyraclostrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pyraclostrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for pyraclostrobin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that pyraclostrobin is a neurotoxic chemical. Effects seen in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats are considered to reflect perturbations in mitochondrial respiration leading to effects on energy production rather than signs of neurotoxicity; therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that pyraclostrobin results in increased susceptibility in rats in the prenatal developmental study or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. The prenatal rabbit developmental toxicity study showed qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility to prenatal rabbits; however, this study was chosen for endpoint selection for the acute dietary (females 13-49) and short-term dermal exposure scenarios. This study has a clearly defined NOAEL of 5.0 mg/kg/day. EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is low.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary exposure assessments were performed assuming 100 PCT and tolerance-level or highest field trial residues. The chronic dietary exposure assessments were performed using average PCT estimates, when available, and tolerance-level or highest field trial residues. These data are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risks to adults or children. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pyraclostrobin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pyraclostrobin.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 110 for children 1-2 years old, 380 for children 6-11 years old, 1,600 for youth 11-16 years old, and 230 for adults from post-application exposures. Because EPA's level of concern for pyraclostrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
5.
6.
Two adequate methods are available to enforce the tolerance expression for residues of pyraclostrobin and the metabolite BF 500-3 in or on plant commodities: A liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, BASF Method D9908; and a high-performance LC with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) method, Method D9904. The methods may be found in the
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex and U.S. residue definitions for pyraclostrobin residues on plant commodities are different. The Codex definition is pyraclostrobin, whereas the U.S. definition is pyraclostrobin and its desmethoxy metabolite. Codex has not established MRLs for pyraclostrobin on herbs or dill seed, and therefore there are no harmonization issues for those commodities. Codex has established MRLs for some members of the stone fruit group,
The tolerances being established for the herb subgroup 19A (40 ppm) and dill seed (40 ppm) are different than what the petitioner requested (85 ppm and 100 ppm, respectively). The requested tolerance levels for the herb subgroup 19A and dill seed were based on the use of field trial data without adjustment for the exaggerated application rate (2.7X) represented by those trials. Each of the two applications of pyraclostrobin were conducted at 2.7X the label rate, and the total seasonal rate was 2.7X the label rate. Using the assumption of proportionality,
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The amendments read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Office of Government-wide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by adding terms and definitions for “Marriage” and “Spouse”, and by revising the definition of “Domestic Partnership”.
This rule is effective April 10, 2015, subject to retroactivity principles as discussed herein.
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Rick Miller, Office of Government-wide Policy (MA), Travel and Relocation Policy Division, U.S. General Services Administration, at 202-501-3822 or email at
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7, provided that, when used in Federal law, the term “marriage” would mean only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and that the term “spouse” referred only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, the Federal Government had been prohibited from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for all Federal purposes, including travel and relocation entitlements.
On June 17, 2009, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination stating that “[t]he heads of all other executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, shall conduct a review of the benefits provided by their respective departments and agencies to determine what authority they have to extend such benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees.” As part of its review, GSA identified a number of changes to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) that could be made. Subsequently, on June 2, 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum directing agencies to immediately take actions, consistent with existing law, to extend certain benefits, including travel and relocation benefits, to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees, and where applicable, to the children of same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees.
GSA published an interim rule and a final rule, respectively in the
On June 26, 2013, in
GSA published a proposed rule in the
In response to the proposed rule, GSA received comments from six different entities (one Federal agency, one Federal employee, two individuals, and two associations). Some comments received were generally supportive as to
Two commenters supported the proposed rule without any additional changes made. One commenter requested a minor editorial change in section 300-3.1 in the revised definition for “Domestic Partner”, noting that the parenthetical “or foreign country” is not used in the term “Domestic Partnership”. The parenthetical “or foreign country” was used in the proposed rule for Supplementary Information under “A. Background” in explaining “Domestic Partnership”, and is used in the new term “Marriage”. They recommended further amending the term “Domestic Partnership” to add the term “or foreign country” after the word “state” in proposed paragraph 10 of the definition. GSA made the minor editorial change.
One commenter suggested that the effective date of the final rule be retroactive prior to the date of the
The two associations submitted comments opposing the changes in the proposed rule as written. Those comments are addressed herein together. One comment opposed adding to the definition of domestic partnership in section 300-3.1, the requirement that employees “certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state of residence to permit same-sex marriage” for those employees who reside in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws do not permit same-sex marriage. In the same comment, the association also opposed requiring domestic partners, who reside in states or jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex, to marry to be eligible for relocation entitlements as an immediate family member, if the employee is relocating to a foreign country.
The commenters stated that the changes would apply to Americans officially assigned to, or in transit to, foreign locations, and these individuals and their families would be at risk of losing existing legal protections and support provided to legally recognized partners. They also stated that by requiring employees to marry or certify their intent to do so, may put these employees and their partners and families at risk of persecution, incarceration, and execution while assigned abroad.
GSA recognizes that the legal landscape is rapidly changing, and certain states and other jurisdictions, as well as foreign countries, currently do not allow same-sex marriages. However, the proposed definition for the term “domestic partnership” in the FTR is in accordance with the definition used for other Federal employees benefit programs, and therefore, will not be changed. Employees with same-sex domestic partners living in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that allow them to marry have access to many, if not all, of the protections that married opposite-sex couples enjoy. Therefore, a separate category under the FTR's term “immediate family member” will not be created for employees and their domestic partners who live in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that allow them to marry but choose not to marry.
One comment suggested that GSA should make clear that agencies retain the authority to assign personnel abroad and afford staff and family assigned abroad the protections and support that will best promote the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of their operation overseas. Since recruitment and assignment procedures are outside of the scope of the FTR, GSA did not address this issue.
Another comment suggested that the proposed changes would promote illegal discrimination and invidious state or other jurisdiction practices towards same-sex couples with regard to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, property, tax filing, and spousal benefits. The changing of state or other jurisdiction benefit laws for marriage and/or domestic partners is outside the scope of the FTR, and therefore, is not addressed by GSA.
The associations strongly opposed GSA “abolishing” domestic partner benefits already extended. The associations stated that, given the limited access to marriage and other forms of non-marital relationship recognition for same-sex couples, along with the aforementioned issues associated with requiring couples to marry or certify an intent to marry, the proposed change would add further burdens for same-sex couples. Therefore, they suggested GSA should expand the terms for “spouse”, “marriage”, and “domestic partnership” to apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners, thus extending travel and relocation benefits to partners in all relationships.
GSA is not abolishing already extended travel and relocation benefits. Rather, GSA is limiting benefits moving forward for same-sex domestic partners who choose not to marry, despite residing in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) whose laws authorize same-sex marriage. Same-sex domestic partners who reside in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) whose laws do not authorize same-sex marriage will still be permitted to claim travel and relocation benefits based upon the FTR and agency procedures for immediate family members. At this time, GSA is not including opposite-sex domestic partners as part of an employee's immediate family.
Based upon the comments received and suggested changes, the final rule updates the FTR by adding the definitions “Marriage” and “Spouse”, and revises the definition of “Domestic partnership”.
The term “marriage” is added to include any marriage, including a marriage between individuals of the same sex, that was entered into in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws authorize the marriage, even if the married couple is domiciled in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) that does not recognize the validity of the marriage. The term also includes common law marriage in states or other jurisdictions where such marriages are recognized, so long as they are proven according to the applicable state/jurisdiction laws. The term “spouse” is added to include any individual who has entered into such a marriage.
The term “marriage” will not include registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships recognized under state or other jurisdiction (or foreign) law that are not denominated as a marriage under that state's or other jurisdiction's (or foreign country's) law, and the terms “spouse”, “husband and wife”,
At the time the definition of “immediate family” in the FTR was amended to include same-sex domestic partners and their dependents, Section 3 of DOMA prohibited GSA from recognizing same-sex marriages. Thus, the availability of same-sex marriage in a particular state or other jurisdiction was not relevant to the determination of coverage eligibility for travel and relocation benefits. Now that FTR coverage is available to the same-sex spouses of Federal employees, pursuant to
Same-sex couples living in states or other jurisdictions that allow them to marry have access to many, if not all, of the protections that married opposite-sex couples enjoy. Therefore, for employees living in states or other jurisdictions where they are able to marry, there is less need to create a separate path by which same-sex domestic partners are eligible for FTR benefits. For those employees unable to marry under the laws of the states or other jurisdictions in which they live, however, it is appropriate to extend FTR coverage to same-sex domestic partners in the form described in this regulation.
The term “domestic partnership” is updated to read that same-sex domestic partners that have a documented domestic partnership, and reside in a state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) whose laws do not permit same-sex marriage or recognize their validity, will still be considered an immediate family member, under the FTR and agency policy, only if they certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) of residence to permit same-sex marriage. For those individuals who reside in states or other jurisdictions (or foreign countries) that authorize the marriage of two individuals of the same sex, the individuals will no longer be considered domestic partners or immediate family members due to the certification requirement.
Due to current statutory restrictions, however, this final rule does not apply to the relocation income tax allowance or the income tax reimbursement allowance for state taxes when the applicable state law does not recognize same-sex marriage.
This case is included in GSA's retrospective review of existing regulations under Executive Order 13563. Additional information is located in GSA's retrospective review (2015), available at
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a “significant regulatory action,” and therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. Accordingly, the final rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the Federal Travel Regulation do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This final rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.
Government employees, Relocation, Travel, and Transportation expenses.
For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5701-5709, 5721-5738, and 5741-5742, GSA amends 41 CFR part 300-3, as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 5741-5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; E.O. 11609, as amended; 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586, OMB Circular No. A-126, revised May 22, 1992.
The additions read as follows:
(10) Certify that they would marry but for the failure of their state or other jurisdiction (or foreign country) of residence to permit same-sex marriage.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4133.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects that commercial landings for vermilion snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the January 1 through June 30, 2015, fishing period on April 15, 2015. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ on April 15, 2015, and it will remain closed until the start of the July 1 through December 31, 2015, fishing period. This closure is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2015.
Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes vermilion snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial quota for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into separate quotas for two 6-month time periods, January through June and July through December. For the January 1 through June 30, 2015, fishing season, the commercial quota is 394,829 lb (179,091 kg), gutted weight (438,260 lb (198,791 kg), round weight), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(i)(C).
On February 26, 2015, NMFS published a temporary rule in the
In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for vermilion snapper when the commercial quota for that portion of the fishing year has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for South Atlantic vermilion snapper for the January-June fishing period will have been reached by April 15, 2015. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic vermilion snapper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2015. The commercial quota for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is 394,829 lb (179,091 kg), gutted weight (438,260 lb (198,791 kg), round weight), for the July 1 through December 31, 2015, fishing period, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(ii)(C).
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having vermilion snapper onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such vermilion snapper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015. During the closure, the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(5) and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c)(1), apply to all harvest or possession of vermilion snapper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. During the closure, the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. As specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(i), the prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of vermilion snapper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 15, 2015, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for vermilion snapper would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(f)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for vermilion snapper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect vermilion snapper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would likely result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain serial number GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601E-11, M601E-11A, and M601F turboprop engines. This proposed AD was prompted by the determination that wear or cracking, and subsequent misalignment of the quill shaft of the engine and the power turbine (PT) shaft, may lead to rupture of the quill shaft, overspeed of the PT, and uncontained engine failure. This proposed AD would require inspection of the reduction gearbox and supporting cone. We are proposing this AD to prevent misalignment and rupture of the quill shaft, which could lead to overspeed of the PT, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015-0014, dated January 30, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
It has been identified that misalignment between the quill shaft of the engine and the Power Turbine (PT) shaft may lead to a rupture of the quill shaft.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to overspeed of the PT and consequent uncontained engine failure, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants and/or persons on the ground.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the M601 reduction gearbox and supporting cone. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or see
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the Czech Republic, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspection
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 16 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 112 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $21,376 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $494,336. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by June 9, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to certain serial number (S/N) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601E-11, M601E-11A, and M601F turboprop engines, as follows:
(1) Model M601E-11: S/N 833244, 841289, 852239, 861007, 881217, 884021, 892046, 892219, 894018, 903028, 913038, and 912023.
(2) Model M601E-11A: S/N 902004 and 883046.
(3) Model M601F: S/N 912001 and 924002.
This AD was prompted by the determination that wear or cracking, and subsequent misalignment of the quill shaft of the engine and the power turbine (PT) shaft, may lead to rupture of the quill shaft, overspeed of the PT, and uncontained engine failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent misalignment and rupture of the quill shaft, which could lead to overspeed of the PT, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 300 flight hours, or six months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the reduction gearbox and supporting cone. Use Appendix 2, paragraph 4., Inspection, of GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, to do your inspection.
(2) If any crack is detected on the quill shaft, PT shaft, or the supporting cone, or if the quill shaft or PT shaft involute spline wear exceeds 0.12 mm, then before further flight, replace each cracked or worn part with a part eligible for installation.
If you performed the actions of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD before the effective date of this AD using GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 1, dated December 23, 2014, or Initial Issue, dated June 27, 2014, you have met the requirements of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0014, dated January 30, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. ASB No. M601E-11/28, M601E-11A/15, M601F/26, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, is co-published as one document with M601D/44, M601D-1/29, M601D-11NZ/18, M601E/59, and M601E-21/26, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., using the contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranových 65, 199 02 Praha 9—Letňany, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222 538 222.
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by new occurrences of certain cracked main landing gear (MLG) rear hinge pins. This proposed AD would require identifying the serial number and part number of the MLG rear hinge pins, and replacement of pins or the MLG if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracked rear hinge pins, which could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequent injury to the occupants of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 26, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this proposed AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0074, dated March 21, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Prompted by cases of rupture of Main Landing Gear (MLG) rear hinge pin part number (P/N) D61000 encountered in service in 1994 and 1996, DGAC France issued [an] AD * * * for ATR 42 aeroplanes and [another] AD * * * for ATR 72 aeroplanes to require inspection and, depending on findings, corrective action.
Since those [French] ADs were issued, new occurrences of cracked rear hinge pin P/N D61000 were reported on ATR72 MLG.
The result of subsequent investigation revealed that the affected pins were subjected to a non-detected thermal abuse done in production during grinding process. Analysis also showed that other MLG pin P/N's could be affected by the same nonconformity.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequently injury to the occupants of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires inspection and, depending on findings, replacement of affected pins.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued the following service information.
• Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.
• Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG pins.
• Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG pins.
• Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, December 17, 2013, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.
• Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.
• Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014, which describes procedures for inspecting the MLG hinge pin.
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see
Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014, has a typo for the issue month listed in the service bulletin. The month listed for Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014, should read “January” instead of “Juanary.”
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $16,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,351,080, or $16,680 per product.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 26, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by new occurrences of certain cracked main landing gear (MLG) rear hinge pins. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked rear hinge pins, which could lead to MLG structural failure, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG and consequent injury to the occupants of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Model ATR72 airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect for the serial number of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) MLG rear hinge pins having part number (P/N) D61000. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG rear hinge pins can be conclusively determined from that review. If a rear hinge pin having P/N D61000 has a serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, December 17, 2013; as applicable: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the pin with a serviceable part as identified in paragraph (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.
For Model ATR72 airplanes: For purposes of paragraph (g) of this AD, a serviceable MLG rear hinge pin is a pin that is specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) A hinge pin that is not identified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.
(2) A hinge pin that has been inspected and reconditioned, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-213, dated December 16, 2013; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013; as applicable.
For Model ATR72 airplanes: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, inspect all LH and RH MLG pins for a part number and serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG pin can be conclusively determined from that review. If any affected MLG pin is found: At the earlier of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, replace
(1) No later than the next MLG overhaul scheduled after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since installation of the MLG on an airplane since new or since last overhaul, as applicable.
For Model ATR72 airplanes: For purposes of paragraph (i) of this AD, a serviceable MLG is one that incorporates pins specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) Pins that are not identified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.
(2) Pins that have been inspected and reconditioned in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-214, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-219, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.
(1) For Model ATR42 airplanes: Within the compliance time identified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect for any LH and RH MLG pins having a part number and serial number listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this identification if the part number and serial number of the LH and RH MLG pin can be conclusively determined from that review.
(i) No later than the next MLG overhaul scheduled after the effective date of this AD.
(ii) Within 20,000 flight cycles or 9 years, whichever occurs first, accumulated since installation of the MLG on an airplane since new or since last overhaul, as applicable.
(2) If the MLG pin having a part number and serial number listed in Messier- Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable; is found to be installed during the identification required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, within the compliance time identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, replace the MLG with a serviceable MLG, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA DOA. A serviceable MLG is a part that has pins as identified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Pins that are not listed in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.
(ii) Pins that have been inspected and reconditioned, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-215, dated January 13, 2014; or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-220, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 631-32-216, dated October 30, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0074, dated March 21, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a finding that certain barrel nuts installed at the vertical fin may be subject to stress corrosion and cracking. This proposed AD would require either repetitive inspections of vertical fin barrel nuts for corrosion or a magnetic check to identify certain barrel nuts, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corroded and loose barrel nuts that attach the vertical fin to body section 48, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the vertical fin attachment joint, loss of the vertical fin, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 26, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On May 16, 2003, we issued AD 2003-10-11, Amendment 39-13156 (68 FR 28703, May 27, 2003), to require replacement of H-11 steel barrel nuts with new Inconel barrel nuts, because of possible corrosion and cracking. AD 2003-10-11 applied to Model 767-200 and -300 airplanes, line numbers 1 through 574 inclusive.
We have received a report of H-11 steel barrel nuts installed on an airplane not included in the applicability of AD 2003-10-11, Amendment 39-13156 (68 FR 28703, May 27, 2003). Further investigation has revealed that airplanes with line numbers 575 through 681 had either H-11 steel or Inconel barrel nuts installed at the 16 vertical fin attachment points. Galvanic corrosion can occur on H-11 steel barrel nuts if moisture is present. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the H-11 steel barrel nuts that attach the vertical fin to body section 48, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the vertical fin attachment joint, loss of the vertical fin, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of vertical fin barrel nuts for corrosion or a magnetic check to identify certain barrel nuts, and corrective actions if necessary. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times. This service information is reasonably available; see
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service information identified previously include steps that are identified as RC because these steps have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
Steps that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 38 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate that replacing any barrel nut would take 1 work-hour, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the cost of replacement parts. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 26, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a finding that certain barrel nuts installed at the vertical fin may be subject to stress corrosion and cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked, corroded, or broken barrel nuts that attach the vertical fin to body section 48, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the vertical fin attachment joint, loss of the vertical fin, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014. Signs of corrosion include, but are not limited to, sealant cracks, sealant bulging, powder residue, and cracked barrel nuts.
(1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do internal and external detailed inspections of the barrel nuts and sealant for signs of corrosion, and do a torque check of the vertical stabilizer attachment bolts for loose barrel nuts.
(i) If corrosion or any loose barrel nut is found at any attachment point location, before further flight, replace the barrel nut with a new Inconel barrel nut.
(ii) If no corrosion or loose barrel nut is found at any attachment point location, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) Repeat the inspections and torque check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD is done at that attachment point location.
(B) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all barrel nuts with new Inconel barrel nuts.
(2) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a magnetic check to identify H-11 steel barrel nuts.
(i) If any H-11 steel barrel nut is found at any attachment point location, before further flight, do an internal and external detailed inspection of the barrel nut holes and sealant for signs of corrosion, and do a torque check of the vertical stabilizer attachment bolts for loose barrel nuts.
(A) If corrosion or any loose barrel nut is found, before further flight, replace the barrel nut with a new Inconel barrel nut.
(B) If no corrosion or loose barrel nut is found, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)(B)(
(
(
(ii) If no H-11 steel barrel nut is found at all attachment point locations, no further work is required by this paragraph.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0261, dated August 12, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Original Issue date of this Service Bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an H-11 steel barrel nut on the vertical stabilizer of any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) If any service information contains steps that are identified as RC, those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Proposed Interpretation
This action proposes to interpret our regulations to not apply to flight segments that are flown by a flightcrew consisting of only two pilots and no other flight crewmembers.
Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0881 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alex Zektser, Attorney, Regulations Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8018; email:
The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments, data, or views concerning this proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposal. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments and any late-filed comments if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of comments received.
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—
(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
(3) Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this proposal.
The FAA has been asked to provide two legal interpretations regarding the application of 14 CFR 121.521. Specifically, both interpretation requests present scenarios involving supplemental all-cargo part 121 operations that contain at least one international segment and make an election, under 14 CFR 121.513, to operate under the flight time limitations of § 121.515 and §§ 121.521 through 121.525.
Both scenarios involve, in part, at least one segment in which the aircraft would be flown by a flightcrew consisting solely of two pilots and no other flight crewmembers. Both
Normally, air carriers conducting all-cargo supplemental operations under part 121 must operate pursuant to the flight, duty, and rest provisions of §§ 121.503 through 121.509. However, supplemental air carriers conducting overseas and international all-cargo operations may elect, pursuant to § 121.513, to comply with the flight time limitations of § 121.515 and §§ 121.521 through 121.525 (commonly referred to as the “international rules”).
Section 121.521 governs the smallest-size flightcrew that can operate under these international rules. The regulatory text of § 121.521 unambiguously states that this section applies only to a “crew of two pilots
Because § 121.521 governs the smallest-size flightcrew that can operate under the international part 121 flight, duty, and rest rules for supplemental all-cargo operations and because § 121.521 only applies to a flightcrew that has at least three flight crewmembers, the FAA proposes to find that § 121.521 does not apply to a flightcrew of only two pilots and no other flight crewmembers. Under the proposed interpretation and consistent with the FAA's precedent, a flightcrew of only two pilots in a supplemental part 121 all-cargo operation would be subject to the provisions of § 121.503 and § 121.505, which, among other things, apply to a flightcrew consisting solely of two pilots.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to change the operating schedule that governs the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge, Mile 422.5, across the Missouri River at Atchison, KS. Under the proposed rule, the drawbridge will open on signal if at least a two-hour notification is given. This proposed rule allows the bridge to operate under the customary schedule that has been adopted by the waterway users.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 11, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-0358 using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Eric Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Bridge Branch, the Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this proposed rulemaking (USCG-2014-0358), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the three methods specified under
The Missouri River drawbridge operation regulations contained in 33 CFR 117.411 and 117.687 state that the draws of the bridges across the Missouri River shall open on signal; except during the winter season between the date of closure and the date of opening of the commercial navigation season as published by the Army Corp of Engineers, the draw need not open unless at least 24 hours advance notice is given.
The Union Pacific Railroad on April 29, 2009 requested the current operation regulations be changed from the open on signal requirement to a three-hour advance notice for drawspan openings for the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge, mile 422.5, in Atchison, KS. The request was denied by the Coast Guard because inconsistencies would be created with other drawbridges on the Missouri River resulting in an adverse effect to the waterway users.
On April 29, 2014 the Union Pacific Railroad requested to change the operation regulations on the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge, mile 422.5, across the Missouri River to a two-hour advance notice to open the drawspan. The Coast Guard was still concerned that a two-hour advance notice may still create an inconsistency with the other drawbridge openings on the Missouri River.
The Coast Guard and the Union Pacific Railroad further reviewed the request, along with the opening schedules for the other drawbridges on the Missouri River and concluded that a two-hour advance notice on drawspan openings of the Atchison Railroad Drawbridge would not create a consistency issue or not adversely affect navigation.
The Atchison Railroad Drawbridge crosses the Missouri River at mile 422.5 in Atchison, Kansas. Due to very limited drawspan openings and to codify the operating schedule that has been adopted by the waterway users, the Union Pacific Railroad requested a two-hour advance notice of opening the bridge's drawspan during the commercial navigation season.
The Union Pacific Railroad has documented the limited number of vessel openings per year at this bridge. This information is available at the Coast Guard Western Rivers, Bridge Branch; see the aforementioned contact information.
This rule proposes to add special operating requirements codifying the customary advance notice for openings of the Atchison Railroad Bridge under 33 CFR 117, Subpart B as required under 33 CFR 117.8. The proposed change will add a paragraph (b) to 33 CFR 117.411, a reference to this paragraph in 33 CFR 117.687, and allow for bridge drawspan openings to take place provided at least a two-hour advance notice is given. This change is based on the very limited requests for openings during the commercial navigation season.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action and does not require a full assessment. As a matter of custom in the area, commercial mariners already provide advance notice; therefore this rule proposes little, if any, impact on current navigation. Additionally, all vessels will be able to transit the bridge with advance notification.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule is neutral to all business entities operating on the waterway. As proposed, the rule simply requires a two-hour advance notice to open the bridge. As stated above, it is custom in the area to provide advance notice for a requested opening. This rule simply proposed to codify such notice already given as a customary practice. Therefore, this action will not have a significant impact on small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under Section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.)
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draws of the bridges across the Missouri River shall open on signal; except during the winter season between the date of closure and the date of opening of the commercial navigation season as published by the Army Corps of Engineers, the draw need not open unless at least 24 hours advance notice is given.
(b) The draw of the Atchison Railroad Bridge, Mile 422.5, Missouri River need not open unless a two-hour advance notice is given during the commercial navigation season.
The draws of the bridges, except for the Atchison Railroad Bridge, Mile 422.5, see § 117.411(b) for further details, across the Missouri River shall open on signal; except during the winter season between the date of closure and date of opening of the commercial navigation season as published by the Army Corps of Engineers, the draws need not open unless at least 24-hours advance notice is given.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of public hearings.
The United States Copyright Office will be holding public hearings as part of the sixth triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) concerning possible exemptions to the DMCA's prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The public hearings will be held in May 2014 in Los Angeles, California and Washington, DC. Parties interested in testifying at the public hearings are invited to submit requests to testify pursuant to the instructions set forth below.
The public hearings in Los Angeles are scheduled for May 19, 20 and 21, 2015, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The public hearings in Washington, DC are scheduled for May 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2015, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Requests to testify must be received by Monday, April 20, 2015. Once the schedule of hearing witnesses is finalized, the Office will notify all participants and post the times and dates of the hearings at
The Los Angeles hearings will be held in Room 1314 of the UCLA School of Law, 385 Charles E. Young Drive East, Los Angeles, CA 90095. The Washington, DC hearings will be held in the Mumford Room of the James Madison Building of the Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20540. Requests to testify should be submitted through the request form available at
Sarang V. Damle, Deputy General Counsel, at
On September 17, 2014, the Copyright Office published a Notice of Inquiry in the
At this time, the Office is announcing public hearings to be held in Los Angeles and Washington, DC to further consider the exemptions. The Office plans to convene panels of witnesses for the proposals to be considered, and may combine certain panels if the witnesses and/or key issues substantially overlap. The Office will schedule panels for particular exemptions in
Depending upon the number and nature of the requests to testify, and in light of the limited time and space available for the public hearings, the Office may not be able to accommodate all requests to testify. The Office will give preference to those who have submitted substantive evidentiary submissions in support of or opposition to a proposal. To the extent feasible, the Office encourages parties with similar interests to select a common representative to testify on their behalf.
All requests to testify must clearly identify:
• The name of the person desiring to serve as a witness.
• The organization or organizations represented, if any.
• Contact information (address, telephone, and email).
• The proposed class about which the person wishes to testify.
• A two- to three-sentence explanation of the testimony the witness expects to present.
• If the party is requesting the ability to demonstrate a use or a technology at the hearing, a description of the demonstration, including whether it will be prepared in advance or presented live, the approximate time required for such demonstration, and any presentation equipment that the person desires to use and/or bring to the hearing.
• The city in which the person prefers to testify (Los Angeles or Washington, DC). The Office will try to take this preference into account in scheduling the hearings, but cannot guarantee that the relevant panel will be convened in the preferred city. Participants who are unable to testify in a particular city or on a particular date should so indicate in the comment field of the request form.
Following receipt of the requests to testify, the Office will prepare agendas for the hearings listing the panels and witnesses, which will be circulated to hearing participants and posted at
Witnesses should expect the Office to have carefully studied all written comments, and the Office will expect witnesses to have done the same with respect to the classes for which they will be presenting. Witnesses will be given an opportunity to provide a brief (three- to five-minute) overview of their position at the outset of the panel. After that, the hearings will focus on legal or factual issues that are unclear or underdeveloped in the written record, as identified by the Office, as well as demonstrative evidence.
The Office stresses that factual information is critical to the rulemaking process, and encourages witnesses to provide real-world examples to support their arguments. In some cases, the best way to do this may be to provide a demonstration of a claimed noninfringing use or the technologies pertinent to a proposal. As noted above, a person wishing to make such a demonstration must include a request to do so with his or her request to testify, using the appropriate space on the form described above. To ensure proper documentation of the hearings, the Office will require that a copy of any audio, visual, or audiovisual materials that have been prepared in advance (
In addition to videography equipment, the Office expects to have a PC, projector, and screen in the hearing room to accommodate demonstrations. Beyond this equipment, witnesses are responsible for supplying and operating any other equipment needed for their demonstrations. Persons planning to bring additional electronic or audiovisual equipment must notify the Office at least five days in advance of their scheduled hearing date by emailing Stephen Ruwe, Assistant General Counsel, at
All hearings will be open to the public, but seating will be limited and will be provided on a first-come, first-serve basis. Witnesses and persons accompanying witnesses will be given priority in seating.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amends the EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to update policy, procedures, and contract clauses. The proposed rule updates the EPAAR clause
Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
• Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2012-0478, OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Thomas Valentino, Policy, Training, and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-4522; email address:
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The EPA reviewed EPAAR clause 1552.211-73,
This proposed rule amends the EPAAR to revise the following:
1. The EPAAR 1511.011-73 clause prescription is updated.
2. The clause title is revised as follows:
3. Paragraph (a) has been revised.
4. An expositional statement has been added to paragraph (c).
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore, not subject to review under the EO.
This 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 generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified 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 this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action revises a current EPAAR provision and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.
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.
This rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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 rule 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 as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have
Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution of Use” (66 FR 28335 (MAY 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in it's regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This proposed rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental affects.
Describing Agency Needs; Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses.
Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is proposed to be amended as set forth below:
Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).
The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 1552.211-73, Level of Effort—Cost Reimbursement Contract, in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).
5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
As prescribed in 1511.011-73, the contracting officer shall insert the following contract clause in cost-reimbursement contracts including cost contracts without fee, cost-sharing contracts, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts, cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts (CPIF), and cost-plus-award-fee contracts (CPAF).
(a) The Contractor shall perform all work and provide all required reports within the level of effort specified below. The Contractor shall provide __ direct labor hours for the base period, which represents the Government's best estimate of the level of effort to fulfill these requirements, and is provided for advisory and estimating purposes. The Government is only obligated to pay for direct labor hours used and corresponding fixed fee for labor hours completed.
(b) Direct labor includes personnel such as engineers, scientists, draftsmen, technicians, statisticians, and programmers, and not support personnel such as company management or data entry/word processing/ accounting personnel even though such support personnel are normally treated as direct labor by the Contractor. The level of effort specified in paragraph (a) includes Contractor, subcontractor, and consultant non-support labor hours.
(c) If the Contractor provides less than 90 percent of the level of effort specified for the base period or any optional period exercised, an equitable downward adjustment of the fixed fee, if any, for that period will be made. The downward adjustment will reduce the fixed fee by the percentage by which the total expended level of effort is less than 100% of that specified in paragraph (a). (For instance, if a hypothetical base-period LOE of 100,000 hours is being reduced to 70,000, the fixed fee shall also be reduced by the same 30%. Using a corresponding hypothetical base-period fixed fee pool of $300,000, the reduced fixed-fee amount is calculated as: $300,000 × (70,000 hours/100,000 hours) = $210,000.)
(d) The Government may require the Contractor to provide additional effort up to 110 percent of the level of effort for any period until the estimated cost for that period has been reached. However, this additional effort shall not result in any increase in the fixed fee, if any. If this is a cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) contract, the term “fee” in this paragraph means “base fee and incentive fee.” If this is a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract, the term “fee” in this paragraph means “base fee and award fee.”
(e) If the level of effort specified to be ordered during a given base or option period is not ordered during that period, that level of effort may not be accumulated and ordered during a subsequent period.
(f) These terms and conditions do not supersede the requirements of either the “Limitation of Cost” or “Limitation of Funds” clauses.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on various petitions to list eight species, reclassify one species, and delist one species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that these 10 petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we are initiating a review of the status of each of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. The status reviews for two species, the golden conure (which appears in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as the golden parakeet) and the northern spotted owl, will also serve as 5-year reviews for those species. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
To allow us adequate time to conduct the status reviews, we request that we receive information on or before June 9, 2015. Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit information on species for which a status review is being initiated by one of the following methods:
We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat.
(4) For the northern spotted owl, we specifically request information on:
(a) Evidence that any of the factors identified under Factor A are having
(b) Evidence that the West Nile virus or predation by barred owls have caused population-level impacts on northern spotted owls;
(c) Identification of shortcoming in existing regulations that are having population-level effects on the northern spotted owl;
(d) Evidence that competition with barred owls is having population-level effects on the northern spotted owl; and
(e) Evidence that global climate change is having population-level effects on the northern spotted owl.
(5) For those domestic (U.S.) species that are not listed, if, after the status review, we determine that listing is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act for those species that fall within the jurisdiction of the United States, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also specifically request data and information for Clear Lake hitch, Mojave shoulderband snail, relict dace, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, western pond turtle, and yellow-cedar on:
(a) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range occupied by the species;
(b) Where these features are currently found;
(c) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;
(d) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and
(e) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which we will subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see (2) under Request For Information, above).
We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither an endangered nor threatened species for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) The species is extinct;
(2) The species has recovered and is no longer an endangered or threatened species; or
(3) The original scientific or commercial data used at the time the species was classified, or the interpretation of such data, were in error.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as an “endangered species” or a “threatened species,” as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient for us to find that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an “endangered species” or “threatened species” under the Act.
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Clear Lake hitch (
On January 13, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife drafted a recommendation to the California Fish and Game Commission to list the Clear Lake hitch as threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. On September 25, 2014, we received a petition dated September 25, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Clear Lake hitch be listed as a endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Clear Lake hitch (
Thus, for the Clear Lake hitch, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Egyptian tortoise (
On June 9, 2014, we received a petition dated May 2014, from Friends of Animals, requesting that the Egyptian tortoise be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Egyptian tortoise (
Thus, for the Egyptian tortoise, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Golden conure (
On August 21, 2014, we received a petition dated August 20, 2014, from the American Federation of Aviculture, Inc., requesting that the golden conure be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the golden conure (
Thus, for the golden conure, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Long-tailed chinchilla (
On October 14, 2014, we received a petition dated October 7, 2014, from Friends of Animals, requesting that the long-tailed chinchilla be listed as a endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a November 17, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the long-tailed chinchilla (
Thus, for the long-tailed chinchilla, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Mohave shoulderband snail (
On January 31, 2014, we received a petition dated January 31, 2014, from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Mohave shoulderband snail be listed as a endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an April 4, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Mohave shoulderband snail (
Thus, for the Mojave shoulderband snail, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Northern spotted owl (
On August 21, 2012, we received a petition dated August 15, 2012, from Environmental Protection Information Center, requesting that the northern spotted owl (
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted for the northern spotted owl (
Thus, for the northern spotted owl, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Relict dace (
On June 27, 2014, we received a petition dated June 27, 2014, from Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, requesting that relict dace be listed as an endangered species under the Act on an emergency basis. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an August 25, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the relict dace (
Thus, for the relict dace, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (
On June 26, 2014, we received a petition dated June 26, 2014, from Gregory R. Ballmer and Kendall H. Osborne, requesting that San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly be listed as an endangered species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a September 12, 2014, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the species warranted emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (
Thus, for the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
Western pond turtle or Pacific pond turtle (
On July 11, 2012, we were petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity to list 53 amphibian and reptile species across the United States. The western pond turtle was one of the species petitioned for listing.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents
Thus, for the western pond turtle, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factor identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at
YellowYellow-cedar (
On June 24, 2014, we received a petition dated June 24, 2014, from Center for Biological Diversity, The Boat Company, Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community, and Greenpeace, requesting that yellow-cedar be listed as a endangered or threatenedspecies under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for yellow-cedar (
Thus, for yellow-cedar, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (see Request for Information, above).
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for Clear Lake hitch, Egyptian tortoise, golden conure, long-tailed chinchilla, Mojave shoulderband snail, northern spotted owl, relict dace, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, western pond turtle, and yellow-cedar present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Because we have found that the petitions present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue a 12-month finding in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service believes listing, reclassification, or delisting, as appropriate, is warranted.
It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding as to whether the petitioned action may be warranted differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to the Service's determination in a 12-month finding as to whether a petitioned action is in fact warranted. A 90-day finding is not based on a status review. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
The status reviews of golden conure and northern spotted owl will also serve as the 5-year reviews for thesetheses species. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in coordination with the State of Wyoming and other partners, propose to reestablish additional populations of the black-footed ferret (
We are also notifying the public that we are amending the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) to reflect the scientifically accepted historical range of the black-footed ferret. The revised historical range description includes Mexico. The historical range information in the List is informational, not regulatory.
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
•
•
We will post all comments on
Mark Sattelberg, Field Supervisor, Telephone: 307-772-2374. Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: BLACK-FOOTED FERRET QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, WY 82009. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.
We want any final rule resulting from this proposal to be as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite Tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule. Comments should be as specific as possible.
To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments, including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will become part of the supporting record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
We will post your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
We are specifically seeking comments concerning:
• The appropriateness of designating reintroduced populations of black-footed ferrets in Wyoming as NEPs;
• Threats to black-footed ferrets in the proposed NEP area that have not been considered in this proposed rule and that might affect a reintroduced population;
• The suitability of the proposed boundaries for this NEP;
• The effects of reintroducing black-footed ferrets on public and private land management activities such as ranching, recreation, energy development, and residential development; and
• The compatibility of this proposal and ongoing efforts to implement the black-footed ferret safe harbor agreement (SHA) in cooperation with non-federal landowners.
In accordance with our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities, which was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following publication in the
The black-footed ferret was listed as endangered throughout its range on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), and again on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491), under early endangered species legislation and was “grandfathered” under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Congress amended the Act in 1982, because species' reintroductions were difficult to achieve due to concerns over the rigid protection and prohibitions surrounding listed species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Although the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (Secretary) already had authority to conserve a species by
Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population a population of endangered or threatened species that has been or will be released into suitable natural habitat outside the species' current natural range (but within its probable historical range, absent a finding by the Director of the Service in the extreme case that the primary habitat of the species has been unsuitable and irreversibly altered or destroyed). With the experimental population designation, the relevant population is treated as threatened for purposes of section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species' designation elsewhere in its range. This approach allows us to develop tailored take prohibitions under section 4(d) of the Act that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. In these situations, the general regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the 10(j) rule that already exists for the black-footed ferret contains the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species.
Authorities under section 10(j) of the Act have been successfully used to reintroduce black-footed ferrets in other portions of their range, which historically included portions of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Saskatchewan, Canada, and Chihuahua, Mexico. Eleven of 24 reintroduction efforts, including the first ferret reintroduction at Shirley Basin, Wyoming, were established pursuant to section 10(j); seven reintroduction efforts were authorized via scientific recovery permits issued by the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A); and four sites were established via the SHA. Ferrets reintroduced at sites in Canada and Mexico are regulated under other authorities by their respective governments.
Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find, by regulation, that such release will further the conservation of the species. In making such a finding, the Service will use the best scientific and commercial data available to consider the following factors (see 49 FR 33893, August 27, 1984).
The captive-breeding population of black-footed ferrets is the primary repository of genetic diversity for the species. Ferrets are dispersed among six facilities, protecting the species from a single catastrophic event. Approximately 250 juvenile ferrets are produced annually through the captive breeding program; approximately 80 juveniles are retained annually for future captive breeding purposes, and the remaining juveniles are considered excess and are allocated for reintroduction or occasionally for research (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 81). Ferrets selected for reintroduction under this proposed rule will be genetically redundant to animals maintained for captive-breeding; hence any loss of reintroduced animals will not impact the genetic diversity of the species. Only ferrets that are surplus to the needs of the captive-breeding program are used for reintroduction into the wild. Therefore, any loss of an experimental population in the wild will not threaten the survival of the species as a whole.
The best available data indicate that reintroduction of black-footed ferrets into occupied prairie dog habitat in Wyoming is biologically feasible and will promote conservation of the species. Currently, we estimate a minimum of 102 breeding adult ferrets at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 2). Shirley Basin is one of four currently successful ferret reintroduction sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 22 and 73). We are confident that Wyoming can support additional successful reintroduction sites, based on the amount of available habitat and a history of successful ferret management at Shirley Basin since 1991.
Participation by as many of the States and Tribes within the black-footed ferret's historical range as possible is important to achieving recovery of the species. We consider occupied prairie dog habitat to be potential habitat for ferrets. Tribes have played an important role in ferret recovery in several areas of the species' historical range. However, we are not aware of any prairie dog complexes suitable for ferret reintroduction on or adjacent to Tribal lands in Wyoming. The nearest potential reintroduction sites are two white-tailed prairie dog complexes--Fifteen-mile Complex near Worland in Hot Springs County and Sweetwater Complex near Sweetwater Station in Fremont County (Luce 2008, pp. 29-30). Both sites are of intermediate potential for ferret reintroduction and are located approximately 19 miles (30 kilometers) from reservation boundaries. Wyoming currently contains more than 3 million acres (ac) (1,215,000 hectares (ha)) of prairie dog occupied habitat (Van Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). Consequently, Wyoming has the potential to play a significant role in recovery of the ferret.
We conclude that the effects of Federal, State, and private actions will not pose a substantial threat to black-footed ferret establishment and persistence in Wyoming because the best available information, including the past history of ferret reintroductions at other sites rangewide, indicates that activities currently occurring or likely to occur at prospective reintroduction sites in occupied prairie dog habitat within the proposed NEP area are compatible with ferret recovery (see subsequent discussion on management).
As set forth in 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations designating experimental populations under section 10(j) must provide: (1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be released,
Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate State fish and wildlife agencies, Tribes, local governmental entities, affected Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the Service; the affected State, Tribal, and Federal agencies; and persons holding any interest in land which may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we must determine whether the experimental population is
All reintroduction efforts are undertaken to move a species toward recovery. Recovery of the black-footed ferret will require participation by at least 9 of the 12 States within the species' historical range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 6). Wyoming contains 10 percent of the species' historical range in the United States (Ernst
The potential future loss of black-footed ferrets from Wyoming would not affect the species' survival throughout the remaining 90 percent of its range in the wild, or in captivity. We estimate that there are approximately 418 breeding adult ferrets in the wild, including approximately 102 breeding adults in the reintroduced population at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (24 percent of ferrets in the wild); there are a minimum of 280 breeding adults in captivity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 22 and 68). Animals lost during reintroduction efforts can be readily replaced through captive-breeding, which produces juvenile ferrets in excess of the numbers needed to maintain the captive-breeding population. Captive-breeding and reintroduction of surplus ferrets have occurred since 1991, with no apparent loss of reproductive capability in the wild observed to date. The loss of an experimental population in Wyoming will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of future survival of the ferret rangewide. Therefore, the Service is proposing to designate an NEP for the ferret throughout Wyoming.
For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened species when the NEP is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service, and Federal agency conservation requirements under section 7(a)(1) and Federal agency consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat.
When NEPs are located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit, then, for the purposes of section 7, we treat the population as proposed for listing and only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply. In these instances, NEPs provide additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed. The results of a conference are in the form of conservation recommendations that are optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or authorize activities. Because the NEP is, by definition, not essential to the continued existence of the species, the effects of proposed actions affecting the NEP will generally not rise to the level of jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. As a result, a formal conference will likely not be required for black-footed ferrets established within the proposed NEP area in Wyoming. Nonetheless, some agencies voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect a species proposed for listing. Activities that are not carried out, funded, or authorized by Federal agencies are not subject to provisions or requirements in section 7.
Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be designated for any experimental population that is determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate critical habitat for a reintroduced species in areas where we establish an NEP.
The endangered black-footed ferret is the only ferret species native to the Americas (Anderson
The black-footed ferret depends almost exclusively on prairie dogs for food and on prairie dog burrows for shelter (Hillman 1968, p. 438; Biggins 2006, p. 3). Historical habitat of the ferret coincided with the ranges of the black-tailed prairie dog (
Black-footed ferrets historically occurred throughout Wyoming (except for the extreme northwest corner of the State) within black-tailed prairie dog habitat in the eastern portion of the State and white-tailed prairie dog habitat in the west (Anderson
All currently known black-footed ferrets in the wild are the result of reintroduction efforts. As previously discussed, only ferrets that are surplus to the needs of the captive-breeding program are used for reintroduction into the wild. There have been 24 ferret reintroduction projects, beginning in 1991, at Shirley Basin in the southeastern portion of Wyoming. Shirley Basin contains the only ferret population in Wyoming.
The downlisting criteria for the black-footed ferret include establishing at least 1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 or more populations, in at least 6 of 12 States within the historical range of the species, with no fewer than 30 breeding adult ferrets in any population; delisting criteria include establishing at least 3,000 free-ranging breeding adults in 30 or more populations, in at least 9 of 12 States within the historical range of the species, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in any population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 61-62). In our recovery plan for the ferret, we suggest recovery guidelines for the States that are proportional to the amount of prairie dog habitat historically present. A proportional share for Wyoming would include approximately 171 free-ranging breeding adult ferrets to meet their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for downlisting and 341 breeding adults to meet their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for delisting; each ferret population should contain at least 30 breeding adults to be considered viable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 8).
Currently, we estimate a minimum of 102 breeding adult black-footed ferrets at Shirley Basin, Wyoming (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 2). Shirley Basin is one of four currently successful ferret reintroduction sites--other successful sites include two in South Dakota and one in Arizona (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 73). We are confident that Wyoming can support additional successful reintroduction sites, based on the amount of available habitat (see the following section) and a history of successful ferret management at Shirley Basin since 1991. Additional viable ferret populations within Wyoming will aid recovery of the species.
In 2013, the Service developed a programmatic SHA to encourage non-federal landowners to voluntarily undertake conservation activities on their properties that would benefit the black-footed ferret (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). This SHA is applicable across the 12 States in the ferret's historical range, including Wyoming. Landowners are provided assurances that additional restrictions will not be required, as long as the landowner complies with provisions outlined in the SHA and detailed in a Reintroduction Plan developed for the enrolled lands. The goals of the SHA and the proposed 10(j) are similar--achieve recovery of the ferret. However, conservation activities are more tailored to the specific site under the SHA. There are also differences between SHA and 10(j) regarding regulations under the Act (statutory and regulatory framework are discussed in the Background section, above). The decision of whether to use 10(j) or the SHA is at the landowner's discretion.
The proposed NEP for Wyoming would be Statewide, with the exception of the two areas where an NEP designation for black-footed ferret already exists (see below). Furthermore, suitable habitat for black-footed ferret reintroduction in the proposed NEP would likely be limited to Big Horn, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Hot Springs, Johnson, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, Platte, Sheridan, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta, Washakie, and Weston Counties because these counties have sufficient prairie dog habitat to support viable ferret populations. If this rule is finalized as proposed, any ferrets found in Wyoming would be considered part of an NEP. There are many historical records of ferrets within the proposed NEP (Anderson
Several sites in Wyoming are suitable for reintroduction of black-footed ferrets
The Service and its partners have initiated 24 black-footed ferret reintroduction projects since 1991. These projects have experienced varying degrees of success. However, all reintroduction efforts have contributed to our understanding of the species' needs. Recovery of the species is a dynamic process that requires adaptive management.
Some transfers of individual black-footed ferrets between populations will likely be necessary in perpetuity to maintain genetic diversity in the face of habitat fragmentation and as a management tool for sylvatic plague (until additional plague vaccines can be adapted for field use). Nevertheless, we believe that recovery can be achieved through a combination of expansion of ferret populations at existing reintroduction sites and reintroduction of ferrets at new sites, both of which are possible if conservation of prairie dog occupied habitat and disease management are aggressively pursued.
Participation by all States within the historical range of the black-footed ferret is important to maximize resilience of ferret populations in the wild and to allow for an equitable distribution of the responsibility for achieving recovery goals. Federal, State, and local agencies in Wyoming have been active participants in ferret recovery since the last wild population was found at Meeteetse in 1981. With an estimated 102 breeding adult ferrets already established at Shirley Basin, suggested numerical recovery guidelines for Wyoming of 171 breeding adults to support rangewide downlisting and 341 breeding adults to support rangewide delisting are achievable. Meeting their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for downlisting would require establishing one additional large reintroduction site similar to Shirley Basin or two to three smaller sites. Meeting their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for delisting would require establishing two large sites, six small sites, or a combination of large, medium, and small sites in addition to the sites previously established for meeting their portion of the rangewide numerical goal for downlisting. The Recovery Plan estimates that 35,000 ac (14,000 ha) of purposefully managed prairie dog occupied habitat will be needed to meet Wyoming's portion of the rangewide habitat goal for downlisting and 70,000 ac (28,000 ha) to meet their portion of the rangewide habitat goal for delisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Table 8). This equates to purposeful management of approximately 2 percent of prairie dog occupied habitat in Wyoming to meet their portion of the rangewide habitat goal for delisting.
Sustaining black-footed ferret numbers during periodic outbreaks of sylvatic plague will require ongoing management, potentially including dusting prairie dog burrows with flea control powder and vaccinating ferrets prior to release. Additionally, research is currently underway investigating the potential of supporting ferrets at reintroduction sites by providing vaccine to wild prairie dogs via oral bait.
The Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and other partners propose to reintroduce the black-footed ferret at one or more additional sites within the species' historical range in Wyoming. These reintroduced populations would be managed as a NEP. If this proposed rule is finalized, the WGFD, in cooperation with the Service, would have primary management responsibilities for ferret reintroductions in Wyoming. Based upon the past history of successful management at Shirley Basin, Wyoming, and the substantial amount of occupied prairie dog habitat available for additional reintroduction of ferrets, we believe there is a high likelihood of population establishment and survival in Wyoming.
The black-footed ferret rangewide population declined for three principal reasons: (1) A major conversion of native rangeland to cropland, particularly in the eastern portion of the species' range, beginning in the late 1800s; (2) poisoning of prairie dogs to reduce competition with domestic livestock for forage, beginning in the early 1900s; and (3) the inadvertent introduction of sylvatic plague, which causes mortality to both ferrets and prairie dogs, beginning in the 1930s. The combined effects of these three factors resulted in a rangewide decrease in the amount of habitat occupied by prairie dogs from approximately 100 million ac (40.5 million ha) historically to 1.4 million ac (570,000 ha) in the 1960s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, pp. 23-24). This habitat loss and fragmentation resulted in a corresponding decrease in ferrets, which require relatively large areas of prairie dog occupied habitat to maintain viable populations. By the 1960s, only two remnant ferret populations remained--in Mellette County, South Dakota, and Meeteetse, Wyoming (Lockhart
Wyoming has had less rangeland converted to cropland than most other States within the historical range of the black-footed ferret (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2005, Table 1). Consequently, prairie dog poisoning and sylvatic plague are likely the two primary reasons for the extirpation of ferrets from the State. Extensive poisoning of prairie dogs had begun in Wyoming by 1916 (Clark 1973, p. 89), and plague was present in Wyoming by 1936 (Eskey and Haas 1940, p. 4). Occupied prairie dog habitat reached a low in Wyoming in the early 1960s, when approximately 64,336 ac (26,056 ha) were reported (U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1961, Table 1). However, large-scale poisoning of prairie dogs no longer occurs, and poisoning is more closely regulated than it was historically. Improved plague management, including dusting prairie dog burrows with insecticide to control fleas (the primary vector for plague transmission) and the development of vaccines that prevent plague in prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets, is also being used.
The most recent surveys estimate 3,123,094 ac (1,264,853 ha) of occupied prairie dog habitat in Wyoming (Van Pelt 2013, pp. 8 and 14). This considerable increase over the past 50 years indicates that there has been a reduction in threats and improved management of prairie dogs. This increases the likelihood of successful reintroduction of ferrets in Wyoming.
The Service will cooperate with other Federal agencies, WGFD, Tribes, landowners, and other stakeholders to develop, implement, and maintain long-term site management before, during, and after releases. Partners will collect habitat data for site evaluation and documentation of baseline conditions and develop management plans for prairie dogs and plague prior to any release of black-footed ferrets. All applicable laws regulating the protection of ferrets will be followed (see
All reintroduction efforts will follow techniques described in Roelle
Eighteen black-footed ferrets were captured from the last wild population at Meeteetse, Wyoming, in 1985-1987, and used to initiate a captive-breeding program (Lockhart
Black-footed ferrets used to establish any experimental population in the proposed Wyoming NEP will either be translocated wild-born kits from another self-sustaining reintroduced population (such as Shirley Basin) or come from one of six captive-breeding populations currently housed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center near Wellington, Colorado; the Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Park, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the Louisville Zoological Garden, Louisville, Kentucky; the Smithsonian Biology Conservation Institute, Front Royal, Virginia; the Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, Arizona; or the Toronto Zoo, Toronto, Ontario.
The Service and its partners maintain a captive-breeding population of approximately 280 breeding adult black-footed ferrets in order to provide a sustainable source of ferrets for reintroduction. The captive-breeding facilities produce approximately 250 juvenile ferrets annually. Currently, approximately 80 juveniles are retained annually at these facilities for future captive-breeding purposes. The remaining juveniles are allocated annually for reintroduction, or occasionally for research (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, p. 81). Therefore, there will be no effects on donor populations beyond those which are intended and accounted for in the management of wild or captive populations.
Additional successful reintroductions of black-footed ferrets are necessary for recovery of the species. We propose that any future releases of ferrets in Wyoming be designated as part of an NEP because of the need for increased management flexibility, which will encourage landowner participation and alleviate concerns regarding possible land use restrictions. The existing 10(j) rules for the ferret exempt from the section 9 take prohibitions any take of ferrets that is accidental and incidental to otherwise lawful activities. We provide this exemption to this proposed 10(j) because we believe, based upon experience at previous reintroduction sites, that incidental take associated with otherwise lawful activities such as ranching and energy development will be low. Poisoning of prairie dogs can occur in black-tailed prairie dog habitat and could result in incidental take of ferrets. However, economic constraints have typically minimized the extent of poisoning in recent years compared to what occurred historically. We will ensure, as confirmed through our section 10 permitting authority and the section 7 consultation process, that the use of ferrets from the donor population (either the captive-breeding population or a self-sustaining wild population) for release into the proposed Wyoming NEP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species in the wild.
This NEP designation is justified because no adverse effects to extant wild or captive black-footed ferret populations will result from release of progeny from either a wild or captive population onto a new reintroduction site. The only potential adverse effect would be to ferrets at a new reintroduction site, if a ferret population proves difficult to establish. However, we expect that reintroduction efforts into the proposed Wyoming NEP will result in the successful establishment of one or more self-sustaining populations, which will contribute to the recovery of the species.
If this rule is finalized as proposed, the Service will coordinate closely with WGFD and other partners in the management of any black-footed ferrets in Wyoming that are reintroduced under section 10(j) authorities. Management of ferret populations in the proposed Wyoming NEP area would be guided by provisions in management plans developed in cooperation with partners (WGFD) and stakeholders such as U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, or potentially affected Tribes.
We conclude that the effects of Federal, State, and private actions will not pose a substantial threat to black-footed ferret establishment and persistence in Wyoming because management activities--primarily ranching and energy development--currently occurring at prospective reintroduction sites in occupied prairie dog habitat within the proposed NEP area are compatible with ferret recovery, provided lethal control of prairie dogs does not reduce prairie dog occupied habitat to the extent that the viability of any potential ferret population is compromised (a minimum of 1,500 ac (608 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat or 3,000 ac (1,215 ha) of white-tailed or Gunnison's prairie dog occupied habitat). This conclusion is based upon our past experience at ferret reintroduction sites in Wyoming and elsewhere throughout the species' range. The best available information indicates that future ranching activities and energy development also would be compatible with ferret recovery. Most of the area containing suitable release sites with high potential for ferret establishment is managed by the BLM, the USFS, or private landowners and is currently protected through the following mechanisms:
(1) Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701
(2) National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600
(3) Wyoming State Law--The responsibilities of WGFD are defined in Wyoming Statute section 23-1-103, which instructs the WGFD to provide an adequate and flexible system for the control, management, protection, and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. The Statute defines the black-footed ferret as a protected animal. The WGFD also defines the ferret as a “species of greatest conservation need” (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010, pp. IV-2-10-IV-2-13). The Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan states that the current legal designation for the ferret (endangered) precludes the ability to initiate additional reintroduction attempts outside of the existing 10(j) at Shirley Basin; however, cooperative approaches to eliminate legal hurdles that preclude additional reintroduction sites should be developed (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010, pp. IV-2-10—IV-2-11). This proposed rule is being developed in cooperation with the State to address those legal barriers and initiate additional ferret reintroductions in Wyoming. The WGFD has experience in managing the ferret at the Shirley Basin Reintroduction site. Therefore, we anticipate appropriate management by WGFD on any future ferret reintroduction sites in Wyoming.
Management issues related to the black-footed ferret proposed Wyoming NEP that have been considered include:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Nearly all of the aforementioned species have habitat requirements such as forests, dunes, wetlands, or river systems that differ from the grassland prairie habitat requirements for the black-footed ferret. The only species that may be affected by reintroduction projects for the ferret in the proposed Wyoming NEP, other than the ferret, is the greater sage-grouse. The greater sage-grouse requires large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush (Connelly
(f)
Reintroduction Effectiveness Monitoring--Partners will monitor population demographics and potential sources of mortality, including plague, annually for 5 years following the last release using spotlight surveys, snow tracking, other visual survey techniques, and possibly radio-telemetry of some individuals. Thereafter, demographic and genetic surveys will be completed periodically to track population status. Surveys will incorporate methods to monitor breeding success and long-term survival rates. In general, the Service anticipates that monitoring will be conducted by the lead for each reintroduction site, which in Wyoming will be the WGFD and participating partners. The WGFD will present monitoring results in their annual reports.
Donor Population Monitoring--Ferrets used for reintroduction will either be from the captive-breeding population or translocated from another viable reintroduction site. Ferrets in the captive-breeding population are managed and monitored in accordance with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Black-footed Ferret Species Survival Plan (SSP®). A breeding population of 280 animals will be maintained to provide a sustainable source of ferrets for reintroduction. The AZA SSP® Husbandry Manual provides up-to-date protocols for the care, propagation, preconditioning, and transportation of captive ferrets and is used at all participating captive-breeding facilities. Ferrets may also be translocated from other reintroduction sites (which also originated from captive sources), provided their removal will not create adverse impacts upon the donor population and provided appropriate permits are issued in accordance with our regulations (50 CFR 17.22) prior to their removal. Population monitoring will be conducted at all donor sites.
Monitoring Impacts to Other Listed Species--We do not expect impacts to other federally listed species (see section (e) discussion, above). The greater sage-grouse, a candidate species, is the only species with habitat that might overlap with the black-footed ferret. However, we do not expect ferret reintroduction efforts to adversely impact greater sage-grouse for the reasons previously discussed. The WGFD conducts annual monitoring of the greater sage-grouse Statewide. Additional monitoring will occur on non-federal lands enrolled in the Wyoming Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the greater sage-grouse and on Federal lands enrolled in the Wyoming Candidate
Based on the above information, and using the best scientific and commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find that releasing black-footed ferrets into the proposed Wyoming NEP will further the conservation of the species, but that this population is not essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild.
In accordance with our policy on peer review, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will provide copies of this proposed rule to three or more appropriate and independent specialists in order to solicit comments on the scientific data and assumptions relating to the supportive biological and ecological information for this proposed NEP designation. The purpose of such review is to ensure that the proposed NEP designation is based on the best scientific information available. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period and will consider their comments and information on this proposed rule during preparation of a final determination.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5. U.S.C. 601
The area that would be affected if this proposed rule is adopted includes release sites in Wyoming and adjacent areas in Wyoming into which black-footed ferrets may disperse. Because of the regulatory flexibility for Federal agency actions provided by the NEP designation and the exemption for incidental take, we do not expect this rule to have significant effects on any activities on Federal, State, Tribal, or private lands within the NEP. In regard to section 7(a)(2), the population is treated as proposed for listing, and Federal action agencies are not required to consult on their activities, unless the ferret is located within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park Service. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species. However, because the proposed NEP is, by definition, not essential to the survival of the species, conferring will likely not be required for ferret populations within the NEP area. Furthermore, the results of a conference are advisory in nature and do not restrict agencies from carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities. In addition, section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs to further the conservation of listed species, which would apply on any lands within the NEP area. As a result, and in accordance with these regulations, some modifications to proposed Federal actions within the NEP area may occur to benefit the ferret, but we do not expect projects to be halted or substantially modified as a result of these regulations.
If adopted, this proposal would broadly authorize incidental take of the black-footed ferret within the NEP area. The regulations implementing the Act define “incidental take” as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity such as agricultural activities and other rural development, camping, hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads and highways, and other activities in the NEP area that are in accordance with Federal, State, Tribal, and local laws and regulations. Intentional take for purposes other than authorized data collection or recovery purposes would not be permitted. Intentional take for research or recovery purposes would require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit under the Act.
The principal activities on private property near the NEP area are ranching and energy development. We believe the presence of the black-footed ferret would not affect the use of lands for these purposes because there would be no new or additional economic or regulatory restrictions imposed upon States, non-Federal entities, or members of the public due to the presence of the ferret, and Federal agencies would only have to comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the Act in these areas. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to have any significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands within the NEP area.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) If adopted, this proposal would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. We have determined and certify under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
(2) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year (
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule would allow for the take of reintroduced black-footed ferrets when such take is incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as recreation (
A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule (1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of a listed species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered whether this proposed rule has significant Federalism effects and have determined that a federalism summary impact statement is not required. This rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed rule with the affected resource agencies in Wyoming. Achieving the recovery goals for this species would contribute to its eventual delisting and its return to State management. No intrusion on State policy or administration is expected; roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change; and fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The proposed rule operates to maintain the existing relationship between the State and the Federal Government and is being undertaken in coordination with the State of Wyoming. Therefore, this rule does not have significant Federalism effects or implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under the provisions of Executive Order 13132.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
In compliance with all provisions of NEPA, we have prepared a draft environmental assessment on this action, which is available for public review: (1) in person at the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) and (2) online at
In accordance with the presidential memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 229511), Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249), and the Department of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that Tribal lands overlap the proposed Wyoming NEP in portions of Fremont and Hot Springs Counties. However, participation in black-footed ferret recovery is entirely voluntary. If suitable habitat for ferret recovery is available, non-Federal landowners, including Tribes, may choose to either not participate, or to participate through authorities under 10(j), 10(a)(1)(A), or the SHA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). If ferrets were reintroduced on non-tribal lands adjacent to Tribal lands and subsequently dispersed onto Tribal lands, the aforementioned authorities would provide a more relaxed regulatory situation under the Act through allowances for incidental take. However, as stated previously, we are not aware of any prairie dog complexes suitable for ferret reintroduction on or adjacent to Tribal lands. The nearest potential reintroduction sites are two white-tailed prairie dog complexes--Fifteen-mile Complex near Worland in Hot Springs County and Sweetwater Complex near Sweetwater Station in Fremont County (Luce 2008, pp. 29-30). Both sites are of intermediate potential for ferret reintroduction and are located approximately 19 miles (30 kilometers) from reservation boundaries. We have communicated this information to the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes in Wyoming in letters offering government-to-government consultation.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use because energy development is compatible with black-footed ferret recovery. Because this action is not a significant energy action, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available at
The authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the Service's Mountain-Prairie Region and the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(g) * * *
(1) The black-footed ferret populations identified in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) through (viii) of this section are nonessential experimental populations. We will manage each of these populations, and each reintroduction site within the Wyoming NEP, in accordance with their respective management plans.
(6) * * *
(i) Report such taking in Wyoming, including the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow experimental population area, to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming (telephone: 307/772-2374).
(9) * * *
(viii) The Wyoming Experimental Population Area encompasses most of the State of Wyoming. The boundaries of the nonessential experimental population include all areas in the State of Wyoming outside of the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area (see paragraph (g)(9)(i)) and the small portion of Wyoming included as part of the Northwestern Colorado/Northeastern Utah Experimental Population Area (see paragraph (g)(9)(v)). Any black-footed ferret found within the Wyoming Experimental Population Area will be considered part of the nonessential experimental population after the first breeding season following the first year of black-footed ferret release. A black-footed ferret occurring outside of the State of Wyoming would initially be considered as endangered, but may be captured for genetic testing. If necessary, disposition of the captured animal may occur in the following ways:
(A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from the experimental population, we may return it to the reintroduction area or to a captive-breeding facility.
(B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the experimental population, we will place it in captivity under an existing contingency plan.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice; correction.
The Foreign Agricultural Service published a notice on April 6, 2015 that gave notice of the intent to renew the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade and the six Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees for Trade. Nominations for persons to serve on these seven committees were requested. The document contained four minor errors.
Josephine Liu, 202-720-9292.
In the
Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris), operator of Subzone 167B, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility located in Osceola, Wisconsin. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 30, 2015.
Polaris already has authority to produce spark-ignition internal combustion engines (up to 1,050 cc's) for snowmobiles, personal watercraft and all-terrain vehicles, as well as authority to produce engines for motorcycles. The current request would add certain foreign-status components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status 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 Polaris from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Polaris would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to spark-ignition internal combustion engines (free) for the foreign status components and materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority.
Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: Steel pins; input shafts; cylinder heads; cannonball heads; spring retainers; shift forks; compensators; pulleys; gears; metal gaskets; voltage regulators; position crank sensors; engine control units and bases; wiring harnesses; roller followers; gears for engines; shafts for engines; sleeves; sliders; counter shafts; shift forks; main shafts; output shafts; ratchet shifters; retainers; shift drums; pinions; water temperature sensors; and, thermostats (duty rate ranges from free to 2.8%).
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 20, 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 Pierre Duy at
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to reorganize FTZ 23 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that would terminate authority for Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 if no foreign-status merchandise is admitted for a
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Andrew Huston, Office VII, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On November 3, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from the United Arab Emirates covering the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department initiated the instant review on December 23, 2014 and Petitioners withdrew their request on March 23, 2015, which is within the 90-day period and thus is timely. Because Petitioners' withdrawal of their requests for review is timely and because no other party requested a review of Flex, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Flex, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). JBF's request for a review of itself has not been withdrawn. As such, the instant review will continue with respect to JBF.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess ADs on all appropriate entries. Subject merchandise of Flex will be assessed ADs at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated ADs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of ADs prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the ADs occurred and the subsequent increase in the amount of ADs assessed.
This notice also serves as a final 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(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 7, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
Cindy Robinson or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-6071, respectively.
On October 7, 2014, the Department published the
On November 4, 2014, Super Impex submitted its case brief. On November 7, 2014, Petitioners submitted their case brief.
On January 22, 2015, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review to April 6, 2015.
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Based on AR Printing's assertion of no shipments and no information received to the contrary from CBP, we preliminarily determined that AR Printing had no shipments to the United States during the POR.
In our
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of this review, the Department determines the following dumping margin for Super Impex during the POR:
We will disclose calculation memoranda used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 and the
Consistent with the Department's refinement to its assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Super Impex for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 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) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Super Impex will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the original antidumping investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
In 2005, the Governments of the United States and India established the U.S.-India CEO Forum. This notice announces membership opportunities for appointment or reappointment as representatives to the U.S. Section of the Forum's private sector Committee.
Applications should be received no later than 30 days after publication of this Notice.
Please send requests for consideration to Valerie Dees, Noor Sclafani, and Jed Diemond at the Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of
Valerie Dees, Director, Office of South Asia, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-0477.
The U.S.-India CEO Forum, consisting of both private and public sector members, brings together leaders of the respective business communities of the United States and India to discuss issues of mutual interest, particularly ways to strengthen the economic and commercial ties between the two countries, and to communicate their joint recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments. The Forum will have U.S. and Indian co-chairs; the Secretary of Commerce and the Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs will co-chair the Forum on the U.S. side. The Forum will include a Committee comprising private sector members. The Committee will be composed of two Sections, with the U.S. section consisting of up to 17 members from the private sector representing the views and interests of the private sector business community in the United States. Each government will appoint the members to its respective Section. The Committee will provide recommendations to the two governments and their senior officials that reflect private sector views, needs, and concerns about the creation of an environment in which their respective private sectors can partner, thrive, and enhance bilateral commercial ties to expand trade and economic links between the United States and India. The Committee will work in tandem with, and provide input to, the U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue.
Candidates are currently being sought for membership on the U.S. Section of the Committee. Each candidate must be the Chief Executive Officer or President (or have a comparable level of responsibility) of a U.S.-owned or controlled company that is incorporated in and has its main headquarters located in the United States and is currently doing business in both India and the United States. Each candidate also must be a U.S. citizen or otherwise legally authorized to work in the United States and be able to travel to India and locations in the United States to attend official Forum meetings as well as U.S. Section meetings. In addition, the candidate may not be a registered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
Evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section by eligible individuals will be based on the following criteria:
• A demonstrated commitment by the individual's company to the Indian market either through exports or investment.
• A demonstrated strong interest in India and its economic development.
• The ability to offer a broad perspective and business experience to the discussions.
• The ability to address cross-cutting issues that affect the entire business community.
• The ability to initiate and be responsible for activities in which the Forum will be active.
• Prior work by the applicant on the U.S. Section of the Committee.
The evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section will be undertaken by a committee of staff from multiple U.S. Government agencies. Members will be selected on the basis of who best will carry out the objectives of the Forum as stated in the first paragraph under Supplementary Information, above. The U.S. Section of the Committee should also include members who represent a diversity of business sectors and geographic locations. To the extent possible, Section members also should include representation from small, medium, and large firms.
U.S. Section members will receive no compensation for their participation in Forum-related activities. Individual members will be responsible for all travel and related expenses associated with their participation in the Forum, including attendance at Committee and Section meetings. It is anticipated that the next Forum meeting will be held later in 2015. The U.S. and Indian Sections should be prepared to work together ahead of that time to prepare recommendations to the U.S. and Indian governments. Only appointed members may participate in official Forum meetings; substitutes and alternates will not be designated. U.S. Section members will normally serve for two-year terms but may be reappointed. In the event of a vacancy after members of the U.S. Section are appointed, candidates not previously selected may be considered to fill the vacancy based on material submitted in response to this notice.
To be considered for membership in the U.S. Section, please submit the following information as instructed in the
Notice of Application for Amendment of the Export Trade Certificate of Review for the Corn Refiners Association; Application No. 02-1A003.
The Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”) of the International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application for an Amendment of an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed application and requests comments relevant to whether the amended Certificate should be issued.
Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.
An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 22027-F, Washington, DC 20230.
Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 02-1A003.”
A summary of the current application follows.
HFCS for which tariff-rate quota (TRQ) rights are allocated will be exported only to Mexico.
The CRA will manage the system as set forth below for allocating rights to ship under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) permitting duty-free entry of U.S. HFCS into Mexico. The CRA shall permit any producer of HFCS in the United States to become a member of the association for purposes of receiving TRQ rights under this system and shall seek an amendment of this Certificate to make such a producer a Member under this Certificate.
The CRA will contract with an independent third-party Administrator who will bear responsibility for administering the TRQ System, subject to general oversight and supervision by the Board of Directors of the CRA. The Administrator may not be otherwise related to the CRA or any Member or in any way engaged in the production, distribution or sale of HFCS.
The Administrator shall allocate TRQ rights based on the share each Member's U.S. HFCS production capacity represents of total U.S. HFCS production capacity. The Administrator may advise each Member individually of the quantity of TRQ rights allocated to that Member. In accordance with those allocations, the Administrator shall, upon the request of a Member, issue to the Member evidence of TRQ rights to ship a specified quantity of U.S. HFCS duty-free to Mexico up to the outstanding total of the Member's allocation. Evidence of TRQ rights issued by the Administrator shall be freely transferable. Transfers of TRQ rights are subject to the normal application of the antitrust laws.
Each Member may provide to the Administrator information regarding its capacity to produce HFCS in the United States for the purpose of calculating the Member's allocation of TRQ rights. Any non-public, company-specific business information or data submitted by an applicant for membership, by a Member, or by any other person in connection with the TRQ System shall be marked “confidential” and submitted to the Administrator, who shall maintain its confidentiality. The Administrator shall not disclose such confidential information to any Member other than the submitter, or to any officers, agents, or employees of any Member other than the submitter, and shall not disclose such confidential information to any other person except to another neutral third party as necessary to make the determination for which the information was submitted, to allocate TRQ quantities, or in connection with reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce as required by the Certificate or the arbitration of a dispute.
The CRA will provide to the U.S. Government and the Government of Mexico whatever information and consultations may be useful in order to facilitate cooperation between the governments concerning the implementation and operation of the TRQ System. Furthermore, directly or through the U.S. Government, the CRA will endeavor to accommodate any information requests from the Government of Mexico (while protecting confidential information entrusted to the Administrator), and will consult with the Government of Mexico as appropriate. All such information and consultations shall be subject to the provision on Confidential Information (above) and the Terms and Conditions described in the Certificate.
The members of CRA that will be Members under the Certificate within the meaning of 15 CFR 325.2(1) after the amendment:
1. Archer Daniels Midland Company
2. Cargill, Incorporated
3. Ingredion, Incorporated (Ingredion acquired Penford Corporation, which was a Member. Ingredion was formerly known as Corn Products International, Inc., which was a Member and which acquired National Starch and Chemical Company, which was a Member.)
4. Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.
Neutral third-party, as used in this Certificate of Review, means a party not related to CRA or any Member and who is not engaged in the production, distribution or sale of HFCS.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Shane Subler, 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) 482-0189.
On January 20, 2010, the Department published the CVD order on OCTG from the PRC.
On December 3, 2014, Maverick Tube Corporation (Maverick) timely notified the Department of its intent to participate.
On December 15, 2014, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) likewise timely notified the Department of its intent to participate.
This order covers OCTG. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the order.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
In the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have addressed all issues that parties raised in this review. The issues include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and the net countervailable subsidies likely to prevail if the Department revoked the order.
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders 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 the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the SSC Socio-Economic Panel. See
The SSC Socio-Economic Panel will meet from 8 a.m. until 12 noon on Tuesday, April 28, 2015. The SSC will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 28, 2015; from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 29, 2015; and from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Thursday, April 30, 2015.
The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Airport Hotel, 4831 Tanger Outlet Boulevard, North Charleston, SC 29418; telephone: (800) 503-5762 or (843) 744-4422; fax: (843) 744-4472.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The following items will be discussed and considered by the SSC Socio-Economic Panel and the SSC during this meeting:
1. Regulatory Amendment 16 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) addressing modifications to the current seasonal closure and gear modifications for the black sea bass pot fishery
2. Regulatory Amendment 23 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing management measures for the commercial golden tilefish fishery
3. The SAFMC System Management Plan for Marine Protected Areas
4. The SAFMC Vision Blueprint outlining a long-term plan for the snapper grouper fishery
5. An update/overview of recent and developing SAFMC actions
6. Administrative issues including term limits for SEP members and upcoming SEP meetings
1. Report from the SSC Socio-Economic Panel
2. Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) calibration and transition efforts
3. 2014 South Atlantic landings and Annual Catch Limits (ACLs)
4. Spiny lobster review panel recommendations
5. Southeast Reef Fish Survey update
6. Geographic range of the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 32 blueline tilefish assessment
7. SEDAR projects update, and recommendations addressing the SEDAR 41 schedule (South Atlantic red snapper and gray triggerfish), red grouper Terms of Reference (TORs), and black grouper approach.
8. Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) headboat data evaluation efforts and assessment program review
9. Review assessment of mutton snapper and provide fishing level recommendations
10. Right whale monitoring and biological opinion approach
11. Regulatory Amendment 16 to the Snapper Grouper FMP
12. Amendment 36 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing Spawning Special Management Zones
13. National Marine Fisheries Service stock status determination process
14. Revised hogfish stock projections
15. Use of stock triggers or rumble strips
16. Draft report of the SSC Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rule Workshop of October 2014
17. 2015 National SSC Workshop
18. National Standards revisions
19. SAFMC Visioning Project and Blueprint
20. Oculina Team Evaluation Report
21. SAFMC annual research and monitoring plan
22. Updates and progress reports on other ongoing FMPs and amendments.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Written comment on SSC agenda topics is to be distributed to the Committee through the Council office, similar to all other briefing materials. Written comment to be considered by the SSC shall be provided to the Council office no later than one week prior to an SSC meeting. For this meeting, the deadline for submission of written comment is 12 p.m. Tuesday, April 21, 2015. Two opportunities for comment on agenda items will be provided during SSC meetings and noted on the agenda. The first will be at the beginning of the meeting, and the second near the conclusion, when the SSC reviews its recommendations.
The meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel meeting to review the Pacific mackerel stock assessment.
The STAR Panel meeting will be held Monday, April 27 through Wednesday, April 29, 2015. That meeting will begin the first day at 9 a.m. and at 8 a.m. each subsequent day. The meeting will conclude each day at 5 p.m. or when business for the day has been completed.
The meetings will be held in the Pacific Conference Room of the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.
Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2409.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to review a full stock assessment for Pacific mackerel. The review panel will consist of two members of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee's Subcommittee on Coastal Pelagic Species, plus two independent experts. The Council will use the 2015 assessment to establish Pacific mackerel fishery management measures and harvest specifications for both the 2015-16 and the 2016-17 fishing years. The Pacific mackerel fishing year begins July 1 and ends the following June 30 each year. Representatives of the Council's CPS Management Team and the CPS Advisory Subpanel will also participate in the review, as advisers.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Dale Sweetnam, (858) 546-7170, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a workshop in conjunction with a joint meeting of the Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel and Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel. The purpose of the workshop is to refine spatial alternatives for deep sea coral protection zones for inclusion the Council's Deep Sea Corals Amendment.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 through Thursday, April 30, 2015. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held at: Doubletree by Hilton BWI, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8060.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site,
This workshop will address spatial options for discrete coral protection zones proposed under the Council's Deep Sea Corals Amendment to the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. The Council is developing this amendment to address the potential impacts of fishing activity on deep sea corals in the Mid-Atlantic. The Council will solicit the input of the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Advisory Panel, the Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel, members of the Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT), additional deep sea coral experts, and additional fishing industry participants in order to refine the current proposed boundaries and review alternative boundary proposals.
The workshop will consist of a half-day meeting on Wednesday, April 29, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and continue on Thursday, April 30, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Prior to the meeting, a detailed agenda and briefing materials will be posted on the Council's Web site at:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP) will meet to review recent fishery performance and develop Fishery Performance Reports and/or other recommendations for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish fisheries in preparation for the Council's setting of MSB specifications at the June 2015 Council meeting.
The meeting will be Monday, April 27, 2015 at 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar, but anyone can also attend at the Council office address (see below). The webinar link is:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site,
The purpose of the meeting is to create Fishery Performance Reports by the Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Advisory Panel (AP). The intent of these reports is to facilitate structured input from the Advisory Panel members into the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish specifications process.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Fixed Gear Electronic Monitoring (EM) workgroup will meet by teleconference.
The meeting will be held on April 27, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Alaska time.
The meeting will be held at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Avenue, Suite 205, Anchorage, AK.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The agenda is to discuss 2015 fieldwork and data review, and discuss progress on 2016 pre-implementation including developing a strawman deployment plan and establishing funding sources.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad Hoc Ecosystem Workgroup (EWG) will hold a webinar, which is open to the public.
The webinar will begin at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, 2015, and is expected to last about two hours.
To join the webinar visit this link:
Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
The primary purpose of the webinar is for
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8123; or by email to
Additional information about this collection can be found at
Executive Order 12862 (
Collecting feedback will allow for the Agency to have a pulse on customer satisfaction and adjust where necessary to meet and exceed expectations. This feedback collection will provide for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communication between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It also will enable the Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner, in accordance with the USPTO's commitment to improving services. The information collected from Agency customers and stakeholders will help ensure users have an opportunity to convey their experience with USPTO programs. This collection will also provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations, which will allow the Agency to focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations may be necessary.
Improving Agency programs requires ongoing assessment. The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services. Based on feedback received, the Agency will identify operational changes needed to improve programs and services. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. The Agency is committed to hearing feedback from its customers. Responses will be assessed to identify service areas in need of improvement. If this information is not collected, then the Agency will miss opportunities to obtain vital feedback from its customers and stakeholders on ways to improve their program and services.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collection is voluntary;
• The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collection is noncontroversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will only be used internally for general program and service improvement as well as program
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections are not designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results nor used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
As a general matter, these information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature.
The USPTO uses surveys, focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, and usability testing to collect feedback from its customers. These may be conducted via telephone, through electronic means, or in person. The USPTO expects customers will respond to the questionnaires and surveys primarily through electronic means, and to the focus groups, interviews, and usability testing primarily in person.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DMDC 12 DoD, entitled “Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS)” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system is a DoD enterprise automated system for personnel security, providing a common, comprehensive medium to record, document, and identify personnel security actions within the Department including submitting adverse information, verification of clearance status (to include grants of interim clearances), requesting investigations, and supporting Continuous Evaluation activities.
Comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
* Federal Rulemaking Portal:
* Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this
Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 1, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), (May 3, 2011, 76 FR 24863).
Delete entry and replace with “All Armed Forces personnel; DoD and U.S. Coast Guard civilian, contractor employees, and applicants; other federal personnel with authorized access to JPAS or for reciprocity purposes; “affiliated” personnel (
Delete entry and replace with “Name (current, former and alternate names); Social Security Number (SSN); DoD Identification Number (DoD ID Number); date of birth; place of birth; country of citizenship; type of DoD affiliation; employing activity; current employment status; position sensitivity; personnel security investigative basis; status of current adjudicative action; security clearance eligibility status and access status; whether eligibility determination was based on a condition, deviation from prescribed investigative standards, or waiver of adjudication guidelines; reports of security-related incidents, to include issue files and information identified through continuous evaluation which may require additional adjudication; foreign travel and contacts; self-reported information; eligibility recommendations or decisions made by an appellate authority; non-disclosure execution dates; indoctrination date(s); level(s) of access granted; debriefing date(s) and reasons for debriefing. Entries documenting the outcomes of investigations and adjudications conducted by Federal investigative organizations (
Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 9101, Access to Criminal History Information for National Security and Other Purposes; 10 U.S.C. 137, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; DoD Directive 1145.02E, United States Military Entrance Processing Command (USMEPCOM); DoD 5200.2R, DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP); DoD 5105.21, Sensitive Compartment Information Administrative Security Manual; DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment and Induction; DoDI 5200.02, DoD Personnel Security Program (PSP); DoDD 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program; DoDI 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program (NISP); Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, Policy for Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “JPAS is a DoD enterprise automated system for personnel security, providing a common, comprehensive medium to record, document, and identify personnel security actions within the Department including submitting adverse information, verification of clearance status (to include grants of interim clearances), requesting investigations, and supporting Continuous Evaluation activities.
JPAS consists of two applications, the Joint Adjudication Management System (JAMS) and the Joint Clearance and Access Verification System (JCAVS). JAMS, primarily used by the DoD Adjudicative Community, has the primary purpose of recording eligibility determinations. JCAVS, primarily used by DoD Security Managers and Industry Facility Security Officers, has the primary purpose of verifying eligibility, record access determinations, submitting incidents for subsequent adjudication, and visit requests from the field (worldwide).
These records may also be used as a management tool for statistical analyses, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness and conducting research.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as follows:
To the White House to obtain approval of the President of the United States regarding certain military personnel office actions as provided for in DoD Instruction 1320.4, Military Officer Actions Requiring Approval of the Secretary of Defense or the President, or Confirmation by the Senate.
To the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for use in alien admission and naturalization inquiries.
To a Federal agency and its employees who are eligible to have a
To a Federal agency with contractor personnel who are eligible to have a security clearance and/or have access to classified national security information in order to ensure that the agency is informed about information that relates to and/or may impact the contractor's eligibility to have a security clearance and/or access to classified national security information.
To a contractor with employees who are eligible to have a security clearance and/or have access to classified national security information in order to ensure that the employer is informed about information that relates to and/or may impact its employees eligibility to have a security clearance and/or access to classified national security information.
If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
A record from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use outside the DoD or the U.S. Government for the purpose of counterintelligence activities authorized by U.S. Law or Executive Order or for the purpose of enforcing laws which protect the national security of the United States.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary, DoD/Joint Staff compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found at:
Delete entry and replace with “Information is generally retrieved by SSN. However, access to certain functions may require a combination of SSN, DoD ID number, name, date of birth, and/or state and/or country of birth.”
Delete entry and replace with “Access to personal information is restricted to those who require the records in the performance of their official duties. Access to personal information is further restricted by the use of Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and administrative procedures. All individuals granted access to this system of records are to have taken annual Information Assurance and Privacy Act training; and all have been through the vetting process.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are destroyed no later than 15 continuous years after termination of affiliation with the DoD.”
Delete entry and replace with “Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, 4800 Mark Center, Alexandria, VA 22350-4000.
Deputy Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.
Individuals should provide their full name (and any alias and/or alternate names used), SSN, and date and place of birth.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.”
Delete entry and replace with “Information contained in this system is
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice of Availability (NOA) of an Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Upgrade and Storage of Beryllium Metal at the DLA Strategic Materials Hammond, IN.
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announces the availability of an environmental assessment (EA) for the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action to upgrade and store beryllium at the DLA Strategic Materials Hammond, IN depot. The EA has been prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (1969). In addition, the EA complies with DLA Regulation 1000.22. DLA has determined that the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on the human environment within the context of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.
Public comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. Comments received by the end of the 30-day period will be considered when preparing the final version of the document. The EA is available electronically at
You may submit comments to one of the following:
•
•
Ira Silverberg at 703-767-0705 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email:
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DPR 30 DoD, entitled “Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) Records” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) provides the means to manage and report the readiness of the Department of Defense and its subordinate Components to execute the National Military Strategy as assigned by the Secretary of Defense in the Defense Planning Guidance, Contingency Planning Guidance, Theater Security Cooperation Guidance, and the Unified Command Plan. DRRS builds upon the processes and readiness assessment tools used in the Department of Defense to establish a capabilities-based, adaptive, near real-time readiness reporting system.
All DoD components will use the DRRS information to identify critical readiness deficiencies, develop strategies for rectifying these deficiencies, and ensure they are addressed in appropriate program/budget planning or other DoD management systems. DRRS will permit commanders to obtain pertinent readiness data on personnel assigned/attached to their units.”
Comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
* Federal Rulemaking Portal:
* Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this
Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 1, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) Records (March 18, 2010, 75 FR 13091).
Changes:
Delete entry and replace with “Defense Readiness Reporting System Implementation Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.”
Delete entry and replace with “All active duty, National Guard, and Reserve military service members of the Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marine Corps, including DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce personnel.”
Delete entry and replace with “Name, date of birth, gender, Social Security Number (SSN), rank/grade, duty status, skill specialty, deployability, related reason codes for readiness posture, unit of assignment, security clearance, occupational skill codes, and linguistic capabilities.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 117, Readiness Reporting System: Establishment; Reporting to Congressional Committees; 10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; DoD Directive 5149.02, Senior Readiness Oversight Council (SROC); DoD Directive 7730.65, Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) provides the means to manage and report the readiness of the Department of Defense and its subordinate Components to execute the National Military Strategy as assigned by the Secretary of Defense in the Defense Planning Guidance, Contingency Planning Guidance, Theater Security Cooperation Guidance, and the Unified Command Plan. DRRS builds upon the processes and readiness assessment tools used in the Department of Defense to establish a capabilities-based, adaptive, near real-time readiness reporting system.
All DoD components will use the DRRS information to identify critical readiness deficiencies, develop strategies for rectifying these deficiencies, and ensure they are addressed in appropriate program/budget planning or other DoD management systems. DRRS will permit commanders to obtain pertinent readiness data on personnel assigned/attached to their units.”
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary, DoD/Joint Staff compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD blanket routine uses can be found at:
Delete entry and replace with “Individual's name, unit of assignment, occupational skill codes, and linguistic capabilities.”
Delete entry and replace with “Access is limited to authorized and appropriately cleared personnel as determined by the system manager. Access is limited to person(s) responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties, which are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. System users cannot view Social Security Numbers (SSN). Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by use of identification
Delete entry and replace with “Director, Defense Readiness Reporting System Implementation Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the local commander. For a complete list of mailing addresses, contact the system manager.
Signed, written requests should include individual's full name and unit.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Signed, written requests should include the individual's full name and unit, and the name and number of this system of records notice.”
Delete entry and replace with “Information is obtained from the Enlisted Personnel Management Information System (EPMIS), Officer Personnel Management Information System (OPMIS), Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS), Medical Readiness Reporting System (MRRS), Military Personnel Data System, Medical Readiness Reporting System—Marine, Medical Readiness Reporting System—Navy, Defense Manpower Data System, Defense Readiness Reporting System Army, Defense Readiness Reporting System Marine Corps, Defense Readiness Reporting System Navy, Global Combat Support System Air Force, Manpower Programming and Execution System, Aeromedical Services Information Management System, Aerospace Expeditionary Force Reporting Tool, Electronic Joint Manpower and Personnel System, Medical Protection System, Military Personnel and Accounting System, Navy Readiness Reporting Enterprise, Defense Civilian Personnel Data System, Global Force Management Navy Org Server, Integrated Total Army Personnel Database, Global Status of Resources and Training System, Joint Training Information Management System, Aviation Resource Management System, Operational Data Store Enterprise/Marine Corps total Force System.”
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Department of Defense.
Federal Advisory Committee Meeting Notice.
The Department of Defense announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC). This meeting will be closed to the public.
Tuesday, April 21, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, April 22, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.
CENTRA Technology Inc., Ballston, Virginia on April 21 and CENTRA Technology Inc., Ballston, Virginia and the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia on April 22.
Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency J2/5/8R-AC, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email:
Due to difficulties beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer, the Department of Defense was unable to finalize the meeting announcement for the scheduled meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee on April 21-22, 2015, to ensure compliance with 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
The TRAC will continue to meet on April 22, 2015. The TRAC Chairperson will summarize the previous day's information and discuss the way forward. Subsequently, the group will receive a classified brief from Ambassador Linton Brooks on Russian actions and implications of these actions on U.S./Russian future activities. Following Ambassador Brooks' presentation, the TRAC will
The TRAC will then transition to the Pentagon where the members will provide the DoD senior leaders with an out brief from the meeting.
Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency J2/5/8R-ACP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email:
Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the TRAC may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all TRAC members.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DWHS E04, entitled “Privacy Act Case Files” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. Information is being collected and maintained for the purpose of processing Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals; for participating in litigation regarding agency action on such requests and appeals; and for assisting the Department of Defense in carrying out any other responsibilities under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
Comments will be accepted on or before May 11, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
* Federal Rulemaking Portal:
* Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this
Ms. Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedom of Information Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0461.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 1, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Privacy Act Case Files (October 29, 2012, 77 FR 65539)
Delete entry and replace with “Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff (OSD/JS) Privacy Office, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA), Privacy Act Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, 1137 Branchton Road, Boyers, PA 16016-0001.
DoD Consolidated Adjudication Facility (DoD CAF), 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals (and attorneys representing individuals) who have requested documents and/or submitted appeals for denial of access or amendment under the provisions of the Privacy Act (PA) from the OSD/JS, the DODEA, the DMDC (personnel security records), and the DoD CAF.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records created or compiled in response to Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals, individual's name, request number, original and copies of requests and administrative appeals; responses to such requests and administrative appeals; all related memoranda, correspondence, notes, and other related or supporting documentation.”
Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 552a, The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; 10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense; 32 CFR part 310, DoD Privacy Program; 32 CFR part 311, OSD Privacy Program; DoD 5400.11-R, Department of Defense Privacy Program; and Administrative Instruction 81, OSD/Joint Staff Privacy Program.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.
Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee, or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at:
Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in security containers with access only to officials whose access is based on requirements of assigned duties. Access to electronic records requires use of Common Access Card (CAC) login and role-based access by individuals who have a demonstrated need-to-know.”
Delete entry and replace with “Responses granting access to all the requested records, responses to requests for nonexistent records, to requesters who provide inadequate descriptions, or to those who fail to pay agency reproduction fees: Records are destroyed 2 years after the date of reply.
Responses denying access to all or part of the records requested which are not appealed are destroyed 5 years after date of reply.
Appellate files are destroyed/deleted 4 years after final determination by OSD appellate authority.”
Delete entry and replace with “OSD/JS initial requests case files: Chief, Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
OSD/JS access and amendment appellate files: Chief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
DoDEA case files: Chief, Department of Defense Education Activity, Privacy Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.
DMDC personnel security case files: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.
DoD CAF case files: Privacy Officer, DoD Consolidated Adjudication Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to:
OSD/JS initial request and appellate case files: Chief, Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
OSD/JS access and amendment appellate files: Chief, OSD/JS Privacy
DoDEA case files: Chief, Department of Defense Education Activity, Privacy Act Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.
DMDC personnel security case files: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.
DoD CAF case files: Privacy Access Requests, DoD Consolidated Adjudications Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.
Signed, written requests must include the individual's name and address, and this system of records notice name and number.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to access their record should address written inquiries to:
OSD/JS initial request and appellate case files: Chief, Freedom of Information Division, Executive Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
DoDEA case files: Chief, Department of Defense Education Activity, Privacy Act Office, Executive Services Office, Office of the Chief of Staff, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-1400.
DMDC personnel security case files: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: Privacy Act Office, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.
DoD CAF case files: Privacy Officer, DoD Consolidated Adjudication Facility, 600 10th Street, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5615.
Signed, written requests must include the individual's name and/or request number, and this system of records notice name and number.
Additional information for DoDEA records: If a parent or legal guardian is requesting records pertaining to his or her minor child or ward, he/she must also provide evidence of that relationship. The parent may provide one of the following: A copy of the child's school enrollment form signed by the parent, a copy of a divorce decree or travel order that includes the child's name, an order of guardianship, or a declaration stating that he/she is the parent or legal guardian of the minor or incapacitated child.
Additional information for DMDC personnel security and DoD CAF records: When requesting these records, the requester must also provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed without the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
Attorneys or other persons acting on behalf of an individual must provide written authorization from that individual for their representative to act on their behalf.”
Delete entry and replace with “The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.”
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 9, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Lisa Gillette, (202)260-1426.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 11, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Danielle Smith, (202) 453-5546.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 11, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Lisa Gillette, (202) 260-1426.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 9, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tyra Stewart, (202) 260-1847.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Institute of Educations Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 9, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elizabeth Warner, (202) 208-7169.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to increase the number and proportion of high-need students (as defined in this notice) who are academically prepared for, enroll in, or complete on time college, other postsecondary education, or other career and technical education.
These priorities are:
Academic tutoring and counseling programs and student support services.
Projects that are designed to leverage technology through implementing high-quality, accessible online courses, online learning communities, or online simulations, such as those for which educators could earn professional development credit or continuing education units through digital credentials (as defined in this notice) based on demonstrated mastery of competencies and performance-based outcomes, instead of traditional time-based metrics.
This priority is:
Projects that support activities that strengthen Native language preservation and revitalization.
In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (
20 U.S.C. 1059d.
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.
Individual Development Grants: $600,000-$800,000 per year.
Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: $600,000-$900,000 per year.
Individual Development Grants: $686,000 per year.
Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants: $800,000 per year.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
To qualify as an eligible institution under the ANNH Program, an institution must also be—
(i) Accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association that the Secretary has determined to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered;
(ii) Legally authorized by the State in which it is located to be a junior or community college or to provide an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree; and
(ii) Designated as an “eligible institution” by demonstrating that it has: (A) An enrollment of needy students as described in 34 CFR 607.3; and (B) has low average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, as described in 34 CFR 607.4.
The notice for applying for designation as an eligible institution was published in the
(b) A grantee under the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Program, which is authorized under title V, part A of the HEA, may not receive a grant under any HEA, title III, part A program, including the ANNH Program.
(c) A current grantee under the Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) Program, Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTI) Program, and the ANNH Program authorized by section 317 of the HEA may not receive a grant authorized under any other title III, part A program.
(d) A current grantee under the AANAPISI, NASNTI, Hispanic Serving Institutions-STEM and Articulation (HSI-STEM), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI), and the ANNH programs authorized by title III, part F, section 371 of the HEA, may receive a grant authorized under any title III, part A program.
(e) An eligible IHE that submits applications for an Individual Development Grant and a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant in this competition may be awarded both in the same fiscal year. However, we will not award a second Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant to an otherwise eligible IHE for an award year for which the IHE already has a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant award under the ANNH Program. A grantee with an Individual Development Grant or a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant may be a subgrantee in one or more Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants. The lead institution in a Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant must be an eligible institution. Partners or subgrantees are not required to be eligible institutions.
2. a.
b.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limits: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria, the absolute priority, the competitive preference priorities and the invitational priority that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established mandatory page limits for Individual Development Grant and Cooperative Arrangement Development Grant applications.
You must limit the section of the application narrative that addresses:
• The selection criteria to no more than 50 pages for an Individual Development Grant and 70 pages for a Cooperative Arrangement Grant.
• The absolute priority to no more than three pages.
• A competitive preference priority, if you are addressing one or both, to no more than three pages (for a total of six pages if you address both).
• The invitational priority to no more than two pages, if you address it.
Accordingly, under no circumstances may the application narrative exceed 61 pages for the Development Grant and 81 pages for the Cooperative Arrangement Grant.
Please address the priorities in the section of the application narrative titled “Other” and include a separate heading for the absolute priority and for each competitive preference priority and invitational priority that you address.
For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions and all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. These items may be single spaced. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs in the application narrative count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times
The page limit applies to all of the application narrative section, including your complete response to the selection criteria (including the budget narrative), the absolute priority, the competitive preference priorities, and the invitational priority. However, the page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424); the Supplemental Information for SF 424 Form; Part II, the Budget section and the Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524); Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page program abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support.
If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested in the application package, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for the purpose of the page-limit requirement.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
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 one of the persons listed under
4.
5.
(b)
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), 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 may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the Alaska Native-Serving Institutions Program (CFDA number 84.031N) and the Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program (CFDA number 84.031W) 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 this 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.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact one of the persons 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: Bora Mpinja, for CFDA number 84.031N, or Robyn Wood, for CFDA number 84.031W, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. FAX: (202) 502-7861.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031N or 84.031W), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.031N or 84.031W), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
(1) The strengths, weaknesses, and significant problems of the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are clearly and comprehensively analyzed and result from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution;
(2) The goals for the institution's academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis;
(3) The objectives stated in the plan are measurable, related to institutional goals, and, if achieved, will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution; and
(4) The plan clearly and comprehensively describes the methods and resources the institution will use to institutionalize practice and improvements developed under the proposed project, including, in particular, how operational costs for personnel, maintenance, and upgrades of equipment will be paid with institutional resources.
(b)
(1) Realistic and defined in terms of measurable results; and
(2) Directly related to the problems to be solved and to the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
(c)
(1) The implementation strategy for each activity is comprehensive;
(2) The rationale for the implementation strategy for each activity is clearly described and is supported by the results of relevant studies or projects; and
(3) The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained.
(d)
(1) The past experience and training of key professional personnel are directly related to the stated activity objectives; and
(2) The time commitment of key personnel is realistic.
(e)
(1) Procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation; and
(2) The project coordinator and activity directors have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.
(f)
(1) The data elements and the data collection procedures are clearly described and appropriate to measure the attainment of activity objectives and to measure the success of the project in achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan; and
(2) The data analysis procedures are clearly described and are likely to produce formative and summative results on attaining activity objectives and measuring the success of the project on achieving the goals of the comprehensive development plan.
(g)
(h)
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).
Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from a panel of three non-Federal reviewers.
3.
(1) Faculty development;
(2) Funds and administrative management;
(3) Development and improvement of academic programs;
(4) Acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening management and academic programs;
(5) Joint use of facilities; and
(6) Student services.
For the purpose of these funding considerations, we use 2012-2013 data.
If a tie remains after applying the tie-breaker mechanism above, priority will be given in the case of applicants for: (a) Individual Development Grants, to applicants that have the lowest endowment values per FTE student; and (b) Cooperative Arrangement Development Grants, to applicants in accordance with section 394(b) of the HEA, if the Secretary determines that the cooperative arrangement is geographically and economically sound or will benefit the applicant institution.
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118 and 34 CFR 607.31. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
a. The percentage change, over the five-year period, of the number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates enrolled at Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (
b. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at four-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institution;
c. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students at two-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are enrolled in the current year at the same Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institution;
d. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students enrolled at four-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who graduate within six years of enrollment; and
e. The percentage of first-time, full-time degree seeking undergraduate students enrolled at two-year Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions who graduate within three years of enrollment.
5.
Bora Mpinja, for CFDA number 84.031N, Robyn Wood, for CFDA number 84.031W, and Don Crews, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8513. You may contact these individuals at the following email addresses or telephone numbers:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collections [FERC-65 (Notice of Holding Company Status), FERC-65A (Exemption Notification of Holding Company Status), FERC-65B (Waiver Notification of Holding Company Status), FERC-585 (Reporting of Electric Shortages and Contingency Plans Under PURPA 206), and the FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System Operators)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by May 11, 2015.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0218 (FERC-65/65A/65B), 1902-0138 (FERC-585), or 1902-0257 (FERC-921) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-2-000, by either of the following methods:
• eFiling at Commission's Web site:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The FERC-65 is a one-time informational filing outlined in the Commission's regulations at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 366.4. The FERC-65 must be submitted within 30
While noting the previously outlined requirements of the FERC-65, the Commission has allowed for an exemption from the requirement of providing the Commission with a FERC-65 if the books, accounts, memoranda, and other records of any person are not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company; or if any class of transactions is not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility or natural gas company. Persons seeking this exemption file the FERC-65A, which must include a form of notice suitable for publication in the
If an entity meets the requirements in 18 CFR 366.3(c), they may file a FERC-65B waiver notification pursuant to the procedures outlined in 18 CFR 366.4. Specifically, the Commission waives the requirement of providing it with a FERC-65 for any holding company with respect to one or more of the following: (1) Single-state holding company systems; (2) holding companies that own generating facilities that total 100 MW or less in size and are used fundamentally for their own load or for sales to affiliated end-users; or (3) investors in independent transmission-only companies. Filings may be made in §§§ hardcopy or electronically through the Commission's Web site.
In Order No. 575,
In Order No. 659,
The Commission uses the information to evaluate and formulate an appropriate option for action in the event an unanticipated shortage is reported and/or materializes. Without this information, the Commission and State agencies would be unable to: (1) Examine and approve or modify utility actions, (2) prepare a response to anticipated disruptions in electric energy, and (3) ensure equitable treatment of all public utility customers under the shortage situations. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 294.
Take notice that on March 27, 2015, Orlando Utilities Commission submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Order No. 1000 Interregional Further Regional Compliance Filings, to be effective 1/1/2015.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 14, 2015.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Ohio Ecological Services Field Office and West Virginia Field Office (FWS) requested a teleconference regarding Commission staff's March 11, 2015, request for formal consultation on the pink mucket pearly mussel (
The teleconference will be held on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call Andy Bernick at (202) 502-8660 by Monday, April 13, 2015, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collections and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the requirements and burden
Comments on the collections of information are due June 9, 2015.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC15-3-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260.8(a) requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf
The information consolidated by the Form No. 587 verifies the accuracy of the information provided for the FERC-587 to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Moreover, this information ensures that U.S. lands can be reserved as hydropower sites and withdrawn from other uses.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Municipal Energy of PA, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is April 23, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, LLC. (PJM):
April 9, 2015, 9:30 a.m.—12:00 p.m. (EST)
April 9, 2015, 11:00 a.m.—3:00 p.m. (EST)
The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and Training Center, PJM Interconnection, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon, PA 19403.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders. Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact the following: Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 502-6604,
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Erie Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is April 23, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on March 19, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP15-117-000, an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authority to construct and operate its Dalton Expansion Project. Specifically, Transco request to construct approximately 111.2 miles of new pipeline and install a new 21,830 horsepower compressor station in Carroll County, Georgia. The proposal will provide 448 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day of firm capacity on Transco's system. The estimated cost of the project is $471.9 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Ingrid Germany, Regulatory Analyst, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251, by phone: (713) 215-4015 or email:
On April 11, 2014 (CHECK THE DATE), the Commission staff granted the Transco's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF14-10-000 to staff activities involved the Dalton Expansion Project. Now as of filing the March 19, 2015 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP15-117-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the environmental assessment (EA) for this proposal. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Gulf Markets Expansion Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Lavaca County, Texas; St. Landry, Pointe Coupee, and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana; Scioto, Ohio; Bath County, Kentucky; Giles County, Tennessee; and Monroe and Franklin Counties, Mississippi. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on May 4, 2015.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What do I Need to Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
The purpose of the Project would be to provide 650,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas to the Gulf Coast region of Louisiana and Texas from the natural gas basins in the Northeast and Texas. The Project would consist of the following facility modifications:
• At the Wheelersburg Compressor Station in Scioto County, Ohio to allow for bi-directional compression on six, existing 2,500 horsepower (HP) compressor units;
• at the Owingsville Compressor Station in Bath County, Kentucky to allow for bi-directional compression;
• at the Mt. Pleasant Compressor Station in Giles County, Tennessee to allow for support of bi-directional compression;
• at the Egypt Compressor Station in Monroe County, Mississippi to allow for support of bi-directional compression;
• at the existing launchers and receivers at milepost (MP) 231.16, south of the Union Church Compressor Station in Franklin County, Mississippi to allow for bi-directional in-line inspection;
• at the Gillis County Compressor Station in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana to allow for bi-directional compression;
• at the existing Opelousas Compressor Station in Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, to allow for bi-directional compression, and installation of an additional 12,500 HP electric-driven compressor unit;
• at two existing metering and regulating (M&R) locations at Lottie and New Roads Township in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana (M&R 71287 and M&R 71424) additions of gas chromatographs; and
• at the new Provident City Compressor Station in Lavaca County, Texas, installation of a new 5,280 HP compressor unit.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The total land requirement for construction and operation of the Project is about 50 acres, of which 21 acres would be permanently affected by the facilities operation.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these general headings:
• geology and soils;
• land use;
• water bodies, fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species; and
• public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Native American tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before May 4, 2015.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the Project docket number (CP15-90-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental groups and non-governmental organizations; interested Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the compact disc version or would like to remove your name from the mailing
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets.
This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 349), located on the Tallapoosa River in Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Elmore Counties, Alabama, and has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (final EIS) for the project. The project occupies 1.39 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
The final EIS contains staff evaluations of the applicant's proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Martin Dam Hydroelectric Project. The final EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.
A copy of the final EIS is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The final EIS also may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information, please contact Stephen Bowler at (202) 502-6861 or at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Mid-Georgia Cogen L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is April 23, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final notice of submission for OMB review.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission announces that it is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the existing recordkeeping requirements under 29 CFR part 1602
Written comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.
A copy of this ICR and applicable supporting documentation submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from: Erin N. Norris, Senior Attorney, (202) 663-4876, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Comments on this notice must be submitted to Chad Lallemand in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to Mr. Lallemand's attention at
Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4668, or Erin N. Norris, Senior Attorney, (202) 663-4876, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)
A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the
OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission'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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
For the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 11, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
The labeling requirement is covered under 47 section 20.21(f)(1)(iv)(A)(2). The new requirement is needed in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed about which devices are suitable for their use and how to comply with our rules, the Commission required that all Consumer Signal Boosters certified for fixed, in-building operation include a label directing consumers that the device may only be operated in a fixed, in-building location. The Verizon Petitioners state that this additional labeling requirement is necessary to inform purchasers of fixed Consumer Signal Boosters that they may not lawfully be installed and operated in a moving vehicle or outdoor location. We recognize that our labeling requirement imposes additional costs on entities that manufacture Consumer Signal Boosters; however, on balance, we find that such costs are outweighed by the benefits of ensuring that consumers purchase appropriate devices. Accordingly, all fixed Consumer Signal Boosters, both Provider-Specific and Wideband, manufactured or imported on or after one year from the effective date of the rule change must include the following advisory (1) in on-line point-of-sale marketing materials, (2) in any print or on-line owner's manual and installation instructions, (3) on the outside packaging of the device, and (4) on a label affixed to the device: “This device may be operated ONLY in a fixed location for in-building use.”
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collections described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper or John W. Popeo, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice; correction.
The Federal Maritime Commission published a document in the
Karen Gregory, (202) 523-5725.
In the
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 notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 27, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
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 5, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 27, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by June 9, 2015.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
AHRQ, in collaboration with the Department of Defense's (DoD) Tricare Management Activity (TMA), developed TeamSTEPPS® (“Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety”) to provide an evidence-based suite of tools and strategies for teaching teamwork-based patient safety to health care professionals. In 2007, AHRQ and DoD coordinated the national implementation of the TeamSTEPPS Program. The main objective of this program is to improve patient safety by training a select group of stakeholders such as Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) personnel, High Reliability Organization (HRO) staff, and health care system staff in various teamwork, communication, and patient safety concepts, tools, and techniques. Ultimately TeamSTEPPS will help to build a national and state-level infrastructure for supporting teamwork-based patient safety efforts in health care organizations.
The National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program includes the training of “Master Trainers” in various health care systems capable of stimulating the utilization and adoption of TeamSTEPPS in their health care delivery systems, providing technical assistance and consultation on implementing TeamSTEPPS, and developing various channels of learning (
Participants applied to the program as teams representing their organizations and were accepted as training participants after having completed an organizational readiness assessment. Due to the differences among the types of organizations participating in the program, each participant has a different potential to apply tools and concepts within and/or beyond their home organizations. For example:
• Health care system staff (or implementers) from hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, large physician practices, and other direct care organizations are more likely than other participants to implement the TeamSTEPPS materials on a daily basis and will be more likely to affect specific work processes being conducted within an organization. As a result, health care system participants are likely to have a focused and specific impact that is limited to their organization.
• QIO\HRO\Hospital Association\State Health Department participants (or facilitators) will be more likely to have both an in-depth and broad impact if they use the TeamSTEPPS materials to assist a particular organization inits patient safety activities, as well as to provide general patient safety guidance to a large number of organizations.
To clarify the differences among the participants, a logic model has been developed that highlights the roles of the different types of participants, the types of activities in which they are likely to engage post-training, and the potential outcomes that may stem from these activities. The logic model served as a guide for developing questions for a web-based questionnaire and qualitative interviews to ensure that participant and leadership feedback is captured as thoroughly and accurately as possible.
AHRQ is conducting an ongoing evaluation of the National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program. The goals of this evaluation are to examine the extent to which training participants have been able to:
(1) Implement the TeamSTEPPS products, concepts, tools, and techniques in their home organizations and,
(2) the extent to which participants have spread that training, knowledge, and skills to their organizations, local areas, regions, and states.
The National Implementation of TeamSTEPPS program is led by AHRQ through its contractor, the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET). This study is being conducted by HRET's subcontractor, IMPAQ International. The work is being conducted pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research, evaluations, and training on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To achieve the goals of this assessment the following two data collections will be implemented:
(1) Training participant questionnaires to examine post-training activities and teamwork outcomes as a
(2) Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with members from organizations who participated in the TeamSTEPPS Master Training Program. Information gathered from these interviews will be analyzed and used to draft a “lessons learned” document that will capture additional detail on the issues related to participants' and organizations' abilities to implement and disseminate TeamSTEPPS post-training. The organizations will vary in terms of type of organization (
The final product for this evaluation will be a report that documents the background, methodology, results (including any patterns or themes emerging from the data), limitations of the study, and recommendations for future training programs and tool development. The results of this evaluation will help AHRQ understand the extent to which participants and participating organizations have been able to employ various TeamSTEPPS tools and concepts and the barriers and facilitators they encountered. This information will help guide AHRQ in developing and refining other patient safety tools and future training programs for patient safety.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a maximum of 9 individuals from each of 9 participating organizations and will last about one hour each. The training participant questionnaire will be completed by approximately 10 individuals from each of about 240 organizations and is estimated to require 20 minutes to complete. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 881 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $39,240.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by
When commenting on the proposed information collections,
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than May 11, 2015.
Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
Students who are uncertain of their commitment to provide nursing care in a health care facility with a critical shortage of nurses in the United States or these territories are advised not to participate in the program.
Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The Nurse Corps SP needs to collect data to determine an applicant's eligibility for the program, to monitor a participant's continued enrollment in a school of nursing, to monitor the participant's compliance with the Nurse Corps SP service obligation, and to obtain data on its program to ensure compliance with statutory mandates and prepare annual reports to Congress. The following information will be collected: (1) From the applicants and/or the schools—general applicant and nursing school data such as full name, location, tuition/fees, and enrollment status; (2) from the schools, on an annual basis—data concerning tuition/fees and student enrollment status; and (3) from the participants and their health care facilities with a critical shortage of nurses, on a biannual basis—data concerning the participant's employment status, work schedule, and leave usage. BHW enters the cost
Likely Respondents: Nurse Corps SP scholars in school, graduates, educational institutions, and critical shortage facility employers.
Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. 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. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the Information Collection Request must be received no later than June 9, 2015.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
This study will examine how Ryan White-funded clinics are integrating the provision of primary and preventative care services to the overall HIV care model. Specifically, it will look at the protocols and strategies used by clinics to manage care for PLWH, specifically care coordination, referral systems, and patient-centered strategies to keep PLWH in care.
Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The proposed study will provide the HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB) and policymakers with a better understanding of how the Ryan White Program currently provides primary and preventative care to PLWH. The first online survey will be targeted to clinic directors from a sample of about 160 Ryan White-funded clinics and will collect data on care models used; primary care services, including preventative services; and coordination of care. Data collected from this survey will provide a general overview of the various HIV care models used as well as insight to possible facilitators and barriers to providing primary and preventative care services. More in-depth data collection will be conducted with a smaller number of 30 clinics representing clinic type (publicly funded community health organization, other community-based organization, health department, and hospital or university-based) and size. There will be three data collection instruments used: (1) An online survey completed by three clinicians at each of the clinics (clinician survey); (2) a data extraction of select primary and preventative care services; and (3) a telephone interview with the medical director. The clinician survey will provide a more in-depth look at the clinic protocols and strategies and how they are being used and implemented by the clinicians. The data extraction will provide quantitative information on the provision of select primary and preventative care services within a certain time period. With these data, the study team can assess the accuracy of information provided in the online surveys on the provision of care as well as the frequency at which primary and preventative care screenings are provided. Lastly, the interviews with the medical director will allow the study team to follow-up on the results of the clinician survey and data extraction and collect qualitative data and more in-depth details on the provision of primary and preventative care services from a clinic wide perspective, specifically any facilitators and barriers.
These data will provide HAB the background to make informed policies and changes to the Ryan White Program in this new era when the well-being of PLWH demands a more complex and long-term HIV care model.
Likely Respondents: Clinics funded by the Ryan White Program.
Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expanded by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. 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. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The listening session will be organized around the interests and perspectives of stakeholder communities, including, but not limited to:
• Public health and advocacy groups;
• State, local, and Tribal groups;
• Private industry;
• Minority health organizations; and
• Academic and scientific organizations.
It will allow public comment on all agenda items to be discussed at the 68th World Health Assembly:
Due to the number of stakeholders expected to attend in person, we request that all speakers keep their interventions to three minutes or less. This time limit will be strictly enforced. Written comments are welcomed and encouraged, even if you are planning to attend in person. Please send these to the same email address:
We look forward to hearing your comments relative to the 68th World Health Assembly agenda items.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research.
The meeting will be open to the public, 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.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301-496-7057; fax: 301-402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Technology descriptions follow.
• Immunotherapeutics to treat cancers that overexpress CD70, such as renal cell carcinoma, glioblastoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
• A personalized cancer treatment strategy for patients whose tumor cells express CD70 whereby the patient's own T cells are isolated, engineered to express the anti-CD70 CARs, and re-infused into the same patient to attack the tumor(s).
• CD70-specific CARs expressed on T cells will increase the likelihood of successful targeted therapy.
• CAR-T cells target only CD70 expressing cells and thus may generate fewer side effects than other cancer treatment approaches.
• With the advent of Provenge(R), and Yervoy(R), immunotherapy is now more widely accepted as a viable cancer treatment option.
• T-cell transfer can provide much larger numbers of anti-tumor immune cells compared to other approaches such as vaccines.
• Early-stage.
• In vitro data available.
• In vivo data available (animal).
• Immunotherapeutics to treat a variety of human cancers that harbor KRAS mutations, in particular, G12D mutation, such as pancreatic, -colorectal, lung, endometrial, ovarian, and prostate cancers.
• T cells expressing mutated KRAS G12D specific TCR may successfully treat or prevent the recurrence of mutated KRAS-positive cancers that do not respond to other types of treatment such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.
• Genetically engineered T cells with TCRs for HLA-A11-restricted mutated KRAS will increase the likelihood of successful targeted therapy.
• The targeted therapy minimizes side effect. T cells expressing anti-mutated KRAS TCRs target tumor cells expressing mutated KRAS and spare normal tissue. This therapy may have lower tissue toxicities comparing to traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
• With the advent of Provenge(R) and Yervoy(R), immunotherapy is now more widely accepted as a viable cancer treatment option.
• Early-stage.
• In vitro data available.
• Ex vivo data available.
• HHS Reference No. E-106-2006/3.
• HHS Reference No. E-226-2014/0.
• JEV Vaccine.
• JEV Diagnostics.
• Safe and efficacious vaccine.
• Extremely low production costs.
• Positive preclinical data.
• Vero cell manufacture.
• In vitro data available.
• In vivo data available (animal).
1. Gromowski G, et al. Genetic and phenotypic properties of vero cell-adapted Japanese encephalitis virus SA14-14-2 vaccine strain variants and a recombinant clone, which demonstrates attenuation and immunogenicity in mice. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Jan; 92(1)98-107. [PMID 25311701].
2. Gromowski G, et al. Genetic determinants of Japanese encephalitis virus vaccine strain SA14-14-2 that govern attenuation of virulence in mice. J Virol. 2015, in press.
• Early-stage.
• In vitro data available.
• US Provisional Application No. 61/721,810 filed 02 Nov 2012.
• PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2013/068056 filed 01 Nov 2013.
• US Patent No. 8,697,046 issued 15 Apr 2014 (Methods of Administering Interferon Gamma to Absorb Fluid From the Subretinal Space; Li R, et al.).
• US Patent Application No. 14/252,489 filed 14 Apr 2014.
• Early-stage.
• In vitro data available.
• U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/777,073 filed 12 Mar 2013.
• PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2014/024724 filed 12 Mar 2014.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,697,046 issued 15 Apr 2014 (Methods of Administering Interferon Gamma to Absorb Fluid From the Subretinal Space; Li R, et al.).
• U.S. Patent Application No. 14/252,489 filed 14 Apr 2014.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In 2010, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), provided funding to 12 existing Family Treatment Drug Courts (FTDCs) for enhancement and/or expansion of their FTDC's capabilities to provide psycho-social, emotional and mental health services to children (0-17 years) and their families who have methamphetamine use disorders and involvement in child protective services. This program was authorized in House Report 111-220 accompanying HR 3293 in 2010. The Committee language stated that “these grants will support a collaborative approach, including treatment providers, child welfare specialists, and judges, to provide community-based social services for the children of methamphetamine-addicted parents,” and were to be awarded to Family Dependency Treatment Drug Courts.
SAMHSA is requesting to reinstate OMB approval of instruments used in the Children Affected by Methamphetamine (CAM) grant program through 2020 for a new cohort of grantees under the new program name of Family Treatment Drug Courts, or FTDCs. The continued use of these instruments will allow SAMHSA to collect data on The FTDC grantees that is not otherwise captured: The national evaluation of the FTDC project will collect data on: (1) Child Outcomes; (2) Parent/Caregiver Outcomes; and (3) Family Functioning. The results from this data collection will serve to inform future decisions regarding funding by SAMHSA as well as establish an evidence base for the practices undertaken for other localities and programs implementing Family Treatment Drug Courts. The overall reporting burden is estimated at 720.5 hours.
Providing children's services in an FTDC was a new activity for FTDCs and the grantees. The purpose of the evaluation was to monitor the grantees progress and to measure their performance on child, family and adult outcomes. These outcomes were compared to referent data available at the local and/or State level, and to pre-post measures for family functioning. Previous data collection efforts have measured occurrence of maltreatment and substance exposed newborns, The child/youth indicators related to permanency assess whether they remain in their home, the length of stay in foster care (if they are out of their home), the proportion who re-enter foster care, the proportion who were reunified, the length of time to reunification and whether the children and youth exit services with adoption or legal guardianship if they are not reunified with their parents. The adult indicators related to recovery include substance use, access to treatment, treatment outcomes, employment and criminal behavior. The results of the evaluations were used by grantees to measure the progress of their programs, and aided their efforts to sustain the activities once the grants ended.
To the greatest extent possible, the data elements are operationally defined using standard definitions in child welfare and substance abuse treatment.
It should be re-emphasized that the FTDC projects are expansions or enhancements of FTDC partnerships that currently have existing relationships (and information sharing/confidentiality agreements) in place. It is through this existing information sharing forum that the FTDC grantees will be able to obtain the requisite child welfare and substance abuse treatment performance measures. The grantees will use electronic abstraction and secondary data collection for elements that are already being collected by counties and States in their reporting requirements of Federally-mandated data.
Table 1 presents the estimated total cost burden associated with the collection of the FTDC data elements. The following estimates represent the number of anticipated participants based on experience with the previous CAM program. There are two sources of data collection burden for the performance system. First, FTDC staff extracts data from secondary sources for the child, parent/caregiver and family functioning data elements for biannual data uploads. The total number of responses is two per year; with each upload taking approximately 16 hours at each site. In addition to the data extraction, FTDC staff will complete 2 administrations (intake and discharge) of the NCFAS for each family (approximately 267 families per year based on estimates extrapolated from the CAM program). The NCFAS takes approximately .75 hours to complete per family per administration. The estimated total cost of the time FTDC staff will spend completing data collection is $15,952 per year (total number of staff hours, 720.5 hours, multiplied by $22.14, the estimated average hourly wages for social work professionals as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). See Table 1.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 or email her a copy at
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The ATTC Network, a nationwide, multidisciplinary resource that draws upon the knowledge, experience and latest research of recognized experts in the field of addictions and behavioral health, is a unique Center Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) initiative formed in 1993 in response to a shortage of well-trained addiction and behavioral health professionals in the public sector. The ATTC Network works to enhance the knowledge, skills and aptitudes of the addiction/behavioral health treatment and recovery services workforce by disseminating current health services research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute of Mental Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Institute of Justice, and other sources, as well as other SAMHSA programs. To accomplish this, the ATTC Network: (1) Develops and updates state-of-the-art research based curricula and professional development training, (2) coordinates and facilitates meetings between Single State Authorities, Provider Associations and other key stakeholders, and (3) provides ongoing technical assistance to individuals and organizations at the local, regional and national levels.
In response to the emerging shortages of qualified addiction treatment and recovery services professionals, SAMHSA/CSAT instructed the ATTC National Office to lead the ATTC Network in the development and implementation of a national addiction treatment workforce data collection effort of those individuals who work in substance use specialty treatment services. The purpose of this survey and data collection is to gather information to guide the formation of effective national, regional, state, and organizational policies and strategies aimed at successfully recruiting and retaining a sufficient number of adequately prepared providers who are able to respond to the growing needs of those affected by substance use and mental health disorders; including co-occurring disorders and trauma. This data collection will offer a unique perspective on the clinical treatment field so that CSAT and the ATTC Network can better understand current successful strategies and methodologies being used in the workforce and develop appropriate training for emerging trends in the field.
Although SAMHSA/CSAT is the primary target audience for data collection findings, it is expected that the data collected and resulting reports will also be useful to the ATTC Network, as well as to Single State Agencies, provider organizations, professional organizations, training and education entities, and individuals in the workforce.
Data will be collected from two main sources: (1) Interviews with Single State Authorities (SSAs) in all fifty states (2) A national sample of agency directors or their designees, identified by CSAT in conjunction with the ATTC network, in the substance use disorders treatment field. Respondents will be asked to participate in telephone interviews. In addition to this original data collection, existing national data sets will also be utilized. Such data systems will include:
• Census 2000 datasets
• National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS)
• SAMHSA Treatment Gap Projection Analysis
• Treatment Episode Data
• Bureau of Labor datasets such as Current Employment Statistics
• Annapolis Coalition Data
The objectives of the national addiction treatment workforce data collection effort are to explore issues related to workforce development: (1) Staff training, recruitment and retention; (2) Professional development; and (3) Support for strategies and methodologies to prepare, recruit, retain, and sustain the workforce. To accomplish these objectives, CSAT outlined two primary questions to be addressed by the workforce data collection:
For the purposes of this data collection, the ATTC Network will identify the growth and capacity-building needs over the next five years of direct care staff, clinical supervisors, and administrators in agencies represented in the I-SATS registry.
Identification of potentially effective strategies used to prepare and recruit individuals to enter the workforce (as
Information collected from this workforce data collection will help CSAT and the ATTC Network to better understand the needs of the workforce and categorize some best practices for providing support to the field now and in the future. Emerging trends in addiction and/or co-occurring and trauma treatment and the existence of mental health problems in substance use disorder treatment and recovery services will be identified and shared with those in the addiction/behavioral health treatment field so appropriate training and funding can be allocated. The information from this data collection will also help CSAT identify areas where deficiencies in substance use and/or co-occurring disorder and trauma treatment exist and provide assistance to regions (and states) to help them develop and adopt strategies for addressing this.
The chart below summarizes the annualized burden for this project.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by May 11, 2015 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that it will impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving from all ports in Libya. Conditions of entry are intended to protect the United States from vessels arriving from countries that have been found to have deficient port anti-terrorism measures in place.
The policy announced in this notice will become effective April 24, 2015.
For information about this document call or email Michael Brown, International Port Security Evaluation Division, United States Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1081. For information about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826, toll free 1-800-647-5527.
The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 70110, and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(97)(f). As delegated, section 70110 authorizes the Coast Guard to impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving in U.S. waters from ports that the Coast Guard has not found to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures.
The Coast Guard does not find ports in Libya maintaining effective anti-terrorism measures and finds that Libya's legal regime, designated authority oversight, access control and cargo control are all deficient. Our determination applies to all ports in Libya.
Accordingly, beginning April 24, 2015, the conditions of entry shown in the following Table will apply to any vessel that visited any Libyan port in its last five port calls.
The following countries currently do not maintain effective anti-terrorism measures and are therefore subject to conditions of entry: Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Syria, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. This list is also available in a policy notice available at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4209-DR), dated March 25, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated March 25, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Hillsborough, Rockingham, and Strafford Counties for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate the incident period.
All areas within the State of New Hampshire are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4201-DR), dated November 3, 2014, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective March 25, 2015.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program. This collection allows the government to make loans to communities that have suffered economic problems due to disasters.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2015.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Martha Polanco, Assistant Program Manager, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Public Assistance Division, (202) 212-5761. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 212-4701 or email address:
The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program is authorized by Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5184, and implementing regulations at 44 CFR subpart K. The Assistant Administrator may make a CDL to any local government which has suffered a substantial loss of tax or other revenues as a result of a major disaster or emergency and which demonstrates a need for Federal financial assistance in order to perform its governmental functions. Local governments may indicate interest in acquiring a Community Disaster Loan by contacting their Governor's Authorized Representative. The Governor's Authorized Representative submits a letter to FEMA requesting the Community Disaster Loan Program for their State.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-4208-DR), dated March 12, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated March 12, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Androscoggin, Cumberland, and York Counties for Public Assistance.
Androscoggin, Cumberland, and York Counties for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate the incident period.
All areas within the State of Maine are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4210-DR), dated March 31, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated March 31, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of West Virginia resulting from a severe winter storm, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of March 3-6, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kari Suzann Cowie, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of West Virginia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Barbour, Boone, Braxton, Cabell, Doddridge, Gilmer, Harrison, Jackson, Kanawha, Lewis, Lincoln, Logan, Marshall, McDowell, Mingo, Monongalia, Putnam, Raleigh, Ritchie, Roane, Summers, Tyler, Upshur, Wayne, Webster, Wetzel, Wirt, Wood, and Wyoming Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of West Virginia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4201-DR), dated November 3, 2014, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii is hereby amended to include Public Assistance (Categories A and C-G) in the following area determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 3, 2014.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4211-DR), dated April 2, 2015, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 2, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Michael Moore, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Tennessee have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
All areas within the State of Tennessee are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period for an application from the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) for an enhancement of survival (EOS) permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The documents available for review are a draft candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) for the greater sage-grouse, addressing rangeland management activities on Oregon State Trust Lands administered by DSL, and a draft environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If you have previously submitted comments, please do not resubmit them because we have already incorporated them in the public record and will fully consider them in our final decision.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received from interested parties no later than May 11, 2015.
To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to the DSL CCAA.
•
•
•
•
•
Jeff Everett or Jennifer Siani, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
On February 23, 2015, we published a
For background and more information on the draft CCAA and EA, see our February 23, 2015, notice (80 FR 9475). For information on where to view the documents and how to submit comments, please see the
All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the EA, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before May 11, 2015.
Brenda Tapia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests renewal of their permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the Galapagos giant tortoise (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Applicant: Kenneth Dalton, Mansfield, TX; PRT-61948B;
Applicant: Joseph Cutillo, The Woodlands, TX; PRT-59502B;
Applicant: Mark Robinson, Leesburg, VA; PRT-59527B.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given below by
Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Attn: Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator).
Karen Marlowe, 10(a)(1)(A) Permit Coordinator, telephone 205-726-2667; facsimile 205-726-2479.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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 comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The applicant requests authorization to take (install artificial cavities and restrictors) red-cockaded woodpeckers (
This applicant requests authorization to take (capture, identify, mark with plastic shell tags, PIT-tag, and release) 31 species of mussels for purposes of conducting presence/absence surveys and population monitoring studies in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins in Tennessee.
This applicant requests renewal of his current permit to take (capture, band, release, install artificial cavities and restrictors, monitor nest cavities, and translocate) red-cockaded woodpeckers (
This applicant requests authorization to take (enter hibernacula, salvage dead bats, capture with mist nets or harp traps, handle, identify, collect hair samples, band, radio-tag, light-tag, wing-punch, and selectively euthanize for white-nose syndrome) Indiana bats (
This applicant requests renewal of his current permit to take (capture, identify, and release) fat threeridge (
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture; band; radio-tag; collect blood samples, feathers, egg shells, and infertile eggs; and salvage carcasses) Puerto Rican sharp-shinned hawk (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public 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) Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold three meetings in Nevada in fiscal year 2015. The meetings are open to the public.
Dates And Times: May 21, Hilton Garden Inn, 3650 East Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada; Aug. 13-14, BLM Battle Mountain District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada; and Oct. 22, BLM Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, Nevada. Meeting times will be published in local and regional media sources at least 14 days before each meeting. All meetings will include a public comment period.
Chris Rose, BLM Nevada RAC Coordinator, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502, telephone: (775) 861-6480, email:
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at each meeting will include, but are not limited to:
• May 21 (Elko)—Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-regional Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Wild Horse Population Control Pilot Project.
• August 13-14 (Battle Mountain)—Drought, Greater Sage-Grouse, and
• October 22 (Ely)—Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-regional Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Wild Horse Population Control Pilot Project.
Managers' reports of field office activities will be given at each meeting. The Council may raise other topics at the meetings.
Final agendas will be posted on-line at the BLM North-Eastern Great Basin RAC Web site at
Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact Chris Rose no later than 10 days prior to each meeting.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central California Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
Business meetings will be held Thursday and Friday, April 23-24, 2015, at the BLM Mother Lode Field Office, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA. Members of the public are welcome to attend.
On April 23, the RAC will meet from noon to 6 p.m. On April 24, the RAC will meet from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. Time for public comment is reserved from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on April 24.
BLM Central California District Manager Este Stifel, (916) 978-4626; or BLM Public Affairs Officer David Christy, (916) 941-3146.
The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Central California District, which includes the Bishop, Bakersfield, Hollister, Ukiah and Mother Lode Field Offices. At this meeting, agenda topics will include an update on resource management issues by the Field Managers including Lake Berryessa, Coast Dairies, Point Arena and oil and gas. Additional ongoing business will be discussed by the council. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Grand Junction Field Office and by this notice is announcing its availability.
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's Proposed RMP and Final EIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of availability in the
Copies of the Grand Junction Field Office Proposed RMP and Final EIS were sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies and to other stakeholders and tribal governments. Copies of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS are available for public inspection at the Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506; Mesa County libraries in Grand Junction, Collbran, De Beque, Fruita and Gateway. Interested persons may also review the Proposed RMP and Final EIS on the Internet at
Regular Mail: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, P.O. Box 71383, Washington, DC 20024-1383.
Overnight Delivery: BLM Director (210), Attention: Protest Coordinator, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003.
Christina Stark, Planning and Environmental Coordinator; telephone 970-244-3027; 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO, 81506; email
Lands and Federal mineral estate managed by the Grand Junction Field Office within this RMP revision extend across most of Mesa County and parts of Garfield, Montrose and Rio Blanco counties. Management decisions outlined in this RMP revision apply to approximately 1,061,400 acres of BLM-managed surface lands and Federal mineral estate and to approximately 169,900 acres of Federal mineral split-estate. When approved, this RMP will replace the 1987 Grand Junction Resource Area RMP.
The public comment period on the Draft RMP and Draft EIS began on January 14, 2013, and ended June 24, 2013, which included a 60-day extension in response to requests from the public. The total comment period encompassed 162 days. The BLM developed the Proposed RMP and Final
The Proposed RMP and Final EIS describes and analyzes four management alternatives, each of which include objectives and management actions to address new management challenges and issues.
Alternative A is the no action alternative and is a continuation of the current management direction and prevailing conditions based on the existing 1987 Grand Junction Resource Area RMP and amendments.
Alternative B (The Proposed RMP) seeks to allocate public land resources among competing human interests and land uses, with the conservation of natural and cultural resource values. Alternative B carries forward the same theme it had in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, but includes elements of the other alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS.
Alternative C emphasizes improving, rehabilitating and restoring resources; and sustaining the ecological integrity of habitats for all priority plant, wildlife and fish species, particularly the habitats needed to conserve and recover federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened and endangered plant and animal species.
Alternative D emphasizes active management for natural resources, commodity production, and public use opportunities by allowing a mix of multiple use opportunities that target social and economic outcomes, while protecting land health. Management direction would recognize and expand existing uses, and accommodate new uses to the greatest extent possible.
The Proposed RMP would provide comprehensive, long-range decisions for the use and management of resources in the planning area administered by the Grand Junction Field Office, focusing on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
The Proposed RMP includes: Goals, objectives, management actions, allowable use and implementation decisions to ensure future BLM management in support of 13 areas of critical environmental concern, five special recreation management areas, six extensive recreation management areas, four wilderness study areas, one national trail management corridor, and one segment found suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Maps are included in the Proposed RMP/FEIS to illustrate the Proposed RMP as well as the other alternatives considered in the Final EIS. Through the Wild and Scenic River study process, the BLM inventoried 514 miles and 114 stream segments, found 415 miles and 100 stream segments ineligible, and found 99 miles and 14 stream segments eligible, of which 10.38 miles of 1 stream are identified as suitable in the Proposed RMP. Three areas covering 44,100 acres located in the southern portion of the field office would be managed to protect lands with wilderness characteristics. Protective management of the areas would vary; however, all of the areas would be managed as right-of-way exclusion, no leasing for fluid minerals, no surface occupancy (non-fluid minerals), closed to non-energy leasables, closed to mineral material disposal, and Visual Resource Management Class II.
While the RMP proposes some conservation management measures for the Greater Sage-grouse habitat, the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment and EIS will fully analyze applicable Greater-Sage grouse conservation measures, consistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044. The BLM expects to make a comprehensive set of decisions for managing Greater Sage-Grouse on lands administered by the Grand Junction Field Office in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment and EIS, which will update this proposed RMP.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the Proposed RMP and FEIS may be found in the “Dear Reader” Letter of the Grand Junction Field Office Proposed RMP and Final EIS, and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
Before including your phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Surveys.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has officially filed the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9:00 a.m., on the dates specified.
Bureau of Land Management, 1387
This survey were executed at the request of the Bureau of Land Management to meet their administrative needs. The lands surveyed are: The plat constituting the entire survey record of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and a corrective dependent resurvey of a portion of metes-and-bounds survey No. 1, in sections 25, 26, 35, and 36, T. 4 S., R. 19 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 985, was accepted January 15, 2015.
The plat constituting the entire survey record of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 26, T. 5 S., R. 17 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1400, was accepted January 15, 2015.
The plats constituting the entire survey record of: The dependent resurvey of portions of the west boundary and subdivisional lines, T. 8 S., R. 3 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1367; the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 3, T. 9 S., R. 4 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1367; the dependent resurvey of portions of the south and west boundaries, and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 27 and 31, T. 9 S., R. 5 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1367; the dependent resurvey of portions of the north boundary, west boundary, and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 4 and 6, T. 10 S., R. 3 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1367; and the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and west boundaries, and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 1 and 3, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1367, were approved January 23, 2015.
These surveys were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet certain administrative and management purposes. The lands surveyed are: The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east boundary, subdivisional lines, and subdivision of sections 11 and 14, and the subdivision of section 13, and further subdivision of sections 11 and 14, T. 34 N., R. 4 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1404, was accepted February 11, 2015.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the subdivisional lines and subdivision of section 26, and further subdivision of section 26, T. 33 N., R. 1 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 1403, was accepted February 19, 2015.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of change of meeting site.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16, and Part 65 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, notice is hereby given of the change in the site for the May 6-7, 2015, meeting of the National Park System Advisory Board.
The Board will meet on May 6-7, 2015.
The meeting site originally published on March 8, 2015, in the
Shirley Sears, National Park Service, telephone (202) 354-3955, email
The board meeting will be open to the public. The order of the agenda may be changed, if necessary, to accommodate travel schedules or for other reasons. Space and facilities to accommodate the public are limited and attendees will be accommodated on a first-come basis. Anyone may file with the Board a written statement concerning matters to be discussed. The Board also will permit attendees to address the Board, but may restrict the length of the presentations, as necessary to allow the Board to complete its agenda within the allotted time. Before including your address, telephone 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 may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service announces the availability of a Draft General Management Plan (GMP)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Kalaupapa National Historical Park. The document identifies and analyzes four alternatives. Alternative A (no action alternative) assumes that programming, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels to protect the values of Kalaupapa NHP in the near term. Alternative B focuses on maintaining Kalaupapa's spirit and character through limiting visitation. Visitor use would be highly structured, though limited opportunities would exist for public visitation and overnight use. The NPS would develop an extensive outreach program to share Kalaupapa's history with a wide audience at off-site locations. Alternative C (agency-preferred) emphasizes stewardship of Kalaupapa's lands in collaboration with the park's many partners. Kalaupapa's diverse resources would be managed to protect and maintain their character and historical significance. Visitation by the general public would be supported, provided, and integrated into park management. Visitor regulations would change, while continuing to limit the number of visitors per day through new mechanisms. Alternative D focuses on the personal connections to Kalaupapa through visitation by the general public. Resources would be managed for long-term preservation through NPS-led programs throughout the park. Alternative D offers visitors the greatest opportunities to explore areas on their own. Visitor regulations would be similar to Alternative C.
All comments on the Draft EIS must be postmarked or transmitted no later than 60 days after the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of the filing and release of the document in the
Written comments may be submitted by one of two methods: mail or hand-deliver comments to Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Attn: DEIS—GMP, P.O. Box 2222, Kalaupapa, HI 96742, (808) 567-6802. Or you may submit comments via the Web site noted above. 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.
Ms. Erika Stein Espaniola, Superintendent, Kalaupapa National Historical Park, P.O. Box 2222, Kalaupapa, HI 96742; (808) 567-6802 x1100.
Ms. Anna Tamura, Project Manager, NPS Pacific West Regional Office, 909 1st Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; (206) 220-4157.
Kalaupapa National Historical Park was established as a unit of the National Park System on December 22, 1980. The park is oriented toward patient privacy and maintaining the patients' lifestyles, and the patients are guaranteed they may remain at Kalaupapa as long as they wish. These park purposes will continue as long as there is a resident Hansen's disease patient community at Kalaupapa. In addition, the purpose of Kalaupapa National Historical Park is to honor the history of the isolated Hansen's disease community by preserving and interpreting its site and values. The historical park also tells the story of the rich Hawaiian culture and traditions at Kalaupapa that go back at least 900 years.
Kalaupapa NHP encompasses 8,725 acres of land and 2,000 acres of water. Federally owned land at Kalaupapa NHP includes only 23 acres. The remainder of the park land is currently in non-Federal ownership, managed under a lease and cooperative agreements mandated by legislation. The NPS has a fifty year lease agreement for the approximately 1,300 acres of the Kalaupapa Settlement owned by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). The remainder of the land is owned by the State of Hawaii. Formal 20-year cooperative agreements for management have been signed with the State of Hawaii Departments of Health (DOH), Transportation (DOT), and Land and Natural Resources (DLNR); the Roman Catholic Church; and the United Church of Christ. The State Department of Health has substantial control over activities in Kalaupapa.
The legislation establishing the park specifically directs a reevaluation of park management: “At such time when there is no longer a resident patient community at Kalaupapa, the Secretary shall reevaluate the policies governing the management, administration, and public use of the park in order to identify any changes deemed to be appropriate.” (Public Law 95-565, § 109). Approximately fifteen Hansen's disease patients still reside at Kalaupapa, either in their own homes or at Kalaupapa's hospital/care-home. Most of these patients are elderly and in poor health. Thus, a very critical need is to engage the patients in a dialog about the future when there no longer is a patient community residing in the park. Participation by the patient community has been a key element to the overall process.
Kalaupapa NHP has never had a formal general management plan. The proposed GMP is intended to addresses major issues including: Resource management, visitor use and access, analysis of potential boundary modifications, and the expected shift from co-management with the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) to a future when the DOH and the living patient community are no longer at Kalaupapa.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is notifying the public that Reclamation has prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Northwest Area Water Supply Project (Project). Reclamation has evaluated comments received from the public on the Draft SEIS and is recommending a preferred alternative for approval. The Missouri River and Groundwater Alternative would provide a high quality and reliable water supply to meet existing and future water needs. This alternative would include conventional treatment at the biota water treatment plant, located within the Missouri River Basin, and the proposed intake for the Project would be located within Reclamation's Snake Creek Pumping Plant on Lake Sakakawea.
Reclamation will not make a decision on the proposed action until at least 30 days after filing of the Final SEIS. After the 30-day waiting period, Reclamation will complete a Record of Decision. The Record of Decision will identify the selected action for implementation and will discuss factors and rationale used in making the decision.
Ms. Alicia Waters, Project Manager, (701) 221-1206; or by email at
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Final SEIS documents the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental and socioeconomic effects of the proposed action to construct a municipal, rural and industrial (MR&I) water system to provide drinking water to local communities and rural water systems in northwestern North Dakota. The Project is sized to serve projected population growth through the year 2060. Water provided by the Project would be treated to meet the primary drinking water standards established by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Project would supply water to specific delivery points. Each community or rural water system would be responsible for connecting to the distribution line and delivering water through their water system to end users. The Project was authorized by the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986 and the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 as part of the MR&I Grant Program.
Four action alternatives were evaluated in the Final SEIS. These alternatives fall into two categories—those using only inbasin water sources (Souris River and groundwater) and those proposing to use water from the Missouri River (Lake Sakakawea). The preferred alternative, Missouri River and Groundwater Alternative, would use Lake Sakakawea as the primary water source. This water would be conveyed to the biota water treatment plant where it would be treated using conventional treatment processes. After treatment at the biota water treatment plant, the water would be conveyed in a buried pipeline to the Minot water treatment plant and blended with water from the Minot and Sundre aquifers. Following this treatment, water would be supplied to Project members through a distribution pipeline system.
Some of the resources potentially affected by the proposed action that are evaluated in the Final SEIS include: Surface water and groundwater resources, water quality, aquatic invasive species, threatened and endangered species, socioeconomics, environmental justice and historic properties. The geographic scope of analysis generally covers the Missouri and Souris river basins, and carries analysis into Canada as directed by the U.S. District Court.
A Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS was published in the
Copies of the Final SEIS are available for public review at the following locations:
• Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, 304 East Broadway Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, MT 59101.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Denver, CO 80225.
• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001.
• Bismarck Public Library, 515 North 5th Street, Bismarck, ND 58501.
• Bottineau City Hall, 115 West 6th Street, Bottineau, ND 58318.
• Minot Public Library, 516 2nd Avenue SW., Minot, ND 58701.
• Mohall Public Library, 115 Main Street West, Mohall, ND 58761.
• North Dakota State Library, 604 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505.
60-day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), BSEE is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns a revision to the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Subpart J,
You must submit comments by June 9, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods listed below.
• Electronically go to
• Email
Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at (703) 787-1607 to request additional information about this ICR.
In addition to the general rulemaking authority of the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 108 of
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25 authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's (DOI) implementing policy, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is required to charge fees for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those which accrue to the public at large. Pipeline and assignment applications are subject to cost recovery, and BSEE regulations specify the service fees.
Regulations implementing these responsibilities are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations under 30 CFR 250, Subpart J, pertain to pipelines and pipeline rights-of-way (ROWs), a form, and related Notices to Lessees (NTLs) and Operators.
We use the information to ensure that lessees and pipeline ROW holders design the pipelines that they install, maintain, and operate are performed in a safe manner. BSEE needs information concerning the proposed pipeline and safety equipment, inspections and tests, and natural and manmade hazards near the proposed pipeline route. BSEE uses the information to review pipeline designs prior to approving an application for an ROW or lease term pipeline to ensure that the pipeline, as constructed, will provide for safe transportation of minerals through the submerged lands of the OCS. BSEE reviews proposed pipeline routes to ensure that the pipelines would not conflict with any State requirements or unduly interfere with other OCS activities. BSEE reviews proposals for taking pipeline safety equipment out of service to ensure alternate measures are used that will properly provide for the safety of the pipeline and associated facilities (platform,
We use the information in Form BSEE-0149, Assignment of Federal OCS Pipeline Right-of-Way Grant, to track the holdership of pipeline ROWs; as well as use this information to update the corporate database that is used to determine what leases are available for a Lease Sale and the ownership of all OCS leases. However, we made a minor revision to this form. Under Part A—Assignment—we added in the under legal description, “and any accessory information”. Under § 250.1012, pipeline ROW grants can include accessories. Therefore, when transferring a Pipeline ROW grant, the description of the pipeline ROW grant should identify everything. This will help facilitate BSEE's review when an application has been submitted.
No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2); also under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197,
The non-hour cost burdens required in 30 CFR 250, Subpart J (and respective cost-recovery fee amount per transaction) are required under: § 250.1000(b)—New Pipeline Application (lease term)—$3,541, § 250.1000(b)—Pipeline Application Modification (lease term)—$2,056, § 250.1000(b)—Pipeline Application Modification (ROW)—$4,169, § 250.1008(e)—Pipeline Repair Notification—$388, § 250.1015(a)—Pipeline ROW Grant Application—$2,771, § 250.1015(a)—Pipeline Conversion from Lease Term to ROW—$236, § 250.1018(b)—Pipeline ROW Assignment—$201.
We have not identified any other non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information.
Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have other than hour burden costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. For further information on this burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and (2), or contact the Bureau representative listed previously in this notice.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.
60-day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), BSEE is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns a renewal to the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Subpart O,
You must submit comments by June 9, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods listed below.
• Electronically go to
• Email
Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at (703) 787-1607 to request additional information about this ICR.
In addition to the general rulemaking authority of the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 108 of FOGRMA, 30 U.S.C. 1718, grants the Secretary broad authority to inspect lease sites for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with the mineral leasing laws. Section 109(c)(2) and (d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1719(c)(2) and (d)(1), impose substantial civil penalties for failure to permit lawful inspections and for knowing or willful preparation or submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading reports, records, or other information. Because the Secretary has
Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well trained personnel using technology, precautions, and other techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstructions to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health.”
For your information, because of the regulatory requirements in 30 CFR 250, Subpart S (SEMS), 30 CFR 250, Subpart O, audits ceased. The training audits fall under the requirements defined in § 250.1915. However, BSEE keeps Subpart O documents and regulations active because the Subpart O regulatory requirements give BSEE the authority and ability to test employees on the effectiveness of their own training program.
Regulations implementing these responsibilities are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations under 30 CFR 250, Subpart O, pertain to well control and production safety training and pertain to training requirements for certain personnel working on the OCS and is the subject of this collection. This request also covers the related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations.
We will use the information collected under Subpart O regulations to ensure that workers in the OCS are properly trained with the necessary skills to perform their jobs in a safe and pollution-free manner.
In some instances, we may conduct oral interviews of offshore employees to evaluate the effectiveness of a company's training program. The oral interviews are used to gauge how effectively the companies are implementing their own training program.
No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. We protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR 2); and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection, and 30 CFR part 252, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Information Program. Responses are mandatory or are required to obtain or retain benefits.
We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.
Agencies must also estimate the non-hour paperwork cost burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have other than hour burden costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. For further information on this burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(1) and (2), or contact the Bureau representative listed previously in this notice.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that no violation of section 337 has been proven in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission's determination is final, and this investigation is terminated.
Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3438. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 30, 2014, based on a complaint filed by Springfree Trampoline, Inc. of Markham, Canada, Springfree Trampoline USA Inc. of Markham, Canada, and Spring Free Limited Partnership of Markham, Canada (collectively, “Springfree”). 79 FR 4956 (Jan. 30, 2014). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain soft-edged trampolines and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,319,174 (“the '174 patent”).
On December 5, 2014, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. On December 18, 2014, the ALJ issued a recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bonding. On December 22, 2014, Springfree and Vuly filed petitions for review challenging various findings in the final ID. On January 2, 2015, the parties filed responses. The Commission did not receive any post-RD public interest comments from the public or the parties.
On February 5, 2015, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part and requested additional briefing from the parties on certain issues. The Commission also solicited briefing from the parties and the public on the issues of remedy, bonding, and the public interest. On February 19, 2015, the parties filed briefs addressing the Commission's questions and the issues of remedy, bonding, and the public interest. On March 2, 2015, the parties filed reply briefs.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID and submissions from the parties, the Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ's determination of no violation. As explained more fully in the forthcoming Commission opinion, the Commission has determined to construe “flexible mat” in the first instance, modify the ALJ's construction of “first retaining means,” and affirm, but on modified grounds, the ALJ's construction of “flexible elongated rod.” The Commission has determined to affirm, but on modified grounds, the ALJ's findings that Vuly's products infringe claim 13, that Springfree's products practice claim 13, that claim 1 is not invalid as anticipated by the prior art, that claim 13 is invalid as anticipated by the prior art, and that claims 1 and 13 are not invalid due to lack of enablement. The Commission has determined to reverse the ALJ's findings that Vuly's products infringe claim 1, that Springfree's products do not practice claim 1, and that Springfree did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement as to claims 1 and 13. The Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ's finding that Springfree did not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission has determined not to reach the issue of whether claim 13 is obvious.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase
On February 19, 2015, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Felman Production LLC, Letart, West Virginia, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of silicomanganese from Australia. Accordingly, effective February 19, 2015, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1269 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission completed and filed its determination in this investigation on April 7, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4528 (April 2015), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or Department), announces the availability of approximately $76 million in grant funds authorized by the YouthBuild provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128). DOL will award grants through a competitive process to organizations to oversee the provision of education, occupational skills training, and employment services to disadvantaged youth in their communities while performing meaningful work and service to their communities. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, DOL hopes to serve approximately 4,950 participants during the grant period of performance, with approximately 76 projects awarded across the country. Individual grants will range from $700,000 to $1.1 million and require an exact 25 percent match from applicants, using sources other than federal funding. The grant period of performance for this FOA is 40 months, including a four-month planning period.
The complete FOA and any subsequent FOA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is June 5, 2015. Applications must be received no later than 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Kia Mason, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Email:
The Grant Officer for this FOA is Steven A. Rietzke.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Pre-Apprenticeship Database,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 11, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Pre-Apprenticeship Database information collection that will provide a valuable tool for job seekers, registered apprenticeship program sponsors, and American Job Center front line staff. A dedicated database will also provide a way for job seekers and registered apprenticeship programs to access pre-apprenticeship programs in their local areas. The Application for Pre-Apprenticeship Programs asks the program (1) for contact information including the program name, program director and an alternate point of contact; (2) about the population served and whether the pre-apprenticeship program has a direct link to a registered apprenticeship program as well as information on the nature of any direct link or partnership; (3) about the curriculum, whether a registered apprenticeship program or industry provided input into the pre-apprenticeship program's development, whether the training may lead to a credential or certificate, and whether a registered apprenticeship program has approved the training; and (4) about other services the pre-apprenticeship program provides to participants (
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 11, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Arts, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202/395-7316, within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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
• Could help minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of electronic submission of responses through Grants.gov.
The Endowment requests the review of its Grant Application Guidance Survey. This entry is issued by the Endowment and contains the following information: (1) The title of the form; (2) how often the required information must be reported; (3) who will be required or asked to report; (4) what the form will be used for; (5) an estimate of the number of responses; (6) the average burden hours per response; (7) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the form. This entry is not subject to 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting exemptions in response to a request from Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF or the licensee) regarding certain emergency planning (EP) requirements. The exemptions will eliminate the requirements to maintain an offsite radiological emergency plan and reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning activities at the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Station (CR-3) based on the reduced risks of accidents that could result in an offsite radiological release at a decommissioning nuclear power reactor.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0042 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3229; email:
The CR-3 facility is a decommissioning power reactor located in Citrus County, Florida. The licensee, DEF, is the holder of CR-3 Facility Operating License No. DPR-72. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect.
By letter dated February 20, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13056A005), DEF submitted to the NRC a certification in accordance with section 50.82(a)(1)(i) of Title 10 of the
During normal power reactor operations, the forced flow of water through the reactor coolant system (RCS) removes heat generated by the reactor. The RCS, operating at high temperatures and pressures, transfers this heat through the steam generator tubes converting non-radioactive feedwater to steam, which then flows to the main turbine generator to produce electricity. Many of the accident scenarios postulated in the updated safety analysis reports (USARs) for operating power reactors involve failures or malfunctions of systems,
Based on the time that CR-3 has been permanently shutdown (approximately 64 months), there is no longer any possibility of an offsite radiological release from a design-basis accident that could exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) at the exclusion area boundary.
The EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, “Emergency plans,” and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,” continue to apply to nuclear power reactors that have permanently ceased operation and have removed all fuel from the reactor vessel. There are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that is permanently shutdown and defueled from a reactor that is authorized to operate. In order for DEF to modify the CR-3 emergency plan to reflect the reduced risk associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of CR-3, certain exemptions from the EP regulations must be obtained before the CR-3 emergency plan can be amended.
By letter dated September 26, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13274A584), “Crystal River Unit 3—License Amendment Request #315, Revision 0, Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level Scheme, and Request for Exemption to Certain Radiological Emergency Response Plan Requirements Defined by 10 CFR 50,” DEF requested exemptions from certain EP requirements of 10 CFR part 50 for CR-3. More specifically, DEF requested exemptions from certain planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite radiological emergency plans for nuclear power reactors; from certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) that require establishment of plume exposure and ingestion pathway emergency planning zones for nuclear power reactors; and from certain requirements in 10 CFR 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up the content of emergency plans. In a letter dated March 28, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14098A072), DEF provided responses to the NRC staff's request for additional information (RAI) concerning the proposed exemptions. In a letter dated May 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14139A006), DEF provided an additional supplemental response to a separate set of RAIs, which contained information applicable to the SFP inventory makeup strategies for mitigating the potential loss of water inventory due to a beyond-design-basis accident. In a letter dated August 28, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14251A237), CR-3 provided a supplement, which amended its request to align with the exemptions recommended by the NRC staff and approved by the Commission in staff requirements memorandum (SRM) to SECY-14-0066, “Request by Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,” dated August 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14219A366). The information provided by DEF included justifications for each exemption requested. The exemptions requested by DEF will eliminate the requirements to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the requirements of 44 CFR part 350, and reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning activities. DEF stated that application of all of the standards and requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E is not needed for adequate emergency response capability based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled facility. If offsite protective actions were needed for a very unlikely accident that could challenge the safe storage of spent fuel at CR-3, provisions exist for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) under the National Preparedness System to protect the health and safety of the public. A CEMP in this context, also referred to as an emergency operations plan (EOP), is addressed in FEMA's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, “Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans.” Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 is the foundation for State, territorial, Tribal, and local emergency planning in the United States. It promotes a common understanding of the fundamentals of risk-informed planning and decision making and helps planners at all levels of government in their efforts to develop and maintain viable, all-hazards, all-threats emergency plans. An EOP is flexible enough for use in all emergencies. It describes how people and property will be protected; details who is responsible for carrying out specific actions; identifies the personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies and other resources available; and outlines how all actions will be coordinated. A CEMP is often referred to as a synonym for “all hazards planning.”
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present. These special circumstances include, among other things, that the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
As noted previously, the current EP regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 apply to both operating and shutdown power reactors. The NRC has consistently acknowledged that the risk of an offsite radiological release at a power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and removed fuel from the reactor vessel is significantly lower, and the types of possible accidents are significantly fewer, than at an operating power reactor. However, current EP regulations do not recognize that once a power reactor permanently ceases operation, the risk of a large radiological release from credible emergency accident scenarios is significantly reduced. The reduced risk for any significant offsite radiological release is based on two factors. One factor is the elimination of accidents applicable only to an operating power reactor, resulting in fewer credible accident scenarios. The second factor is the reduced short-lived radionuclide inventory and decay heat production due to radioactive decay. Due to the permanently defueled status of the reactor, no new spent fuel will be added to the SFP and the radionuclides in the
EP exemptions similar to those requested by DEF were granted to permanently shutdown and defueled power reactor licensees, such as for Zion Nuclear Power Station in 1999 (ADAMS Legacy Accession No. 9909070079) and Kewaunee Power Station in 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14261A223). However, the exemptions did not relieve the licensees of all EP requirements. Rather, the exemptions allowed the licensees to modify their emergency plans commensurate with the credible site-specific risks that were consistent with a permanently shutdown and defueled status. Specifically, approval of the prior exemptions was based on demonstrating that: (1) The radiological consequences of design-basis accidents would not exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary; and (2) in the unlikely event of a beyond-design-basis accident resulting in a loss of all modes of heat transfer from the fuel stored in the SFP, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions, and if needed, for offsite authorities to implement offsite protective actions using a CEMP approach to protect the health and safety of the public.
With respect to design-basis accidents at CR-3, the licensee provided analyses demonstrating that none would warrant an offsite radiological emergency plan meeting the requirements of 10 CFR part 50.
With respect to beyond-design-basis accidents at CR-3, the licensee analyzed two bounding beyond-design-basis accidents that have a potential for a significant offsite release. One of these beyond-design-basis accidents involves a complete loss of SFP water inventory, where cooling of the spent fuel would be primarily accomplished by natural circulation of air through the uncovered spent fuel assemblies. The licensee's analysis of this accident shows that as of September 26, 2013, air cooling of the spent fuel assemblies was sufficient to keep the fuel within a safe temperature range indefinitely without fuel damage or offsite radiological release. The second beyond-design-basis accident analysis performed by the licensee could not completely rule out the possibility of a radiological release from an SFP. This more limiting analysis assumes an incomplete drain down of the SFP water, or some other catastrophic event (such as a complete drainage of the SFP with rearrangement of spent fuel rack geometry and/or the addition of rubble to the SFP) that would effectively impede any decay heat removal through all possible modes of cooling. This analysis is commonly referred to as an adiabatic heat-up. The licensee's analysis demonstrates that, as of September 26, 2013, there would be at least 19.7 hours under adiabatic heat-up conditions before the spent fuel cladding would reach a temperature where the potential for a significant offsite radiological release could occur. This analysis conservatively does not consider the period of time from the initiating event causing a loss of SFP water inventory until all cooling means are lost.
The NRC staff has verified DEF's analyses and its calculations. The analyses provide reasonable assurance that in granting the requested exemptions to DEF, there is no design-basis accident that will result in an offsite radiological release exceeding the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. In the unlikely event of a beyond-design-basis accident affecting the SFP that results in adiabatic heat-up conditions (
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's justification for the requested exemptions against the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) and the bases for prior EP exemption request approvals, as discussed above. The staff determined, as described below, that the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are met, and that the exemptions should be granted. Assessment of the DEF EP exemptions is described in SECY-14-0118, “Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,” dated October 29, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14219A444). The Commission approved the NRC staff's intention to grant the exemptions in the SRM to SECY-14-0118, dated December 30, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14364A111). Descriptions of the specific exemptions requested by DEF and the NRC staff's basis for granting each exemption are provided in SECY-14-0118 and summarized in a table at the end of this document. The staff's detailed review and technical basis for the approval of the specific EP exemptions are provided in the NRC staff's safety evaluation enclosed in an NRC letter dated March 30, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15058A906).
The licensee has proposed exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR 50, appendix E, section IV, that would allow DEF to revise the CR-3 Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the station. As stated above, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemptions will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemptions are authorized by law.
As stated previously, DEF provided analyses that show the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents will not exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. Therefore, formal offsite radiological emergency plans required under 10 CFR part 50 are no longer needed for protection of the public beyond the exclusion area boundary.
Although very unlikely, there is one postulated beyond-design-basis accident that might result in significant offsite radiological releases. However, NUREG-1738 confirms that the risk of beyond-design-basis accidents is greatly reduced at permanently shutdown and defueled reactors. The NRC staff's analyses concludes that the event sequences important to risk at permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors are limited to large earthquakes and cask drop events. For EP assessments, this is an important difference relative
NUREG-1738 further concludes that the change in risk due to relaxation of offsite EP requirements is small because the overall risk is low, and because even under current EP requirements for operating power reactors, EP was judged to have marginal impact on evacuation effectiveness in the severe earthquakes that dominate SFP risk. Specifically, for ground motion levels that correspond to SFP failure in the central and eastern United States, it is expected that electrical power would be lost and more than half of the bridges and buildings (including those housing communication systems and emergency response equipment) would be unsafe even for temporary use within at least 10 miles of the plant. This approach is also consistent with previous Commission rulings on San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in which the Commission found that for those risk-dominant earthquakes that cause very severe damage to both the plant and the offsite area, emergency response would have marginal benefit because of offsite damage. All other sequences including cask drops (for which offsite radiological emergency plans are expected to be more effective) are too low in likelihood to have a significant impact on risk.
Therefore, granting exemptions that eliminate the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reducing the scope of onsite emergency planning activities will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
The requested exemptions by DEF only involve EP requirements under 10 CFR part 50 and will allow DEF to revise the CR-3 Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the facility. Physical security measures at CR-3 are not affected by the requested EP exemptions. The discontinuation of formal offsite radiological emergency plans and the reduction in scope of the onsite emergency planning activities at CR-3 will not adversely affect DEF's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Therefore, the proposed exemptions are consistent with common defense and security.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway emergency planning zones for nuclear power plants, and to ensure that licensees maintain effective offsite and onsite radiological emergency plans. The standards and requirements in these regulations were developed by considering the risks associated with operation of a power reactor at its licensed full-power level. These risks include the potential for a reactor accident with offsite radiological dose consequences.
As discussed previously, because CR-3 is permanently shutdown and defueled, there is no longer a risk of offsite radiological release from a design-basis accident and the risk of a significant offsite radiological release from a beyond-design-basis accident is greatly reduced when compared to an operating power reactor. The NRC staff has confirmed the reduced risks at CR-3 by comparing the generic risk assumptions in the analyses in NUREG-1738 to site specific conditions at CR-3 and determined that the risk values in NUREG-1738 bound the risks presented by CR-3. Furthermore, the staff has recently concluded in NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor,” dated September 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14255A365), that, consistent with earlier research studies, SFPs are robust structures that are likely to withstand severe earthquakes without leaking cooling water and potentially uncovering the spent fuel. The NUREG-2161 study shows the likelihood of a radiological release from spent fuel after the analyzed severe earthquake at the reference plant to be about one time in 10 million years or lower.
The licensee has analyzed site-specific spent fuel air-cooling and adiabatic heat-up beyond-design-basis accident scenarios to determine the risk of cladding damage, and the time to rapid cladding oxidation. The air-cooling analysis shows that as of September 26, 2013, in the event of a complete SFP drain down due to a loss of water inventory, assuming that natural circulation of air through the spent fuel racks was available, the peak fuel clad temperature would remain below 1049 °F (565ºC), the temperature at which incipient cladding failure may occur. Therefore, in this postulated accident, fuel cladding remains intact.
The beyond-design-basis adiabatic heat-up accident analysis of the spent fuel evaluates a postulated condition involving a very unlikely scenario where the SFP is drained in such a way that all modes of cooling or heat transfer are assumed to be unavailable. DEF analysis of this beyond-design-basis accident shows that as of September 26, 2013, 19.7 hours would be available between the time the fuel is uncovered (at which time adiabatic heat-up begins), until the fuel cladding reaches a temperature of 1652 °F (900ºC), the temperature associated with rapid cladding oxidation and the potential for a significant radiological release.
Exemptions from the offsite EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50 have previously been approved by the NRC when the site-specific analyses show that at least 10 hours is available following a loss of SFP coolant inventory accident with no air cooling (or other methods of removing decay heat) until cladding of the hottest fuel assembly reaches the zirconium rapid oxidation temperature. The NRC staff concluded in its previously granted exemptions, as it does with the DEF requested EP exemptions, that if a minimum of 10 hours is available to initiate mitigative actions consistent with plant conditions, or if needed, for offsite authorities to implement protective actions using a CEMP approach, then formal offsite radiological emergency plans, required under 10 CFR part 50, are not necessary at permanently shutdown and defueled facilities.
Additionally, DEF committed to maintaining SFP makeup strategies in its letter to the NRC dated May 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14139A006). The multiple strategies for providing makeup to the SFP include: Using existing plant systems for inventory makeup; supplying water through hoses to connections to the existing SFP piping using the diesel-driven fire service pump; and using a diesel-driven portable pump to take suction from CR-3 intake and discharge canals. These strategies will continue to be required as license condition 2.C.(14), “Mitigation Strategy License Condition.” Considering the very low probability of beyond-design-basis accidents affecting the SFP, these diverse strategies provide
For all the reasons stated above, the NRC staff finds that the licensee's requested exemptions to meet the underlying purpose of all of the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b), and requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, acceptably satisfy the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) in view of the greatly reduced risk of offsite radiological consequences associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled state of the CR-3 facility.
The NRC staff has concluded that the exemptions being granted by this action will maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness at CR-3 and, if needed, that there is reasonable assurance that adequate offsite protective measures can and will be taken by State and local government agencies using a CEMP approach in the unlikely event of a radiological emergency at the CR-3 facility. Since the underlying purposes of the rules, as exempted, would continue to be achieved, even with the elimination of the requirements under 10 CFR part 50 to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans and reduction in the scope of the onsite emergency planning activities at CR-3, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.31(a), the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment as discussed in the NRC staff's Finding of No Significant Impact and associated Environmental Assessment published March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11233).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), that DEF's request for exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, and as summarized in the table at the end of this document, are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants DEF exemptions from certain EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, as discussed and evaluated in detail in the staff's safety evaluation dated March 30, 2015. The exemptions are effective as of March 30, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 20, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 4, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 11, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
A technical meeting has been scheduled in Docket No. RM2015-2. The technical meeting will review modifications to Proposal Nine and their impact on the supporting financial workpapers.
April 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.
The technical meeting will be held in the Commission's hearing room at 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
A technical meeting will be held in this docket on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), in the Commission's main conference room. The purpose of this meeting is to allow Commission staff to review
The technical meeting is open to interested persons.
1. A technical meeting is scheduled on April 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, in the Commission's main conference room to address Postal Service-initiated modifications to Proposal Nine and their impact on supporting financial workpapers.
2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to list and trade the shares of the Tuttle Tactical Management Multi-Strategy Income ETF (the “Fund”), a series of ETFis Series Trust I (the “Trust”), under Nasdaq Rule 5735 (“Managed Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
Etfis Capital LLC will be the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Fund. Tuttle Tactical Management, LLC will be the investment sub-adviser (“Sub-Adviser”) to the Fund. ETF Distributors LLC (the “Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”) will act as the administrator, accounting agent, custodian, and transfer agent to the Fund.
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 provides that if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
The Fund's investment objective will be to seek current income while maintaining a secondary emphasis on long-term capital appreciation and low volatility. The Fund will be an actively managed ETF that seeks to achieve its investment objective by utilizing a long-only, multi-strategy, tactically-managed exposure to the U.S. equity market. To obtain such exposure, the Sub-Adviser will invest, under normal market conditions,
The Sub-Adviser will employ four tactical models in seeking to achieve the Fund's investment objective: “Income Relative Momentum,” “Dividend Counter-Trend,” “Dividend Tactical Fundamental Earnings,” and “Dividend Absolute Momentum.” The Sub-Adviser will generally seek to invest at least half of the Fund's assets in the Income Relative Momentum Model, and will allocate the remainder of the Fund's assets in one or more of the other three models.
In order to seek its investment objective, the Fund will not hold any other investments outside of the above-described “Principal Investments.”
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest not less than 80% of its total assets in shares of ETPs, individually selected U.S. exchange-traded common stocks (when the Sub-Adviser determines that is more efficient or otherwise advantageous to do so), money market funds, U.S. treasuries or money market instruments. The Fund will not purchase securities of open-end or closed-end investment companies except in compliance with the 1940 Act. The Fund will not use derivative instruments, including options, swaps, forwards and futures contracts, both listed and over-the-counter (“OTC”). The Fund will not invest in leveraged, inverse, or leveraged inverse ETPs.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid securities or other illiquid assets. Illiquid securities and other illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund intends to qualify for and to elect to be treated as a separate regulated investment company under SubChapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
Under the 1940 Act, the Fund's investment in investment companies will be limited to, subject to certain exceptions: (i) 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of any one investment company, (ii) 5% of the Fund's total assets with respect to any one investment company, and (iii) 10% of the Fund's total assets with respect to investment companies in the aggregate.
The Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective. The Fund does not presently intend to engage in any form of borrowing for investment purposes, and will not be operated as a “leveraged ETF”,
The Fund's net asset value (“NAV”) will be determined as of the close of trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time (“E.T.”)) on each day the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is open for business. NAV will be calculated for the Fund by taking the market price of the Fund's total assets, including interest or dividends accrued but not yet collected, less all liabilities, and dividing such amount by the total number of Shares outstanding. The result, rounded to the nearest cent, will be the NAV per Share. All valuations will be subject to review by the Board or its delegate.
The Fund's investments will be valued at market value
Certain securities may not be able to be priced by pre-established pricing methods. Such securities may be valued by the Board or its delegate at fair value. The use of fair value pricing by the Fund will be governed by valuation procedures adopted by the Board and in accordance with the provisions of the 1940 Act. These securities generally include, but are not limited to, restricted securities (securities which may not be publicly sold without registration under the Securities Act of 1933) for which a pricing service is unable to provide a market price; securities whose trading has been formally suspended; a security whose market price is not available from a pre-established pricing source; a security with respect to which an event has occurred that is likely to materially affect the value of the security after the market has closed but before the calculation of the Fund's net asset value or make it difficult or impossible to obtain a reliable market quotation; and a security whose price, as provided by the pricing service, does not reflect the security's “fair value.” As a general principle, the current “fair value” of a security would appear to be the amount which the owner might reasonably expect to receive for the security upon its current sale. The use of fair value prices by the Fund generally results in the prices used by the Fund that may differ from current market quotations or official closing prices on the applicable exchange. A variety of factors may be considered in determining the fair value of such securities.
The Trust will issue and sell Shares of the Fund only in Creation Unit aggregations typically in exchange for an in-kind portfolio of instruments, although cash in lieu of such instruments would be permissible, and only in aggregations of 50,000 Shares, on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt, on any business day, of an order in proper form.
The consideration for purchase of Creation Unit aggregations of the Fund will consist of (i) a designated portfolio of securities determined by the Adviser that generally will conform to the holdings of the Fund consistent with its investment objective (the “Deposit Securities”) per each Creation Unit aggregation and generally an amount of cash (the “Cash Component”) computed as described below, or (ii) cash in lieu of all or a portion of the Deposit Securities, as defined below. Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component (including the cash in lieu amount) will constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which will represent the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit aggregation of the Fund.
The consideration for redemption of Creation Unit aggregations of the Fund will consist of (i) a designated portfolio of securities determined by the Adviser that generally will conform to the holdings of the Fund consistent with its investment objective per each Creation Unit aggregation (“Fund Securities”) and generally a Cash Component, as described below, or (ii) cash in lieu of all or a portion of the Fund Securities as defined below.
The Cash Component is sometimes also referred to as the Balancing Amount. The Cash Component will serve the function of compensating for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit aggregation and the Deposit Amount (as defined below). For example, for a creation the Cash Component will be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of Fund Shares (per Creation Unit aggregation) and the “Deposit Amount”—an amount equal to the market value of the Deposit Securities and/or cash in lieu of all or a portion of the Deposit Securities. If the Cash Component is a positive number
BNY Mellon, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., E.T.), the list of the names and the quantity of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day). Such Fund Deposit will be applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, in order to effect creations of Creation Unit aggregations of the Fund until such time as the next-announced composition of the Deposit Securities is made available. BNY Mellon, through the NSCC, will also make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., E.T.),
The Trust will reserve the right to permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash,
In addition to the list of names and numbers of securities constituting the current Deposit Securities of a Fund Deposit, BNY Mellon, through the NSCC, will also make available on each business day, the estimated Cash Component, effective through and including the previous business day, per Creation Unit aggregation of the Fund.
To be eligible to place orders with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units, an entity must be (i) a “Participating Party,”
All orders to create Creation Unit aggregations must be received by the Distributor no later than 3:00 p.m., E.T., an hour earlier than the closing time of the regular trading session on the Exchange (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., E.T.), in each case on the date such order is placed in order for creations of Creation Unit aggregations to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of the Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form.
In order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund, an Authorized Participant must submit an order to redeem for one or more Creation Units. All such orders must be received by the Distributor in proper form no later than 3:00 p.m., E.T., an hour earlier than the close of regular trading on the Exchange (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., E.T.), in order to receive that day's closing NAV per Share.
The Fund's Web site (
On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose for each portfolio security and other asset of the Fund the following information on the Fund's Web site (if applicable): Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding); the identity of the security, commodity, index, or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holdings in the Fund's portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5735(c)(3) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service
Price information regarding the ETPs, equity securities, U.S. treasuries, money market instruments and money market Funds held by the Fund will be available through the U.S. exchanges trading such assets, in the case of exchange-traded securities, as well as automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. For all security types in which the Fund may invest, the Fund's primary pricing source is IDC; its secondary source is Reuters; and its tertiary source is Bloomberg.
Intra-day price information for all assets held by the Fund will also be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors.
Investors will also be able to obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's Shareholder Reports, and its Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those
Additional information regarding the Fund and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes will be included in the Registration Statement.
The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and other assets constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. E.T. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(3), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Managed Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and other exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”)
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. In addition, paragraph (g) of Nasdaq Rule 5735 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio. The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective. FINRA may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and other exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes all U.S. and some foreign securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment). The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the Consolidated Tape Association plans for the Shares and any underlying exchange-traded products. Intra-day price information will be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors.
The Fund's Web site will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121 or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and other exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and other exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and other exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes all U.S. and some foreign securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Furthermore, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded fund that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to delete Rule 2.50 as it is no longer relevant.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to delete Rule 2.50 that sets forth the Exchange's policy with respect to the National Stock Exchange (“NSX”), previously a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE Stock Exchange LLC (“CBSX”).
The Commission recently approved an NSX rule filing that authorized the sale of NSX from CBSX to an unaffiliated third party.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the deletion of Rule 2.50 is appropriate because it is obsolete now that CBSX no longer owns or is affiliated with NSX. Additionally, if the current rule text language remains, confusion could arise as to whether or not NSX is still a wholly owned subsidiary of CBSX.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on intramarket competition because it applies to all market participants. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition as it is merely attempting to delete Rule 2.50 in its entirety as the rule text is no longer relevant because CBSX no longer owns or is affiliated with NSX. The Exchange does not propose any substantive changes to the Exchange's operations or its rules that the Exchange believes could have any impact on competition (intermarket or intramarket).
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule changes submitted in this filing.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 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 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)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules related to open interest reporting. The scope of this filing is limited solely
In its filing with the Commission, CFE 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. CFE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed CFE rule amendments included as part of this rule change is to add CFE Rule 410A (Reporting Open Interest to the Clearing Corporation) to make clear that all CFE clearing members
CFE has contracted with and uses OCC for clearing and settlement services for all transactions conducted on the Exchange. CFE clearing members are required by OCC Rule 401, Interpretation and Policy .01 to submit gross position adjustment information to OCC as necessary to identify the actual open interest in clearing member accounts at the end of each trading day based upon the day's trading activity and any applicable rules of an exchange. Clearing members are not required to provide this information for market maker accounts at OCC or when a futures exchange like CFE identifies a transaction as opening or closing in matching trade information that the exchange provides to OCC.
The amendments make clear that CFE clearing members must report gross position adjustment information to OCC to the extent required by, and in accordance with, OCC rules by including this requirement in new CFE Rule 410A. The amendments also provide that gross position adjustment information is not required to be reported to OCC pursuant to Rule 410A for market maker accounts at OCC or for transactions with respect to which a CFE Trading Privilege Holder (“TPH”) has designated as part of the applicable order submission to CFE whether the transaction is opening or closing. These two exceptions exist because in each case OCC will already have this information and thus does not need to receive it from clearing members. Specifically, with respect to the second exception, when a TPH submits an order to CFE's trading system, the TPH may choose to designate the transaction as opening or closing, though this field is not required. CFE provides such opening and closing designations by its TPHs to OCC, and OCC will then know that it does not need to receive this information regarding the order from the applicable clearing member.
By adding Rule 410A to the CFE Rulebook, the amendments make clear that a failure to report open interest information pursuant to OCC rules is an independent violation of CFE rules. These amendments are based upon a recommendation by the CFTC Division of Market Oversight in a recent rule enforcement review of the market surveillance program of ICE Futures U.S., Inc.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
• To prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
• to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
• to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities,
• to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and
• to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will strengthen its ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization by clarifying that CFE clearing members must report gross position adjustment information to OCC to the extent required by, and in accordance with, OCC rules by including this requirement in new CFE Rule 410A. The proposed rule change also provides that that gross position adjustment information is not required to be reported to OCC pursuant to Rule 410A for market maker accounts at OCC or for transactions with respect to which a TPH has designated as part of the applicable order submission to CFE whether the transaction is opening or closing. This change will strengthen CFE's regulatory and disciplinary program as well as serve as an effective deterrent to potential conduct that violates OCC's open interest reporting rule by making clear that a failure to report open interest information pursuant to OCC rules is an independent violation of CFE rules. CFE additionally believes that this change enables CFE to conform with recent guidance issued by the CFTC's Division of Market Oversight
CFE 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, in that the rule change will enhance CFE's ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the clarification of CFE clearing members' responsibility to report open interest to OCC in conformance with OCC rules would apply equally to all parties that are subject to the applicable requirements.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change will become effective on April 3, 2015.
At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
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: Johnathan R. Simon, Van Eck Associates Corporation, 335 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017.
Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6868, 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. Van Eck Funds is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Van Eck Funds is a trust which currently consists of eight Funds (as defined below), each with its own investment objective and policies. VIP Trust is a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. VIP Trust currently consists of six Funds, each with its own investment objective and policies. MV Trust is a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. MV Trust currently consists of 60 Funds, each with its own investment objective and policies.
2. VEAC is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). VEAC currently is the investment adviser to the Trusts. VESC, a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), serves as the principal underwriter for the Trusts.
3. Applicants request an exemption to the extent necessary to permit any existing or future series of the Trusts and any other registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by VEAC or any investment adviser controlling, controlled by, or under common control with VEAC (any such adviser or VEAC, the “Adviser”);
4. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each Fund of Funds' board of trustees will review the advisory fees charged by the Fund of Funds' Adviser to ensure that they 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 of Funds 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 of Funds to invest in Other Investments while investing in Underlying Funds. Applicants state that the Funds of Funds will comply with rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the Funds of Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants assert that permitting the Funds of 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 of Funds 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
(a) Each Member shall keep and preserve for a period of not less than [five]
(b) (No change).
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 II.A., II.B., and II.C. below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to conform with the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) for purposes of an agreement between the Exchange and FINRA, as well as to conform Exchange Rule 4.3 with the rules of the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and the EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”).
Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,
The 17d-2 Agreement included a certification by the Exchange that states that the requirements contained in certain Exchange rules are identical to, or substantially similar to, certain FINRA rules that have been identified as comparable. To conform to comparable FINRA rules for purposes of the 17d-2 Agreement, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to align with FINRA Rule 4513.
Exchange Rule 4.3 currently requires that members of the Exchange (“Members”) keep and preserve written customer complaints
The Exchange, therefore, proposes to decrease the record retention requirements under Rule 4.3 from five to four years. The Exchange believes that amending the record retention requirements for customer complaints to align with FINRA Rule 4513 would help to avoid confusion among Members that are also members of FINRA, EDGA, or EDGX. The Exchange further believes that aligning the Exchange's rules with FINRA Rule 4513 would account for FINRA's four-year routine examination cycle for certain members, which FINRA conducts on the Exchange's behalf under the 17d-2 Agreement ensuring consistent regulation of Members that are also members of FINRA.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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 because the proposed change would apply to all Members equally.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 No. SR-BATS-2015-25 and should be submitted on or before May 1, 2015.
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 1000 to reflect that Exchange systems will reject incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are marketable upon arrival. 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 1000 (Automatic Executions) to reflect that Exchange systems will reject incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are marketable upon arrival against interest in Exchange systems.
Currently, Exchange systems accept orders up to a maximum order size of 25,000,000 shares.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to provide that incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are marketable upon arrival would be rejected. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject marketable orders ineligible for automatic execution in order to reduce the potential that the Exchange would suspend automatic executions and disseminate a “slow” quote that permits other market centers to trade through the Exchange's quotations in that security. In addition, the Exchange notes that an order of such size that is marketable upon arrival may be an order entry error, and therefore rejecting the order puts the submitter of the order on notice of the large size of the order.
Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date via Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather to prevent unnecessary suspension of automatic executions on the Exchange's marketplace and reduce the likelihood that large, marketable orders may be an order entry error.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 2, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of eCareer Holdings, Inc., (“eCareer”) because of questions regarding the accuracy of publicly available information about the company's operations, including questions about the accuracy of statements in its filings regarding eCareer's use of investor proceeds for working capital, its sales of securities in unregistered transactions and compensation received by eCareer's CEO and chairman, including information in eCareer's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2014, and Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2014. Its stock is quoted on OTC Link, operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc., under the ticker: ECHI.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of eCareer.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective April 1, 2015. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Taker fees for complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except Russell 2000 Index (“RUT”)). Currently, for such orders, the Exchange provides a rebate of $0.35 per contract for Public Customers and assesses a fee of $0.45 per contract to C2 Market-Makers as well as to orders from all other origins (Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.). The Exchange proposes to eliminate the rebate for Public Customers and establish a fee of $0.47 per contract for Public Customer Orders. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to increase the Taker fee amounts for all other origins by $0.03, resulting in a fee of $0.48 per contract for all other origins, including C2 Market-Makers. The Exchange notes that the proposed Taker fee amounts are the same amounts currently assessed for simple, non-complex orders in equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes and are also in line with Taker fees assessed at other Exchanges.
Currently, Section 1A of the Fees Schedule, which sets forth fees for simple, non-complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (other than RUT), includes an asterisk attached to all Maker Rebates and denotes the following language: “Rebates do not apply to orders that trade with Public Customer complex orders. In such a circumstance there will be no rebate or fee.” The Exchange notes that it had adopted this language since Public Customer Taker complex orders also receive a rebate and thus, if the Exchange had offered the rebate when a Public Customer Maker simple order trades with another Public Customer complex order, the Exchange would be providing a rebate on both sides of the order (which would not have been economically feasible or viable it would result in a net negative for the Exchange). As such, no fee or rebate is applied in these circumstances. Similarly, the Exchange notes that Section 1B of the Fees Schedule, which sets forth fees for complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (other than RUT), includes an asterisk attached to Public Customer Rebates and denotes the following language: “The rebate will only apply to Public Customer complex orders that trade with non-Public Customer complex orders. In other circumstances, there will be no Maker or Taker fee or rebate.” Again the Exchange notes that Public Customers are currently entitled to a rebate regardless of whether they were a Maker or a Taker for complex orders and thus, if the Exchange offered the rebate when a Public Customer complex order trades with another Public Customer complex order, the Exchange would be providing a rebate on both sides of the order. As noted above, it would not have been economically feasible or viable to provide a rebate on an order that is trading with an order that is not generating a fee and therefore, in these circumstances, no fee or rebate is applied. However, in light of the Exchange eliminating the Taker rebate for Public Customers complex orders and replacing it with a fee, the Exchange will no longer be providing a rebate on both sides of a transaction in instances in which a simple, non-complex Maker order trades with a Public Customer complex order or where a Public Customer Complex order trades with another Public Customer complex order. Consequently, as the Exchange will only be providing a rebate on one side of a transaction for these orders, the Exchange believes that this exception is no longer necessary and proposes to eliminate the asterisk and asterisked language from the Fees Schedule.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed increases to Taker fees for complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except RUT) are reasonable because the proposed fee amounts are equivalent to Taker fees for complex [sic] orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except RUT).
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Public Customers as compared to other market participants because Public Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, Public Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. Additionally, the proposed fee change applying to Public Customers will be applied equally to all Public Customers.
The Exchange believes that the differences between the Maker rebates and fees and Taker fees for complex orders are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are intended to cover the costs associated with operating the Exchange's trading systems necessary to provide these trading opportunities.
The Exchange believes that amending the Fees Schedule so that Maker rebates will apply to all orders, including orders that trade with Public Customer complex orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange no longer also provides a rebate for Public Customer complex Taker orders, and thus it is no longer the case that it is not economically feasible or viable to provide a rebate in these circumstances. Similarly, the Exchange believes that its proposal to remove the language that permitted the Exchange to not provide a rebate for Public Customer complex orders that trade with other Public Customer orders is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange again no longer provides a rebate for Public Customer complex Taker orders, and thus it is no longer the case that it is not economically feasible or viable to provide a rebate in these circumstances. The Exchange also believes this proposed rule change is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market-participants entitled to receive a rebate when acting as a Maker in simple and complex orders when trading against non-Public Customers will also receive the rebate when trading with a Public Customer order.
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees and rebates are assessed to different market participants in some circumstances, these different market participants have different obligations and different circumstances as discussed above. The Exchange believes this proposal will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the Taker fee amounts for complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except RUT) is similar to fees assessed at other exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange does not believe amending the Fees Schedule so that all Maker rebates will apply to all orders (including orders that trade with Public Customer complex orders) will impose any burden on intramarket competition because all market-participants entitled to receive a rebate when acting as a Maker when trading against non-Public Customers will receive the rebate when trading with a Public Customer order. The Exchange does not believe amending the Fees Schedule so that all Maker rebates will apply to all orders (including orders that trade with Public Customer complex orders) will impose any burden on intermarket competition because it only applies to trading on the Exchange and because to the extent the availability of these rebates make C2 a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become C2 market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
There is no proposed change to the rule language.
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.
On October 22, 2014, rule change SR-CBOE-2014-067
The Exchange does not believe the modifications to the System will be completed prior to the current April 28th deadline; therefore, the Exchange seeks to delay the implementation date deadline for the portion of SR-CBOE-2014-067 related to allowing market orders to sell in no-bid series that were routed to a PAR workstation to be entered into the electronic order book. The Exchange will announce the implementation date in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the effective date of this filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes delaying the implementation deadline to allow the Exchange the necessary time to finish the modifications to the System, which will provide the functionality to route market orders to sell in no-bid series from a PAR workstation to an electronic order book, helps protect investors by ensuring the PAR workstation functions as intended.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. More specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition because this filing simply seeks to delay the implementation deadline of SR-CBOE-2014-067.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
C. 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) 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 Rule 1000—Equities to reflect that Exchange systems will reject incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are marketable upon arrival. 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 1000—Equities (Automatic Execution of Limit Orders Against Orders Reflected in Exchange Published Quotation) (“Rule 1000”) to reflect that Exchange systems will reject incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are marketable upon arrival against interest in Exchange systems.
Currently, Exchange systems accept orders up to a maximum order size of 25,000,000 shares.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to provide that incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are marketable upon arrival would be rejected. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject marketable orders ineligible for automatic execution in order to reduce the potential that the Exchange would suspend automatic executions and disseminate a “slow” quote that permits other market centers to trade through the Exchange's quotations in that security. In addition, the Exchange notes that an order of such size that is marketable upon arrival may be an order entry error, and therefore rejecting the order puts the submitter of the order on notice of the large size of the order.
Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date via Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather to prevent unnecessary suspension of automatic executions on the Exchange's marketplace and reduce the likelihood that large, marketable orders may be an order entry error.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act .
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4211-DR), dated 04/02/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to U.S. Small Business Administration Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 04/02/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces the 2015 Growth Accelerator Fund Competition, pursuant to the America Competes Act, to identify the nation's most innovative accelerators and similar organizations and award them cash prizes they may use to fund their operations costs and allow them to bring startup companies to scale and new ideas to life.
The submission period for entries begins 12:00 p.m. EDT, April 10, 2015 and ends June 1, 2015 at 11:59 p.m. EDT. Winners will be announced no later than August 24, 2015.
Nareg Sagherian, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-7576,
1.
2.
• Selective process to choose participating startups.
• Regular networking opportunities offered to startups.
• Introductions to customers, partners, suppliers, advisory boards and other players.
• High-growth and tech-driven startup mentorship and commercialization assistance.
• Shared working environments focused on building a strong startup community.
• Resource sharing and co-working arrangements for startups.
• Opportunities to pitch ideas and startups to investors along with other capital formation avenues to startups.
• Small amounts of angel money, seed capital or structured loans to startups.
• Service to underserved communities, such as women, veterans, and economically disadvantaged individuals.
3.
• What is your accelerator's mission in one sentence?
• What specific elements make your accelerator model stand out?
• What experiences prepare your team for this?
• What gaps does or will your accelerator fill?
• What are the specifics of your model and how it will accomplish the above?
• For existing accelerators, what has been your success/metrics so far?
• For existing accelerators, please explain your overall statistics of the start-up life cycle?
• What is your plan for the prize money if you win?
• If you are an existing accelerator using the funds to scale up, provide details of current operations, phases for scale up and Web site; or
• If you are creating a new accelerator, provide basics of business plan and phases for implementation.
• Aside from the founding team members, what do you look for in staff?
• What are the largest risk factors you see?
• What are your fundraising goals or metrics? (aside from the 4-to-1 match)
• Is there a plan in place to secure/work to secure funds (cash, in-kind donations, or sponsorships) in a 4-to-1 proportion to the prize dollars received?
• Aside from metrics required by SBA, what are 5 key metrics you will use to self-evaluate?
• What does success look like?
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Award Approving Official: Javier Saade, Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Pub. L. 111-358 (2011).
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4210-DR), dated 03/31/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration Processing, And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 03/31/2015, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open meeting of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards.
The SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the annual board meeting of the ten Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT and Wednesday, April 29, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue NW., Director's Room, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20005-5595.
Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the meeting of the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards (Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards). The Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards are tasked to advise the National Ombudsman on matters of concern to small businesses relating to enforcement activities of agencies and to report on substantiated instances of excessive enforcement actions against small business concerns, including any findings or recommendations of the Board as to agency enforcement practice or policy.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following topics related to the Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards:
The meeting is open to the public; however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Regulatory Fairness Boards must contact José Méndez, Case Management Specialist, by April 21, 2015, in writing
Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability, translation services, or require additional information, please contact José Méndez as well.
For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, please visit our Web site at
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, gives notice of a public meeting to discuss the possibility of future work by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the areas of identity management in the electronic realm and related trust services. Identity management is becoming a critical requirement for most substantive online transactions, as each party typically needs a reliable method to verify information regarding the identity of the other party. The public meeting will take place on Friday, May 29, 2015 from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. EDT. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
At its 2014 annual meeting, UNCITRAL decided to explore possible future work in the field of electronic commerce, considering as possible topics, identity management, trust services, electronic transfers and cloud computing. The issue of digital identity management has now surfaced as one of the most important topics, particularly in light of recent legislative enactments in both the European Union and the United States governing identity management services. Accordingly, it is expected that there will be a proposal to the 2015 annual meeting of UNCITRAL to undertake work in the fields of identity management and related trust services.
The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain the views of concerned stakeholders on the possibility of UNCITRAL work in these areas in advance of the annual meeting. This meeting is being held in coordination with the American Bar Association's Identity Management Legal Task Force and Georgetown University Law Center's Center on Transnational Business and the Law.
Time and Place: The meeting will take place from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. EDT at the Gewirz Student Center, Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001. Participants should plan to arrive at the Gewirz Student Center at 9:30 a.m. for registration.
Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public, subject to the capacity of the meeting room. Persons planning to attend should email
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including the object list, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at the American Foreign Service Association, 2101 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
The meeting's topic will be on People and Places for U.S. Public Diplomacy: American Spaces and the Human Resource Dimension of U.S. Foreign Public Engagement. It will feature representatives from the State Department who will discuss the current state of American Spaces and Ambassador Laurence Wohlers, who will discuss some early findings from the ACPD forthcoming report, Getting the People Part Right, Part II: A Report on the Human Resources Dimension of U.S. Public Diplomacy.
This meeting is open to the public, Members and staff of Congress, the State Department and other governmental officials, the media, and non-
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Commission shall represent the public interest and shall be selected from a cross section of educational, communications, cultural, scientific, technical, public service, labor, business, and professional backgrounds. Not more than four members shall be from any one political party. The President designates a member to chair the Commission.
The current members of the Commission are: Mr. William Hybl of Colorado, Chairman; Ambassador Lyndon Olson of Texas, Vice Chairman; Mr. Sim Farar of California, Vice Chairman; Ambassador Penne Korth-Peacock of Texas; Ms. Lezlee Westine of Virginia; and Anne Terman Wedner of Illinois. One seat on the Commission is currently vacant.
To request further information about the meeting or the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, you may contact its Executive Director, Katherine Brown, at
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in “DATES.”
January 1-January 31, 2015.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, Regulatory Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Castrogiovanni Drilling Pad #1, ABR-20100674.R1, Elkland Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 6, 2015.
2. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: McCarty Drilling Pad #1, ABR-20100676.R1, Elkland Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 6, 2015.
3. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Signore Drilling Pad #1, ABR-20100697.R1, Elkland Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 6, 2015.
4. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Waldeisen-Ladd Drilling Pad, ABR-20100699.R1, Fox Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 6, 2015.
5. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: Ogdensburg Gun Club Pad A, ABR-201501001, Union Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.500 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
6. Southwestern Energy Production Company, Pad ID: NR-18 Oak Ridge Pad, ABR-201501002, Oakland Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.999 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
7. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: OakleyJ P1, ABR-20100603.R1, Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.575 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
8. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: Post P1, ABR-20100605.R1, Brooklyn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.575 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
9. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: Lauffer P1, ABR-20100608.R1, Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.575 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
10. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: StockholmK P3, ABR-20100609.R1, Rush Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.575 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
11. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: HullR P2, ABR-20100612.R1, Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.575 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
12. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: StockholmK P1, ABR-20100663.R1, Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.575 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
13. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Marshlands H. Bergey Unit #1, ABR-20091230.R1, Gaines Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.990 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
14. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Marshlands K. Thomas Unit #1, ABR-20091231.R1, Elk Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.990 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
15. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Lick Run Pad, ABR-20091232.R1, Gaines Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.990 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
16. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Hillside Pad, ABR-20091233.R1, Gaines Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.990 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
17. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Button B 901 Pad, ABR-20091234.R1, West Branch Township, Potter County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.990 mgd; Approval Date: January 9, 2015.
18. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: PowersN P1, ABR-201501003, Forest Lake Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.250 mgd; Approval Date: January 13, 2015.
19. Carrizo (Marcellus), LLC, Pad ID: Sickler 5H, ABR-20100679.R1, Washington Township, Wyoming
20. Carrizo (Marcellus), LLC, Pad ID: Solanick 5H, ABR-201007007.R1, Washington Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 1.400 mgd; Approval Date: January 14, 2015.
21. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Squier Drilling Pad #1, ABR-201007008.R1, Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 16, 2015.
22. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 729 Pad C, ABR-201008051.R1, Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 16, 2015.
23. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 729 Pad D, ABR-201008052.R1, Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 16, 2015.
24. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: Shannon Todd Pad A, ABR-201009006.R1, Todd Township, Huntingdon County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 16, 2015.
25. Inflection Energy (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Fox Well Site, ABR-201501004, Eldred Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.000 mgd; Approval Date: January 29, 2015.
26. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Yengo, ABR-20100206.R1, Cherry Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: January 30, 2015.
27. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Allford, ABR-20100412.R1, Smithfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: January 30, 2015.
28. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: A&M, ABR-201501005, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: January 30, 2015.
29. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Samantha, ABR-201501006, Forkston Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: January 30, 2015.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of availability.
On March 16, 2015, the Minnesota Division of the FHWA signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Trunk Highway 41 River Crossing Tier I Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The ROD states the FHWA decision to declare the modified Alternative C-2 corridor as the selected alternative. The selected alternative involves the construction of a new east-west freeway connection between US 169 and US 212 within the modified Alternative C-2 corridor. The selected alternative is the environmentally-preferred alternative.
The Tier I FEIS was made available to the public on December 12, 2014, through an NOA in the
Philip Forst, Environmental Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, Minnesota Division, 380 Jackson Street, Ste. 500, Saint Paul, MN 55101, (651) 291-6110.
40 CFR 1505.2
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability of final circular.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has placed in the docket and on its Web site, guidance in the form of an updated circular to assist applicants and recipients in implementing research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects, technical assistance projects, standards development projects, and human resources and training projects. The purpose of this circular is to provide FTA recipients updated instructions and guidance on application procedures and project management responsibilities. The revisions to FTA Circular 6100.1D are a result of changes made to FTA's Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Program (Section 5312), its Technical Assistance and Standards Development Program (Section 5314), and its Human Resources and Training Program (Section 5322) as authorized or amended by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141.
For program questions contact Mackenzie Thiessen, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation, phone: (202) 366-0290 or email:
This circular updates FTA Circular 6100.1D, “Research, Technical Assistance and Training Programs: Application Instructions and Program Management Guidelines,” last revised in 2011, in order to incorporate changes in the MAP-21. MAP-21 has made a number of changes to FTA's research, technical assistance, human resources, and training programs. This circular reflects these updates to Federal law, includes policy determinations, clarifies FTA's requirements and processes, and restructures FTA Circular 6100.1D for clarity and ease of use.
On August 13, 2014, FTA issued a notice of availability of proposed FTA Circular 6100.1E in the
In addition to the MAP-21 revisions addressed above and outlined below, this circular updates the organization and wording of the previous circular to improve clarity and consistency with FTA's other circulars and to reflect other changes in the law.
Notably, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released its final guidance, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” 2 CFR part 200, on December 26, 2013. The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) is implementing the new OMB requirements through a new Common Rule, U.S. DOT regulations, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” 2 CFR part 1201. These U.S. DOT regulations (Common Rule) supersede and apply in lieu of U.S. DOT's previous Common Rules, former 49 CFR parts 18 and 19, and the Federal Cost Principles Circulars, former 2 CFR parts 220, 225, and 230. The requirements of former 49 CFR parts 18 and 19, and the Federal Cost Principles Circulars, former 2 CFR parts 220, 225, and 230, apply to FTA Grants and Cooperative Agreements and Amendments thereto awarded before December 26, 2014, to the extent applicable. The requirements of the new U.S. DOT regulations at 2 CFR part 1201 apply to FTA Grants and Cooperative Agreements and Amendments awarded on or after December 26, 2014 to any FTA Grants and Cooperative Agreements to the extent applicable.
This document does not include the revised circular; however, an electronic version is available on FTA's Web site, at
This chapter provides a general introduction to FTA that is included in all new and revised program circulars for the orientation of readers new to FTA programs.
FTA did not receive any substantive comments on this chapter.
As in FTA Circular 6100.1D, Chapter II of FTA Circular 6100.1E provides an overview of FTA's research programs. Chapter II is divided into four sections. As proposed, we have moved or amended some of the content to reflect program changes and to improve the organization and readability of this circular.
This chapter covers various programs and their statutory authorities, including:
1. The research, development, demonstration, deployment, innovation, evaluation, and low or no emissions programs authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5312,
2. The transit cooperative research program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5313,
3. The technical assistance and standards development program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5314, and
4. The human resources program, innovative workforce development program, and the National Transit Institute (NTI) program authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5322.
Repealed Programs: MAP-21 repealed a number of public transportation programs authorized under the previous authorizing legislation. Funds that were authorized under these programs remain available for obligation in a Grant, Cooperative Agreement, or Other Agreement until the applicable statutory period of availability expires, or until the funds are fully expended, rescinded by Congress, or otherwise reallocated. Entities that are awarded FY 2012 or a previous fiscal year funding should check with their FTA Program Manager for the requirements that accompany that funding.
This chapter clarifies the civil rights requirements with which the Recipient must when receiving Federal assistance. As proposed, we have reorganized the content, although the content remains substantially similar to FTA Circular 6100.1D.
As in FTA Circular 6100.1D, this chapter also points out that FTA recipients must comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and directives unless FTA determines otherwise in writing. We also added a hyperlink to sample Master Agreements on FTA's Web site.
The FTA received comments recommending that FTA provide funding for projects that support women employed or seeking employment in skilled trades. The FTA also received comments recommending that FTA use some of its resources for projects to support its recipients' efforts to integrate transportation, housing, infrastructure, and disaster resiliency. Although Federal law authorizes FTA to consider support for women in trades and efforts to integrate transportation, housing, infrastructure, and disaster resiliency, FTA cautions that its resources are limited and that it may not be able to undertake the specific programs to the extent commenters have recommended. Nevertheless, FTA encourages interested parties to check FTA's notices of funding availability for programs of interest to them.
The FTA did not receive any other substantive comments on this chapter.
This chapter describes the processes and procedures that must be followed in submitting applications to FTA.
The following changes have been made:
1. This chapter now includes an “Agreement Life Cycle,” section, listing the stages in the life cycle of an application for Federal assistance to highlight the following matters: implementation, management and oversight of activities supported by the Agreement, period of performance completed, final reports, independent evaluation, and other reports delivered to FTA, excess equipment and property acquired with Federal assistance and disposed of, and the final Federal Financial Report, budget revision, and actual milestones accomplished recorded in FTA's electronic award and management system,
2. The FTA has deleted the former section on Central Contractor Registration and replaced it with requirements to register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and to review and update SAM information at least annually during the life of the Agreement,
3. The FTA has made the following changes to its proposal and pre-application procedures:
a. The FTA has substituted the term “project narrative” for the former term “white paper,” and
b. The FTA has increased the size limitation for competitive proposals from 5 to 15 pages,
4. The FTA has made several changes to its formal application procedures:
a. The FTA has deleted the former reference to scope code 70 for projects undertaken by universities as this code is rarely used. Likewise, we have deleted the “University Budget Example.” Using scope code 55 for most research-type projects will facilitate retrieving aggregate information about
b. The FTA deleted the requirement for a literature review as inapplicable to most projects FTA has been funding under the programs covered by this circular. If FTA deems a literature search is essential to a research project authorized by Section 5312(b), the solicitation will require the review,
c. The FTA has added this section explaining what to do if an applicant is located in a State that does not have a single point of contact for Intergovernmental Review,
d. The FTA has deleted the option of submitting documents to FTA on paper (hard copy) to reflect FTA's commitment to electronic award and management for all recipients, because there should be few, if any, instances when a recipient is unable to submit certifications electronically,
e. Since typical projects covered by this circular would not require a formal environmental impact statement (EIS), FTA has updated, clarified and moved material in the previous environmental discussion, as proposed, and
f. The FTA has edited the former version describing Davis-Bacon Act requirements for clarification without substantive change,
5. The FTA has added a discussion of peer review and independent evaluation to implement a new MAP-21 statutory requirement for a comprehensive evaluation of the success or failure of projects funded under 49 U.S.C. 5312(d),
6. The FTA has deleted the public hearing requirement, formerly in FTA Circular 5010.1D, because that requirement was repealed by MAP-21,
7. The FTA has revised the cost sharing provisions because MAP-21 requires a 20 percent local share for some projects,
8. The FTA has added new information regarding possible uses of program income when authorized by law, regulation, guidance or special condition, and
9. In its discussion of project approval, FTA has amended the instructions on reimbursement procedures to describe the DELPHI eInvoicing System, which has superseded the former ACH system.
The following matters are substantially similar to those included in FTA Circular 6100.1D:
1. Overview,
2. Use of FTA's electronic award and management system. Nevertheless, because FTA is considering adopting a new electronic award and management system to replace its Transportation Electronic Award Management (TEAM) system, FTA has changed references to “TEAM” to the more generic “current electronic award and management system,” and
3. In its discussion of project approval, FTA has made the following changes:
a. The FTA has made edits to the Notification provisions to clarify and to allow flexibility in the means of contacting the recipient, and
b. The FTA has edited the Execution of the FTA Agreement for clarification with no substantive change.
The FTA did not receive any substantive comments on this chapter.
As proposed, FTA has made minor editorial changes to improve clarity throughout Chapter IV, without substantive changes in meaning.
As proposed, FTA has relocated detailed instructions for filing Federal Financial Reports to Appendix A.
The FTA did not receive any substantive comments on this chapter.
Chapter V is substantially similar to chapter V in FTA Circular 6100.1D. This chapter provides guidance on the proper use and management of Federal assistance that is unique to Research, Technical Assistance and Training programs. Changes to this chapter include the following:
1. The FTA has substituted “Local Share” for “Non-Federal Match,” and
2. The FTA has provided additional guidance on payment methods. In accordance with DOT guidelines, recipients of Cooperative Agreements must request Federal assistance using Delphi eInvoicing System. All documentation needed to support payment is required to be scanned within the eInvoicing System to assist the FTA Approving Official in authorizing reimbursement to the recipient.
The FTA did not receive any substantive comments on this chapter.
While much of the information in this Chapter is substantially similar to that of its predecessor, FTA Circular 6100.1D, FTA made the following changes:
1. The FTA has added a discussion to include the requirement that Financial Management Oversight (FMO) contractors conduct a series of interviews, full transaction reviews, and appropriate substantive tests. It also describes the seven standards for financial management systems: Financial Reporting, Accounting Records, Internal Control, Budget Control, Allowable Costs, Source Documentation, and Cash Management, and
2. The FTA has added information to describe how FTA may perform a review with its project management oversight contractor to develop agreed-upon procedures for oversight of certain aspects of the recipient's financial management issues on a case-by-case basis.
The FTA did not receive any substantive comments on this chapter.
New Appendix A, “Instructions for Completing Federal Financial Report (FFR).” The information in this Appendix was formerly located in Section IV.3 of FTA Circular 6100.1D. As proposed, the text in Appendix A is substantially similar to that of Section IV.3 of FTA Circular 6100.1D. As proposed, FTA has deleted the former Appendix A of FTA Circular 6100.1D, consisting of a Table of FTA Circulars, because the list of FTA circulars in effect changes frequently and a current list is available on the FTA public Web site.
Relocated Appendix B, “Cost Allocation Plans.” The information in Appendix B is substantially similar to that in Appendix C of FTA Circular 6100.1D. As proposed, FTA has deleted the former Appendix B, “Quarterly Narrative Report Example,” because it did not provide a useful format for a quarterly narrative report. As proposed, we have located this information in section IV.4.d. of this circular and revising it to clarify what should be in the type of comprehensive quarterly narrative report FTA seeks.
Relocated Appendix C, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement (SF-270).” This information is the same as located in Appendix D of FTA Circular 6100.1D.
New Appendix D, “Preparation Instructions for FTA Final Reports.” Appendix D is a near verbatim copy of the preparation instructions on the FTA Public Web site at
Former Appendix E, “FTA Regional and Metropolitan Contact Information.” As proposed, FTA has deleted this Appendix because this information is
The FTA did not receive any substantive comments on these appendices.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Announcement of public workshop.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is announcing a workshop that will be held in Washington, DC on April 28, 2015 to discuss options to improve vehicle safety recall completion rates. The workshop will include brief NHTSA presentations outlining recent agency activities aimed at improving recall completion rates as well as recent examples of steps vehicle manufacturers have taken. Information on the date, time, location, and framework for this public event is included in this notice. Attendance requires prior registration; there will be no registration at the door. There are no fees to register or to attend this event.
The workshop will be held on April 28, 2015, at the location indicated in the
The April 28, 2015 workshop will be held in the Media Center of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
If you would like to attend the workshop, please contact Heather Laca by the date specified under
NHTSA is hosting a public workshop to discuss options to improve vehicle safety recall completion rates.
NHTSA marked a record year in 2014, with the highest number of vehicle recalls in more than three decades. Last year alone, there were 803 vehicle recalls involving 63.9 million vehicles, including two of the largest vehicle recalls in history.
The sessions will focus on public education of the recall process; customer and dealership outreach; parts production challenges and recall repair rates. The input gathered by the working groups will be used to identify best practices and new approaches for improving the recall process.
To attend this workshop, please register with NHTSA by the date specified under the
For security purposes, photo identification is required to enter the Department of Transportation building. To allow sufficient time to clear security and enter the building, NHTSA recommends that workshop participants arrive 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of the event.
49 U.S.C. 30118-30120; 49 U.S.C. 30181-30182; 49 CFR 573 and 577.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement (Agreement)
The transaction may be consummated on or after April 26, 2015, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed). The purpose of the trackage rights is to allow N&BE to operate bridge train service for certain seasonal traffic.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the acquisition of the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35908, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Richard R. Wilson, 518 N. Center Street, Ste. 1, Ebensburg, PA 15931.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian National Railway Company, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F-
IC 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 that would have to be rerouted over other lines; (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 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 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 abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption may become effective on May 12, 2015, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to IC's representative: Audrey L. Brodrick, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
IC has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 17, 2015. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or interim trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), IC shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by IC's filing of a notice of consummation by April 10, 2016, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications may be submitted to the CDFI Fund starting on the date of publication of this NOGA. In order to be considered for the issuance of a Guarantee under FY 2015 program authority, Qualified Issuer Applications must be submitted by June 5, 2015 and Guarantee Applications must be submitted by June 12, 2015. If applicable, CDFI Certification Applications must be received by the CDFI Fund by 5:00 p.m. ET, May 22, 2015. Under FY 2015 authority, Bond Documents and Bond Loan documents must be executed, and Guarantees will be provided, in the order in which Guarantee Applications are approved or by such other criteria that the CDFI Fund may establish and publish, in its sole discretion, and in any event by September 30, 2015.
A.
2.
3.
4.
(a) Qualified Issuer Applications submitted with Guarantee Applications will have priority for review over Qualified Issuer Applications submitted without Guarantee Applications. With the exception of the aforementioned prioritized review, all Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications will be reviewed by the CDFI Fund on an ongoing basis, in the order in which they are received or by such other criteria that the CDFI Fund may establish and publish, in its sole discretion.
(b) Guarantee Applications that are incomplete or require the CDFI Fund to request additional or clarifying information may delay the ability of the CDFI Fund to move the Guarantee Application to the next phase of review. Submitting an incomplete Guarantee Application earlier than other applicants does not ensure first approval.
(c) Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications that were received in FY 2014 and that were neither withdrawn nor declined in FY 2014 will be considered under FY 2015 authority.
(d) Pursuant to the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.504(c), the Guarantor may limit the number of Guarantees issued per year or the number of Guarantee Applications accepted to ensure that a sufficient examination of Guarantee Applications is conducted.
(e) The Guarantor reserves the right to approve Guarantees, in whole or in part, in response to any, all, or none of the Guarantee Applications submitted in response to this NOGA. The Guarantor also reserves the right to approve any Guarantees in an amount that is less than requested in the corresponding Guarantee Application.
5.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The Agreement to Guarantee, which describes the roles and responsibilities of the Qualified Issuer, will be signed by the Qualified Issuer and the Guarantor and will include term sheets as exhibits that will be signed by each individual Eligible CDFI;
(ii) The Bond Trust Indenture, which describes responsibilities of the Master Servicer/Trustee in overseeing the servicing of the Bonds and will be entered into by the Qualified Issuer and the Master Servicer/Trustee;
(iii) The Bond Loan Agreement, which describes the terms and conditions of Bond Loans and will be entered into by the Qualified Issuer and each Eligible CDFI that receives a Bond Loan;
(iv) The Bond Purchase Agreement, which describes the terms and conditions under which the Bond Purchaser will purchase the Bonds issued by the Qualified Issuer and will be signed by the Bond Purchaser, the Qualified Issuer, the Guarantor and the CDFI Fund; and
(v) The Future Advance Promissory Bond, which will be signed by the Qualified Issuer as its promise to repay the Bond Purchaser.
The template documents may be updated periodically, as needed, and will be tailored, as appropriate, to the terms and conditions of a particular Bond, Bond Loan, and Guarantee.
(d)
(e)
B.
C.
D.
1. Award funds received under any other CDFI Fund Program cannot be used by any participant, including Qualified Issuers, Eligible CDFIs, and Secondary Borrowers, to pay principal, interest, fees, administrative costs, or issuance costs (including Bond Issuance Fees) related to the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, or to fund the Risk-Share Pool for a Bond Issue.
2. Bond Proceeds may be combined with New Markets Tax Credits (NMTC) derived equity (
3. Bond Proceeds may not be used to refinance a leveraged loan during the seven-year NMTC compliance period. However, Bond Proceeds may be used to refinance a QLICI after the seven-year NMTC compliance period has ended, so long as all other programmatic requirements are met.
4. The terms Qualified Equity Investment, Community Development Entity, and Qualified Low-Income Community Investment are defined in the NMTC Program's authorizing statute, 26 U.S.C. 45D.
E.
2. The CDFI Bond Guarantee Program underwriting process will include a comprehensive review of the Eligible CDFI's concentration of sources of funds available for debt service, including the concentration of sources from other Federal programs and level of reliance on said sources, to determine the Eligible CDFI's ability to service the additional debt.
3. In the event that the Eligible CDFI proposes to use other Federal funds to service Bond Loan debt or as Credit Enhancement, the CDFI Fund may require, in its sole discretion, that the Eligible CDFI provide written assurance from such other Federal program, in form that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund and that the CDFI Fund may rely upon, that said use is permissible.
F.
G.
The following requirements apply to all Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications submitted under this NOGA, as well as any Qualified Issuer Applications and Guarantee Applications submitted under the FY 2014 NOGA that were neither withdrawn nor declined in FY 2014.
A.
2.
(a)
(b)
(i) Concurrent with the publication of this NOGA, the CDFI Fund has published a revision of 12 CFR 1805.201(b)(2), the section of the CDFI
This regulatory revision affects only the Affiliate's ability to meet the financing entity requirement for purposes of CDFI certification: Said Affiliate must meet the other certification criteria in accordance with the existing regulations governing CDFI certification.
(ii) The revised regulation also states that, solely for the purpose of participating in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Affiliate's provision of Financial Products and Financial Services, Development Services, and/or other similar financing transactions need not be arms-length in nature if such transaction is by and between the Affiliate and Controlling CDFI, pursuant to an operating agreement that includes management and ownership provisions and that is effective prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and is in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund.
(iii) An Affiliate whose CDFI certification is based on the financing activity or track record of a Controlling CDFI is not eligible to receive financial or technical assistance awards or tax credit allocations under any other CDFI Fund program until such time that the Affiliate meets the financing entity requirement based on its own activity or track record.
(iv) If an Affiliate elects to satisfy the financing entity requirement based on the financing activity or track record of a Controlling CDFI, and if the CDFI Fund approves such Affiliate as an Eligible CDFI for the purpose of participation in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, said Affiliate's CDFI certification will terminate if: (A) It does not enter into Bond Loan documents with its Qualified Issuer within one (1) year of the date that it signs the term sheet (which is an exhibit to the Agreement to Guarantee); (B) it ceases to be an Affiliate of the Controlling CDFI; or (C) it ceases to be a Certified CDFI.
(c)
(i) To be a Certified CDFI, an entity must serve at least one eligible Target Market (either an Investment Area or a Targeted Population) by directing at least 60% of all of its Financial Product activities to one or more eligible Target Market.
(ii) Solely for the purpose of participation as an Eligible CDFI in the FY 2015 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, an Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI may be deemed to meet the Target Market requirement by virtue of serving either:
(A) an Investment Area through “borrowers or investees” that serve the Investment Area or provide significant benefits to its residents (pursuant to 12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)(ii)(F)). For purposes of this NOGA, the term “borrower” or “investee” includes a borrower of a loan originated by the Controlling CDFI that has been transferred to the Affiliate as lender (which loan must meet Secondary Loan Requirements), pursuant to an operating agreement with the Affiliate that includes ownership/investment and management provisions, which agreement must be in effect prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund. If an Affiliate has more than one Controlling CDFIs, it may meet this Investment Area requirement through one or more of such Controlling CDFIs' Investment Areas; or
(B) a Targeted Population “indirectly or through borrowers or investees that directly serve or provide significant benefits to such members” (pursuant to 12 CFR 1805.201(b)(3)(iii)(B)) if the Controlling CDFI's financing entity activities serve the Affiliate's Targeted Population pursuant to an operating agreement that includes ownership/investment and management provisions by and between the Affiliate and the Controlling CDFI, which agreement must be in effect prior to the submission of a CDFI Certification Application and in form and substance that is acceptable to the CDFI Fund. If an Affiliate has more than one Controlling CDFIs, it may meet this Targeted Population requirement through one or more of such Controlling CDFIs' Targeted Populations.
(iii) An Affiliate that meets the Target Market requirement through paragraphs (A) and (B) above, is not eligible to receive financial or technical assistance awards or tax credit allocations under any other CDFI Fund program until such time that the Affiliate meets the Target Market requirements based on its own activity or track record.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g) For the FY 2015 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, only one Affiliate per Controlling CDFI may participate as an Eligible CDFI.
3.
4. For more detailed information on CDFI certification requirements, please review the CDFI certification regulation (12 CFR 1805.201, as revised concurrently with the issuance of this NOGA) and CDFI Certification Application materials/guidance posted on the CDFI Fund's Web site. Interested parties should note that there are specific regulations and requirements that apply to Depository Institution Holding Companies, Insured Depository Institutions, Insured Credit Unions, and State-Insured Credit Unions.
5. An Affiliate of a Controlling CDFI that wishes to apply to be designated as an Eligible CDFI in the FY 2015 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program must submit a CDFI Certification Application to the CDFI Fund by 5:00 p.m. ET, May 22, 2015. Any CDFI Certification Application received after such date and time, as well as incomplete applications that are not amended by the deadline, will not be considered for the FY 2015 application round of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program.
6. In no event will the Secretary of the Treasury approve a Guarantee for a Bond from which a Bond Loan will be made to an entity that is not an Eligible CDFI. The Secretary must make FY 2015 Guarantee Application decisions, and the CDFI Fund must close the corresponding Bonds and Bond Loans, prior to the end of FY 2015 (September 30, 2015). Accordingly, it is essential that CDFI Certification Applications are submitted timely and in complete form, with all materials and information needed for the CDFI Fund to make a certification decision. Information on CDFI certification, the CDFI Certification Application, and application submission instructions may be found on the CDFI Fund's Web site at
B.
2.
3.
4.
C.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(a) In the event that there are material changes after the submission of a Qualified Issuer Application prior to the designation as a Qualified Issuer, the applicant must notify the CDFI Fund of such material changes information in a timely and complete manner. The CDFI Fund will evaluate such material changes, along with the Qualified Issuer Application, to approve or deny the designation of the Qualified Issuer.
(b) In the event that there are material changes after the submission of a Guarantee Application (including, but not limited to, a revision of the Capital Distribution Plan or a change in the Eligible CDFIs that are included in the Application) prior to or after the designation as a Qualified Issuer or approval of a Guarantee Application or Guarantee, the applicant must notify the CDFI Fund of such material changes information in a timely and complete manner. The Guarantor will evaluate such material changes, along with the Guarantee Application, to approve or deny the Guarantee Application and/or determine whether to modify the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Guarantee. This evaluation may result in a delay of the approval or denial of a Guarantee Application.
D.
E.
F.
1.
2.
3.
For purposes of the calculation of undisbursed award funds for the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program, only awards made to the Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and any Certified CDFI included in the Qualified Issuer Application, three to five calendar years prior to the end of the calendar year of the Qualified Issuer Application submission date are included. For purposes of the calculation of undisbursed award funds for the CDFI Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), only awards made to the Qualified Issuer applicant, its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and any Certified CDFI included in the Qualified Issuer Application, two to five calendar years prior to the end of the calendar year of the Qualified Issuer Application submission date are included.
Undisbursed awards cannot exceed five percent of the total includable awards for the Applicant's BEA/CDFI/NACA/CMF awards as of the date of submission of the Qualified Issuer Application. The calculation of undisbursed award funds does not include: (i) Tax credit allocation authority made available through the New Markets Tax Credit Program; (ii) any award funds for which the CDFI Fund received a full and complete disbursement request from the awardee by the date of submission of the Qualified Issuer Application; (iii) any award funds for an award that has been terminated in writing by the CDFI Fund or de-obligated by the CDFI Fund; or (iv) any award funds for an award that does not have a fully executed assistance or award agreement. The CDFI Fund strongly encourages Qualified Issuer applicants, proposed Program Administrators, proposed Servicers, and any Certified CDFIs included in a Qualified Issuer Application that wish to request disbursements of undisbursed funds from prior awards to provide the CDFI Fund with a complete disbursement request at least 10 business days prior to the date of submission of a Qualified Issuer Application.
G.
H.
I.
The CDFI Fund may also bar from consideration any such entity that has, in any proceeding instituted against it in, by, or before any court, governmental, or administrative body or agency, received a final determination within the last two (2) years indicating that the entity has discriminated on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, marital status, receipt of income from public assistance, religion, or sex, including but not limited to discrimination under (i) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; (ii) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (iii) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; (iv) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (v) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (vi) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (vii) Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (viii) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601
J.
K.
A.
1.
2.
3.
B.
2.
C.
(b) As part of the substantive evaluation process, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact the Qualified Issuer applicant (as well as its proposed Program Administrator, its proposed Servicer, and each designating Certified CDFI in the Qualified Issuer Application) by telephone, email, mail, or through on-site visits for the purpose of obtaining additional, clarifying, confirming, or supplemental application information. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to collect such additional, clarifying, confirming, or supplemental information from said entities as it deems appropriate. If contacted for additional, clarifying, confirming, or supplemental information, said entities must respond within the time parameters set by the CDFI Fund or the Qualified Issuer Application will be rejected.
2.
(a)
(ii) The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has the appropriate expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications to originate, underwrite, service and monitor Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes, targeted to Low-Income Areas and Underserved Rural Areas.
(iii) The Qualified Issuer applicant must demonstrate that it has the appropriate expertise, capacity, experience and qualifications to manage the disbursement process set forth in the
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
D.
E.
A.
1.
(a) The Guarantee Application is the application document that a Qualified Issuer (in collaboration with the Eligible CDFI(s) that seek to be included in the proposed Bond Issue) must submit to the CDFI Fund in order to apply for a Guarantee. The Qualified Issuer shall provide all required information in its Guarantee Application to establish that it meets all criteria set forth in the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.501 and this NOGA and can carry out all CDFI Bond Guarantee Program requirements including, but not limited to, information that demonstrates that the Qualified Issuer has the appropriate expertise, capacity, and experience and is qualified to make, administer and service Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes.
(b) The Guarantee Application comprises a Capital Distribution Plan and at least one Secondary Capital Distribution Plan, as well as all other requirements set forth in this NOGA or as may be required by the Guarantor and the CDFI Fund in their sole discretion, for the evaluation and selection of Guarantee applicants.
2.
B.
2.
3.
C.
D.
1.
(b) As part of the substantive review process, the CDFI Fund may contact the Qualified Issuer (as well as the proposed Eligible CDFIs included in the Guarantee Application) by telephone, email, mail, or through an on-site visit for the sole purpose of obtaining additional, clarifying, confirming, or supplemental application information. The CDFI Fund reserves the right to collect such additional, clarifying, confirming or supplemental information as it deems appropriate. If contacted for additional, clarifying, confirming, or supplemental information, said entities must respond within the time parameters set by the CDFI Fund or the Guarantee Application will be rejected.
2.
(b) The Capital Distribution Plan must demonstrate the Qualified Issuer's comprehensive plan for lending, disbursing, servicing and monitoring each Bond Loan in the Bond Issue. It includes, among other information, the following components:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(vii) Assurances and certifications that not less than 100 percent of the principal amount of Bonds will be used to make Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes beginning on the Bond Issue Date, and that Secondary Loans shall be made as set forth in subsection 1808.307(b); and
(viii) Such other information that the Guarantor, the CDFI Fund and/or the Bond Purchaser may deem necessary and appropriate.
(c) The CDFI Fund will use the information described in the Capital Distribution Plan and Secondary Capital Distribution Plan(s) to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Bond Issue, with specific attention paid to each Eligible CDFI's financial strength and organizational capacity. For each proposed Eligible CDFI relying, for CDFI certification purposes, on the financing entity activity of a Controlling CDFI, the CDFI Fund will pay specific attention to the Controlling CDFI's financial strength and organizational capacity and the operating agreement between the proposed Eligible CDFI and the Controlling CDFI. All materials provided in the Guarantee Application will be used to evaluate the proposed Bond Issue. In total, there are more than 100 individual criteria or sub-criteria used to evaluate each Eligible CDFI. Specific criteria used to evaluate each Eligible CDFI shall include, but not be limited to the following criteria below. For each proposed Eligible CDFI relying, for CDFI certification purposes, on the financing entity activity of a Controlling CDFI, the following specific criteria will also be used to evaluate both the proposed Eligible CDFI and the Controlling CDFI:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
3.
E.
2. The Guarantor reserves the right to approve Guarantees, in whole or in part, in response to any, all, or none of the Guarantee Applications submitted in response to this NOGA. The Guarantor also reserves the right to approve any Guarantees in an amount that is less than requested in the corresponding Guarantee Application. Pursuant to the Regulations at 12 CFR 1808.504(c), the Guarantor may limit the number of Guarantees made per year to ensure that a sufficient examination of Guarantee Applications is conducted.
3. The CDFI Fund will notify the Qualified Issuer in writing of the Guarantor's approval or disapproval of a Guarantee Application. If approved for a Guarantee, the Qualified Issuer will enter into an Agreement to Guarantee, which will include a term sheet that will be signed by each Eligible CDFI.
4. Following the execution and delivery of the Agreement to Guarantee (and the respective term sheets), the parties will proceed to the Bond Issue Date, when the parties will sign and enter into the remaining Bond Documents and Bond Loan documents.
5. Please note that the most recently dated templates of Bond Documents and Bond Loan documents that are posted on the CDFI Fund's Web site will not be substantially revised or negotiated prior to closing of the Bond and Bond Loan and issuance of the corresponding Guarantee. If a Qualified Issuer or a proposed Eligible CDFI does not understand the terms and conditions of the Bond Documents or Bond Loan documents (including those that listed in Section II.G., above), it should feel free to ask questions or seek technical assistance from the CDFI Fund. However, if a Qualified Issuer or a proposed Eligible CDFI disagrees or is uncomfortable with any term/condition, or if legal counsel to either cannot provide a legal opinion in substantially the same form and content of the required legal opinion, it should not apply for a Guarantee.
6. The Guarantee shall not be effective until the Guarantor signs and delivers the Guarantee.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Eligible CDFIs must execute Secondary Loans documents (in the form of loan agreements and promissory notes) with Secondary Borrowers as follows: (i) Not later than twelve (12) months after the Bond Issue Date, Secondary Loan documents representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the Bond Loan proceeds allocated for Secondary Loans, and (ii) not later than twenty-four (24) months after the Bond Issue Date, Secondary Loan documents representing one hundred percent (100%) of the Bond Loan proceeds allocated for Secondary Loans. In the event that the Eligible CDFI does not comply with the foregoing requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, the available Bond Loan proceeds at the end of the applicable period shall be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the amount required by clauses (i) and (ii) minus the amount previously committed to the Secondary Loans in the applicable period. Secondary Loans shall carry loan maturities suitable to the loan purpose and consistent with loan-to-value requirements set forth in the Secondary Loan Requirements. Secondary Loan maturities shall not exceed the corresponding Bond or Bond Loan maturity date. It is the expectation of the CDFI Fund that such interest rates will be reasonable based on the borrower and loan characteristics.
E.
2. The Regulations require that Bond Loans must be secured by a first lien on a collateral assignment of Secondary Loans, and further that the Secondary Loans must be secured by a first lien or parity lien on acceptable collateral.
3. Valuation of the collateral pledged by the Secondary Borrower must be based on the Eligible CDFI's credit policy guidelines and must conform to the standards set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
4. Independent third-party appraisals are required for the following collateral: Real estate; fixtures, machinery and equipment, and movables stock valued in excess of $250,000; contracted revenue stream from non-Federal creditworthy counterparties. Secondary Loan collateral shall be valued using the cost approach, net of depreciation and shall be required for the following: Accounts receivable; machinery, equipment and movables; and fixtures.
F.
G.
2. Credit Enhancements may include, but are not limited to, payment guarantees from third parties or Affiliate(s), non-Federal capital, lines or letters of credit, or other pledges of financial resources that enhance the Eligible CDFI's ability to make timely interest and principal payments under the Bond Loan.
3. As distinct from Credit Enhancements, Principal Loss Collateral Provisions may be provided in lieu of pledged collateral and in addition to pledged collateral. A Principal Loss Collateral Provision shall be in the form of cash or cash equivalent guarantees from non-Federal capital in amounts necessary to secure the Eligible CDFI's obligations under the Bond Loan after exercising other remedies for default. For example, a Principal Loss Collateral Provision may include a deficiency guarantee whereby another entity assumes liability after other default remedies have been exercised, and covers the deficiency incurred by the creditor. The Principal Loss Collateral Provision shall, at a minimum, provide for the provision of cash or cash equivalents in an amount that is not less than the difference between the value of the collateral and the amount of the accelerated Bond Loan outstanding.
4. In all cases, acceptable Credit Enhancements or Principal Loss Collateral Provisions shall be proffered by creditworthy providers and shall provide information about the adequacy of the facility in protecting the financial interests of the Federal Government, either directly or indirectly through supporting the financial strength of the Bond Issue. This includes, but is not limited to, the amount and quality of any Credit Enhancements, the financial strength of the provider of the Credit
5. For Secondary Loans benefitting from a Principal Loss Collateral Provision (
6. If the Principal Loss Collateral Provision is provided by a financial institution that is regulated by an Appropriate Federal Banking Agency or an Appropriate State Agency, the guaranteeing institution must demonstrate performance of financially sound business practices relative to the industry norm for providers of collateral enhancements as evidenced by reports of Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies, Appropriate State Agencies, and auditors, as appropriate.
H.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e) Detailed information on specific reporting requirements and the format, frequency, and methods by which this information will be transmitted to the CDFI Fund will be provided to Qualified Issuers, Program Administrators, Servicers, and Eligible CDFIs through the Bond Loan Agreement, correspondence, and webinar trainings, and/or scheduled outreach sessions.
(f) Reporting requirements will be enforced through the Agreement to Guarantee and the Bond Loan Agreement, and will be assigned a valid OMB control number pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as applicable.
(g) Each Qualified Issuer will be responsible for the timely and complete submission of the annual reporting documents, including such information that must be provided by other entities such as Eligible CDFIs or Secondary Borrowers. If such other entities are required to provide annual report information or documentation, or other documentation that the CDFI Fund may require, the Qualified Issuer will be responsible for ensuring that the information is submitted timely and complete. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CDFI Fund reserves the right to contact such entities and require that additional information and documentation be provided directly to the CDFI Fund.
(h)
(i) The CDFI Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify its reporting requirements if it determines it to be appropriate and necessary; however, such reporting requirements will be modified only after notice to Qualified Issuers. Additional information about reporting requirements pursuant to this NOGA, the Bond Documents and the Bond Loan documents will be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as applicable.
2.
(b) The CDFI Fund will provide guidance to Qualified Issuers outlining the format and content of the information that is to be provided on an annual basis, outlining and describing how the Bond Proceeds and Bond Loan proceeds were used.
A. The CDFI Fund will respond to questions and provide support concerning this NOGA, the Qualified Issuer Application and the Guarantee Application between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, starting with the date of the publication of this NOGA. The final date to submit questions is June 5, 2015. Applications and other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained from the CDFI Fund's Web site at
B. The CDFI Fund's contact information is as follows:
C.
The CDFI Fund may conduct webcasts, webinars, or information sessions for organizations that are considering applying to, or are interested in learning about, the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. The CDFI Fund intends to provide targeted outreach to both Qualified Issuer and Eligible CDFI participants to clarify the roles and requirements under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program. For further information, please visit the CDFI Fund's Web site at
Pub. L. 111-240; 12 U.S.C. 4701,
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Center for Minority Veterans (CMV), is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (“the Committee”). In accordance with 38 U.S.C. 544, the Committee advises the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority Veterans; assesses the needs of minority Veterans with respect to such benefits; and evaluates whether VA compensation, medical and rehabilitation services, outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities. Nominations of qualified candidates are being sought to fill upcoming vacancies on the Committee.
The Committee was established in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 544 (Public Law 103-446, Sec. 510).
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on May 15, 2015.
All nominations should be mailed to the Center for Minority Veterans, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., (00M), Washington, DC 20420, or faxed to (202) 273-7092.
Ms. Juanita J. Mullen, Center for Minority
Veterans, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., (00M), Washington, DC 20420, Telephone (202) 461-6191. A copy of the Committee
The Committee was established pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 544. The Committee responsibilities include: (1) Advising the Secretary and Congress on VA's administration of benefits and provisions of healthcare, benefits, and services to minority Veterans.
(2) Providing an Annual report to congress outlining recommendations, concerns and observations on VA's delivery of services to minority Veterans.
(3) Meeting with VA officials, Veteran Service Organizations, and other stakeholders to assess the Department's efforts in providing benefits and outreach to minority Veterans.
(4) Making periodic site visits and holding town hall meetings with Veterans to address their concerns.
Management and support services for the Committee are provided by the Center for Minority Veterans (CMV).
CMV is requesting nominations for upcoming vacancies on the Committee. The Committee is currently composed of 12 members, in addition to ex-officio members. As required by statute, the members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary from the general public, including:
(1) Representatives of Veterans who are minority group members;
(2) Individuals who are recognized authorities in fields pertinent to the needs of Veterans who are minority group members;
(3) Veterans who are minority group members and who have experience in a military theater of operations;
(4) Veterans who are minority group members and who do not have such experience and;
(5) Women Veterans who are minority group members recently separated from active military service.
Section 544 defines “minority group member” as an individual who is Asian American, Black, Hispanic, Native American (including American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian); or Pacific-Islander American.
In accordance with § 544, the Secretary determines the number, terms of service, and pay and allowances of members of the Committee appointed by the Secretary, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed three years. The Secretary may reappoint any member for additional terms of service.
In addition to the criteria above, VA seeks—
(1) Diversity in professional and personal qualifications;
(2) Experience in military service and military deployments (please identify Branch of Service and Rank);
(3) Current work with Veterans;
(4) Committee subject matter expertise;
(5) Experience working in large and complex organizations.
Nominations should be type written (one nomination per nominator). Nomination package should include: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. Committee members will receive a stipend for attending Committee meetings, including per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, males & females, racial and ethnic minority groups, and the disabled are given consideration for membership. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would address application of certain requirements set forth in the Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, to coverage offered by Medicaid managed care organizations, Medicaid Alternative Benefit Plans, and Children's Health Insurance Programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 9, 2015.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2333-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
John O'Brien or Jean Close at (410) 786-5529 (Alternative Benefit Plan), Debra Dombrowski at (312) 353-1403 (Managed Care) or Amy Lutzky (410) 786-0721.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Because of the many terms to which we refer by acronym, abbreviation, or short form in this proposed rule, we are listing the acronyms, abbreviation, and short forms used and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below.
This proposed rule addresses the application of certain provisions added to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (mental health parity requirements) by the provisions of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) (Pub. L. 110-343, enacted on October 3, 2008) to: (1) Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) as described in section 1903(m) of the Social Security Act (the Act); (2) Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans (referred to in this proposed rule as Medicaid Alternative Benefit Plans) as described in section 1937 of the Act; and (3) Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) under title XXI of the Act.
Under section 1932(b)(8) of the Act, Medicaid MCOs are required to comply with the requirements of subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act, to the same extent that those requirements apply to a health insurance issuer that offers group health insurance. Subpart 2 includes mental health parity requirements added by MHPAEA at section 2726 of the PHS Act (as renumbered; formerly section 2705 of the PHS Act). Under section 1937(b)(6) of the Act, Medicaid Alternative Benefit Plans (ABPs) that are not offered by an MCO and that provide both medical and surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits are required to ensure that financial requirements and treatment limitations for such benefits comply with the mental health parity requirements of the PHS Act (referencing section 2705(a) of the PHS Act, which is now renumbered 2726(a) of the PHS Act), in the same manner as such requirements apply to a group health plan. The section 1937 provision applies only to ABPs that are not offered by MCOs; ABPs offered by MCOs are already required to comply with these requirements under section 1932(b)(8) of the Act. Section 2103(c)(6) of the Act requires that state CHIP plans that provide both medical and surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits shall ensure that financial requirements and treatment limitations for such benefits comply with mental health parity requirements of the PHS Act (referencing section 2705(a) of the PHS Act, now renumbered as section 2726(a) of the PHS Act) to the same extent as such requirements apply to a group health plan. In addition, section 2103(f)(2) of the Act requires that CHIP benchmark or benchmark equivalent plans comply with all of the requirements of subpart 2 of part A of the title XXVII of the PHS Act, which includes the mental health parity requirements of the PHS Act, insofar as such requirements apply to health insurance issuers that offer group health insurance coverage.
This proposed rule would incorporate these requirements into our regulations.
On September 26, 1996, the Congress enacted the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-204) (MHPA), which required parity in aggregate lifetime and annual dollar limits for mental health benefits and medical/surgical benefits. Those mental health parity provisions were codified in section 712 of ERISA, section 2726 of the PHS Act (renumbered under section 1001 of the Affordable Care Act), and section 9812 of the Code, and applied to employment-related group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33, enacted on August 5, 1997) (BBA) added sections 1932(b)(8) and 2103(f)(2) of the Act to generally apply certain aspects of MHPA, including the provisions of section 2726 of the PHS Act, to Medicaid MCOs and CHIP benefits.
MHPAEA was enacted as sections 511 and 512 of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 (Division C of Pub. L. 110-343) (the 2008 Extenders Act). MHPAEA amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the PHS Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). The changes made by MHPAEA consist of new standards, including parity for substance use disorder benefits, as well as amendments to the existing mental health parity provisions enacted in MHPA.
In 2009, section 502 of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-3) (CHIPRA) amended section 2103(c) of the Act by adding paragraph (6), which requires that CHIP plans that provide both medical and surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits comply with the provisions of section 2705(a) of the PHS Act, as amended by MHPAEA, in the same manner as a group health plan.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was enacted on March 23, 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) was enacted on March 30, 2010 (collectively referred to as the “Affordable Care Act”). Section 1001 of the Affordable Care Act reorganized and renumbered certain provisions of the PHS Act, including renumbering section 2705 of the PHS Act as section 2726 of the PHS Act. The Affordable Care Act did not make conforming changes to cross-references to the renumbered provisions, and contained new cross-references to the former section numbers. But there was no indication that Congress intended to alter the meaning of the existing cross-references. As a result, we read the cross-references to continue to refer to the same section originally referenced, as renumbered. We believe it is clear that the new cross-references were also intended to refer to the renumbered provisions.
The Affordable Care Act expanded the application of section 2705(a) of the PHS Act, as amended by MHPAEA, and renumbered as section 2726(a) of the PHS Act, to benefits in Medicaid ABPs delivered outside of a MCO. ABPs delivered through a MCO would already have to comply with these requirements under section 1932(b)(8) of the Act.
Also, effective on March 23, 2010, section 2001(c) of the Affordable Care Act modified the benefit provisions of section 1937 of the Act. Specifically, section 2001(c) of the Affordable Care Act added mental health benefits and prescription drug coverage to the list of benefits that must be included in benchmark-equivalent coverage; required the inclusion of essential health benefits (EHBs) beginning in 2014; and directed that plans described in section 1937 of the Act (now known as ABPs) that include medical/surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits ensure that the financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to such mental
In 2013, we released a State Health Official (SHO) letter that provided guidance to states regarding the implementation of requirements under MHPAEA to Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans (referred to in the letter as ABPs) as described in section 1937 of the Act, CHIP under title XXI of the Act, and MCOs as described in section 1903(m) of the Act.
The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury (collectively the Departments) published interim final regulations implementing MHPAEA on February 2, 2010 (75 FR 5410), and final regulations applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68240) (MHPAEA final regulations).
This proposed rule generally mirrors the policies set forth in the MHPAEA final regulations to implement the statutory provisions that require MCOs, ABPs and CHIP to comply with certain requirements of section 2726 of the PHS Act (mental health parity requirements).
State Medicaid programs vary in their coverage of MH/SUD services. For example, most MH/SUD services are optional services under the traditional Medicaid benefits package, so states can choose to cover some services and not others, or can choose to cover these services but impose treatment limitations (for example, day or visit limits). Additionally, states have the flexibility to provide services through a managed care delivery mechanism using entities other than MCOs, such as prepaid inpatient health plans (PIHPs) or prepaid ambulatory health plans (PAHPs). PIHPs and PAHPs are defined in § 438.2 as entities that provide medical services on the basis of prepaid capitation payments but provide a more limited benefit package than a comprehensive MCO defined in section 1903(m) of the Act and are subject to the requirements for managed care entities as specified in 42 CFR part 438. These entities are not described in section 1932 of the Act, which refers only to the application of mental health parity requirements to Medicaid MCOs. In many instances, states will provide the medical/surgical services through an MCO, but will not include in the MCO benefit package some or all of their MH/SUD state plan services. Instead, these services will be delivered through a PIHP or a PAHP or a non-managed care delivery system, typically fee-for-service (FFS). In many states, MCOs provide some MH/SUD services (for example, emergency department services regardless of presenting condition, or MH/SUD medications), and PIHPs, PAHPs, or FFS provide a more robust set of services for those individuals with serious mental health conditions or substance use disorders. These unique state MH/SUD delivery systems are an important distinction between Medicaid coverage and coverage available through the commercial market. Because the statutory provisions making mental health parity requirements applicable to MCOs do not explicitly address the situation in which medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits included in coverage are furnished through separate but interrelated and interdependent service delivery systems, additional guidance is needed.
As a general matter, this proposed rule would require that each MCO enrollee in a state must be provided access to a set of benefits that meets the requirements of this rule regardless of whether the MH/SUD services are provided by the MCO or through another service delivery system. We propose to apply MHPAEA in this way as we interpret section 1932(b)(8) of the Act to require that, if a state uses private health plans, or MCOs, to provide any of its state plan benefits under an MCO contract, enrollees in those MCOs (whether under a voluntary or mandatory managed care program) must receive the protections of MHPAEA parity requirements for MH/SUD services. We are concerned that the exclusion of MH/SUD services from MCO contracts could result in the elimination of the application of section 1932(b)(8) of the Act. To ensure that the goal of parity is met, we are proposing to require, by relying on our authority in section 1902(a)(4) of the Act to specify methods “necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the state plan,” that if MH/SUD state plan services are provided to MCO enrollees through a PIHP, PAHP, or under Medicaid FFS (because such services are carved out of the MCO contract scope), MCO enrollees will still receive the MHPAEA parity protections for MH/SUD state plan services. Specifically, states that do not provide all services through the MCO will be required to provide evidence of compliance with this rule when they submit MCO contracts to the CMS Regional Office for review and approval. Contracts with PIHPs and PAHPs would also be required to provide that the PIHPs and PAHPs take steps necessary to ensure such compliance with this proposed rule. For states that offer MH/SUD services to MCO enrollees through FFS (other than when the services are part of an ABP, as discussed below), states would similarly be obligated to ensure that MH/SUD services provided on a FFS basis, when combined with services furnished by the MCO, comply with MHPAEA. In such an instance, the state would have the option of either (1) making changes to the non-ABP state plan to provide MH/SUD services through the FFS system in a manner that is on parity with the MCO-provided medical/surgical services consistent with this proposed rule or (2) including relevant MH/SUD services in the MCO contract (or PIHP or PAHP contract as applicable), in which case the managed care entity would have to comply with this proposed rule. Failure to adopt these additional requirements using our authority under section 1902(a)(4) of the Act, as well as section 1932(b)(8) of the Act would result in de facto nullification of the MHPAEA protections that are provided in section 1932(b)(8) of the Act if states carved out MH/SUD benefits from the MCO contract.
We considered alternatives such as requiring, based as well on our authority at section 1902(a)(4) of the Act, that all state plan MH/SUD services be included under MCO contracts as the way to ensure that MCO enrollees receive the full protections of MHPAEA as we believe the Congress intended in section 1932(b)(8) of the Act, again relying on our authority under section 1902(a)(4) of the Act. But, we believe that the
We recognize that this proposed regulation would require an analysis by the state to determine if the overall delivery system complies with the provisions of this proposed rule when all services are not included in the benefit package of a single MCO. In states where the MCO has sole responsibility for offering MH/SUD services, the MCO would be responsible for undertaking the parity analysis and informing the state what changes will be needed to the MCO contract to comply with the provisions of this proposed rule. As proposed in § 438.920, states would be required to make available to the public their methods of complying with these proposed rules within 18 months after the rule is finalized.
In states where some or all MH/SUD services are provided through some combination of MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs or FFS, the state would have the responsibility for undertaking the parity analysis across these delivery systems and determining if the benefits and any financial requirements or treatment limitations are consistent with proposed § 438.920(b). The state, based on this analysis, would take the necessary steps to ensure mental health parity compliance for its Medicaid MCO enrollees. As previously discussed, we believe that the provisions of section 1902(a)(4) of the Act authorize CMS to adopt rules that require the state to perform the parity analysis when MH/SUD services are offered across delivery systems because we believe that this administrative responsibility is necessary and essential for full implementation of section 1932(b)(8) of the Act. In addition, we are proposing at § 438.920(b) that the state make available documentation of compliance with these proposed regulations to the general public within 18 months of the effective date of this rule and post it on the state Medicaid Web site.
For beneficiaries who are not enrolled in a MCO (FFS only), and thus not covered by section 1932(b)(8) of the Act, our proposed rule would not affect coverage (other than when the services are part of an alternative benefit plan, as discussed below). However, we encourage states to provide state plan benefits in a way that comports with the mental health parity requirements of section 2726 of the PHS Act.
We note that payment to MCOs must be actuarially sound under section 1903(m) of the Act; regulations implementing that requirement are currently codified at § 438.6 and are applicable to other managed care entities based on separate statutory authority. In particular, § 438.6(e) provides that actuarially sound rates may only be based on the cost to provide services covered under the state plan. As part of our proposal to implement the mental health parity requirements, we propose to revise § 438.6(e) to specify development of actuarially sound rates for MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs that provide MH/SUD services may take into account the cost of providing services beyond those specified in the state plan which are necessary for the MCO, PIHP or PAHP to comply with the mental health parity requirements. Proposed § 438.6(e)
To ensure the appropriate application of mental health parity requirements to Medicaid services, we propose to amend current regulations to apply mental health parity requirements under section 2726 of the PHS Act to services provided to enrollees of Medicaid MCOs regardless of delivery system or limitations in the state plan. Specifically, we propose amending part 438 by adding a new subpart K to extend these mental health parity requirements to MCOs, and to PIHPs and PAHPs as applicable, to ensure that all enrollees of the MCO are provided access to a MHPAEA-compliant set of services when the state plan includes
The proposed rules pertaining to ABPs and CHIP cross-reference the proposed rules governing MCOs, PIHPs or PAHPs when states are using these organizations as their delivery system for ABP or CHIP benefits. Regardless of whether services are delivered in managed care or non-managed care arrangements, all Medicaid ABPs (including benchmark equivalent and Secretary-approved benchmark plans) and CHIP plans are required to meet the financial requirements and treatment limitations component of the mental health parity provisions set forth at section 2726(a) of the PHS Act.
Section 2726 of the PHS Act contains an increased cost exemption that is available for group health plans and health insurance issuers that make changes to comply with the law and incur an increased cost of at least 2 percent in the first year that mental health parity requirements apply to the plan or coverage, or an increased cost of at least 1 percent in any subsequent plan or policy year. Plans or issuer-offered coverage that comply with the parity requirements for one -full plan year and that satisfy the conditions for the increased cost exemption are exempt from the parity requirements for the following plan or policy year, and the exemption lasts for one plan or policy year.
This proposed rule does not include an increased cost exemption for MCOs, PIHPs, or PAHPs, and we do not believe that these Medicaid managed care entities will incur any net increase in costs because we are also proposing here that the actuarially sound payment methodology will take costs of compliance with parity requirements into account. As noted, we are proposing to allow states to include the cost of providing services beyond what is specified in the state plan which may include adding services or removing or aligning treatment limitations in managed care benefits into the actuarially sound rate methodology so long as those services beyond what is specified in the state plan are necessary to comply with mental health parity requirements. These changes to the managed care rate setting process would authorize states, in instances where they choose not to change their state plan, to include the cost of services beyond what is specified in the state plan into the capitation rate development to the extent the services are required to be provided by the MCO, PIHP or PAHP and outlined under contract to comply with this proposed rule. Therefore, the Medicaid program rather than the plan will bear the costs of these changes. This is different from the circumstances of the commercial market and removes the rationale for an increased cost exemption for Medicaid MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs. In addition, we understand that few if any issuers and group health plans have sought an increased cost exemption in the commercial market. Therefore, in this proposed rule, we are not extending the cost exemption provision to the Medicaid and CHIP programs.
We recognize that state budgeting and contracting processes may necessitate additional time for compliance with these new contracting and rate setting parameters. We propose to afford states up to 18 months after the date of the publication of the final rule to comply with the finalized provisions of this proposed rule. This proposal would allow states to come into compliance with these regulations and take the actions to make the necessary budget requests to add new services or additional service units. Some states have a biannual budget cycle and may need this length of time to develop and obtain approval of these budget requests. In addition, states would need to make the necessary contract changes to their MCOs, PIHPs, or PAHPs once the budget has been approved. Some states may choose to request approval from CMS to make changes to their non-ABP state plan for services delivered through FFS. We believe that 18 months should provide states with sufficient time to implement the necessary policy, contract and budget changes to comply with the final regulations and are proposing a delayed compliance deadline accordingly. We invite comments on this proposal regarding the delay of required compliance and the treatment of a cost-based exemption.
The statutory requirements applying mental health parity requirements to CHIP are structured differently than the statutory direction to apply those requirements to Medicaid MCOs. For CHIP programs, sections 2103(c)(6) and 2103(f)(2) of the Act generally provide that MH/SUD parity requirements apply to all delivery systems, including FFS and managed care. Except where the CHIP state plan provides full coverage of EPSDT and the MHPAEA requirements are deemed as met, the MHPAEA parity requirements apply to the CHIP state plan in the same manner as the law applies to health insurance issuers and group health plans. Our proposal reflects this in the proposed regulations for part 457.
For CHIP enrollees in an MCO, we propose to apply all mental health parity provisions of section 2726 of the PHS Act. In addition to the language at sections 2103(c)(6) and section 2103(f)(2) of the Act previously discussed, section 2103(f)(3) of the Act makes applicable to CHIP MCOs certain requirements under section 1932 of the Act, including section 1932(b)(8) of the Act which requires that MCOs comply with MHPAEA parity requirements. Furthermore, we propose to require parity in connection with coverage provided by PIHPs and PAHPs to CHIP MCO enrollees.
For ABP benefits offered only through FFS delivery systems, financial requirements and treatment limitations under section 2726(a) of the PHS Act are the only mental health parity provisions that apply (based on section 1937(b)(6) of the Act). Section 2726(a)(3)(B) of the PHS Act excludes from the definition of the term “financial requirement” aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limits on benefits, and thus these are not included in the “financial requirements and treatment limitations” parity requirements applicable to Medicaid ABPs furnished through FFS service delivery systems. (Annual and lifetime limits are addressed separately under MHPAEA from financial requirements, at sections 2726(a)(1) and (2) of the PHS
The definitions of terms in this proposed rule include most terms included in the MHPAEA final regulation at 45 CFR 146.136(a). This proposed rule proposes to modify or add several terms to reflect the terminology used in the Medicaid program and CHIP statutes, regulations or policies. Some terms that are not relevant to the Medicaid program or CHIP are not included in this proposed rule. For each term described in this proposed rule, when appropriate, we have identified where we have modified, added or deleted language that deviates from those definitions in the MHPAEA final regulations. The proposed terms are as follows:
For the definition of “Aggregate lifetime dollar limit,” we are proposing to replace the words “group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) for any coverage unit” with “MCO, PIHP or PAHP” or “ABP” to reflect the common terms for health plans in the Medicaid program. For CHIP, we are proposing to replace these words with “CHIP state plan or a Managed Care Entity (MCE).”
In § 440.395, we are proposing to add the term “Alternative Benefit Plans”.
For the definition of “Annual dollar limit,” we are proposing to replace the words “group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) for any coverage unit” with “MCO, PIHP or PAHP” to reflect the common terms for health plans in the Medicaid program and “a CHIP state plan or a MCE” for CHIP.
We are proposing to add the definition of “Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) benefits”. Under section 1905(r) of the Act, EPSDT is a required benefit under the Medicaid program for categorically needy individuals under age 21. The EPSDT benefit is optional for the medically needy population and if elected for that population, the EPSDT benefit must be made available to all Medicaid eligible individuals under age 21. Under the EPSDT benefit, states must provide for screening, vision, hearing and dental services at intervals which meet reasonable standards of medical and dental practice established after consultation with recognized medical and dental organizations involved in child health care. States must also provide for medically necessary screening, vision, hearing and dental services regardless of whether such services coincide with established periodicity schedules for these services. Additionally, the Act requires that other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures described in section 1905(a) of the Act to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses, and conditions identified by the screening services, must be provided to EPSDT beneficiaries whether or not such services are otherwise covered under the Medicaid state plan.
In the proposed ABP parity rules, we are also proposing to add the definition of “essential health benefits (EHB).” Since 2014, all non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets, Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans (now also known as ABPs), and Basic Health Programs (if applicable) must cover EHBs, which include items and services in 10 statutory benefit categories, that are substantially equal in scope to a typical employer health plan. Consistent with the requirements set forth in 45 CFR part 156, EHBs are comprised of (1) Ambulatory patient services; (2) Emergency services; (3) Hospitalization; (4) Maternity and newborn care; (5) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; (6) Prescription drugs; (7) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; (8) Laboratory services; (9) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and (10) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
We are proposing a different definition for the term “medical/surgical benefits,” to reflect that the state defines these benefits in the Medicaid and CHIP contexts. Under existing Medicaid law, the state has the responsibility of identifying what is a covered benefit for MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, ABPs, and CHIP; MCOs, PIHPs or PAHPs are responsible for providing the covered benefits identified by the state. This is different from the MHPAEA final regulations, where medical/surgical benefits are defined under the terms of the group health plan or health insurance coverage and in accordance with applicable federal or state law. We are also proposing that the definition of “medical/surgical services” clearly exclude long term care services in the Medicaid and CHIP context. We believe this clarification is consistent with the intent of the MHPAEA final regulations, as the kinds of long term care services included in benefit packages for Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries are not commonly provided in the commercial market as part of health benefits coverage. We are seeking comments on our proposal to exclude long term care services from the definition of medical/surgical services. This proposed rule further provides that states define which benefits are medical/surgical consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice (for example, the most current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or state guidelines).
We propose to define “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits”, under these regulations, as benefits for items and services for mental health conditions and substance use disorders, respectively, as defined by the state and in accordance with applicable federal and state law. Thus, our proposal here for the terms “mental health benefits” and “substance use disorder benefits” in this Medicaid and CHIP context also varies from the MHPAEA final regulations, similar to our proposed definition for medical/surgical benefits, to reflect that the state (not the MCO, PIHP or PAHP) is responsible for defining these benefits. This proposed rule also proposes that when states define what benefits are MH/SUD benefits, the definitions must be consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice. Consistent with the MHPAEA final regulations, this requirement is included to ensure that a benefit is not misclassified to avoid complying with the parity requirements. The word “generally” in the requirement “to be consistent with generally recognized independent standards of current medical practice” is not meant to imply that the standard must be a national standard, but instead that a standard is largely accepted in the relevant medical community. There are many different sources that would meet this requirement. For example, a state may follow the most current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (current edition) (DSM), ICD, or a state guideline. All of these would be considered acceptable resources to determine whether benefits for a particular condition are classified
This proposed rule duplicates the definition of the term “treatment limitations” in the MHPAEA final regulations, including distinguishing between a quantitative and a nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL). This proposed rule proposes that the parity requirements in the statute apply to both quantitative treatment limitations and NQTLs. A quantitative treatment limitation is a restriction that is expressed numerically, such as a limit of 50 outpatient visits per year. A NQTL is a restriction that is not expressed numerically, but otherwise limits the scope or duration of benefits for treatment, such as requirements for prior authorization for services. A non-exhaustive list of NQTLs is included in proposed § 438.910(d)(2), § 440.395(b) and § 457.496. This list, as well as the application of these regulations to NQTLs, is further discussed later in this proposed rule. However, these regulations propose that a permanent exclusion of all benefits for a specific condition or disorder is not a treatment limitation.
Proposed §§ 438.905 and 457.496(c) address the parity requirements for aggregate lifetime and annual dollar limits. The application of these requirements is generally the same as under the MHPAEA final regulations (45 CFR 146.136(b)). We note that for managed care arrangements, we are using our authority in section 1902(a)(4) of the Act to require PIHPs and PAHPs to comply with mental health parity requirements for MCO enrollees.
Sections 438.910, 440.395(b), and 457.496(d) of this proposed rule set forth parity requirements for financial requirements and treatment limitations.
In addition to proposing the meaning of terms in § 438.900, § 440.395, and § 457.496, this proposed rule clarifies certain terms that have been given specific meanings for purposes of MHPAEA.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, “classification of benefits” means a classification as described in § 438.910, § 440.395(b), and § 457.496(d). This proposed rule would modify the classification of benefits set forth in the regulations that were adopted by the Departments, as discussed in section III.C.2.a of this proposed rule, and would provide that the parity requirements for financial requirements and treatment limitations are applied on a classification-by-classification basis.
This proposed rule uses the term “type” to refer to financial requirements and treatment limitations of the same nature. Different types of financial requirements and treatment limitations include copayments, coinsurance, annual visit limits, and episode visit limits. States sometimes apply more than one financial requirement or treatment limitation to benefits. Also, this proposed rule specifies that a financial requirement or treatment limitation must be compared only to financial requirements or treatment limitations of the same type within a classification. For example, copayments are compared only to other copayments, and annual visit limits are compared only to other annual visit limits; copayments are not compared to coinsurance, and annual visit limits are not compared to episode visit limits.
In this proposed rule, a “level” of a type of financial requirement or treatment limitation refers to the magnitude (such as, the dollar, percentage, day, or visit amount) of the financial requirement or treatment limitation. For example, a plan might impose a 20 unit annual limit on outpatient visits or a $3 copayment depending on the medical/surgical or MH/SUD benefit.
The general parity requirement proposed in § 438.910(b), § 440.395(b), and § 457.496(d) of this proposed rule prohibits a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP (when providing benefits to an MCO enrollee), or ABP (when used in a non-managed care arrangement), or CHIP state plan from applying any financial requirement or treatment limitation to MH/SUD benefits in any classification that is more restrictive than the predominant financial requirement or treatment limitation of that type applied to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. For this purpose, the general parity requirement of MHPAEA applies separately for each type of financial requirement or treatment limitation (for example, unit limits are compared to unit limits). This general parity requirement also applies to NQTLs, which is discussed later in this proposed rule.
The MHPAEA final regulations at 45 CFR 146.136(c)(2)(ii) set forth the following classifications of benefits: Inpatient in-network; inpatient out-of-network; outpatient in-network; outpatient out-of-network; emergency care; and prescription drugs. Under those MHPAEA regulations, if a group health plan or health insurance coverage provides MH/SUD benefits in any classification of benefits, MH/SUD benefits must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical benefits are provided. The parity requirements are applied to financial requirements and treatment limitations within each classification separately.
The benefit structure of traditional Medicaid (non-ABP state plan services), ABPs and CHIP may vary significantly from commercial health insurance coverage. For example, nursing facility long-term care services are a mandatory service in traditional Medicaid, but are not commonly provided in the commercial market as part of health benefits coverage. Additional long term care services and supports, such as personal care, home and community based services, or long term psycho-social rehabilitation programs, are also commonly included in benefit packages for all or targeted populations of Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries, but these benefits are not typically provided in a commercial environment. Additionally, the cost-sharing structure and out-of-network coverage of Medicaid and CHIP services is often different than benefits provided in the commercial market. Therefore, issues arise over how similar or different the classifications should be for the Medicaid and CHIP programs. Our proposal follows the general structure of the classifications used in the MHPAEA final regulations with a significant distinction. For this proposed rule, we eliminated the in-network and out-of-network distinctions for the inpatient and outpatient classifications and propose four classifications: Inpatient; Outpatient; Emergency care; and Prescription drugs. We propose these classifications for the following reasons:
• Medicaid and CHIP are held to certain cost-sharing requirements for either managed care or non-managed care delivery systems. The dollar amount the beneficiary pays varies by income, and whether services are received through a network model does
• When CHIP or ABPs use a FFS delivery system or other non-managed care arrangement, payment is made for services to beneficiaries furnished by any qualified providers that have signed a Medicaid or CHIP provider agreement. Absent a waiver of section 1902(a)(23)(A) of the Act, beneficiaries have a choice from among qualified providers and are not limited to a network.
• In a Medicaid managed care environment, § 438.206(b)(4) states that if a managed care plan's provider network is unable to provide necessary services covered under the contract to a particular enrollee, the MCO, PIHP or PAHP must adequately (and on a timely basis) cover these services out-of-network for the enrollee for as long as the MCO, PIHP or PAHP is unable to provide them in network. This provision is not specific to medical/surgical services or MH/SUD services. We understand there may be continued concerns that access to out-of-network providers is provided by MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs in compliance with MHPAEA. To address this concern, we are proposing to add access to out-of-network providers to the illustrative list of NQTLs.
For purposes of applying parity requirements to Medicaid, the classifications of benefits should relate to how states construct and manage their Medicaid benefits. All Medicaid benefits provided, with the exception of long term care services, should fall into one of the classifications of benefits.
We are proposing that parity requirements for financial requirements and treatment limitations are generally applied on a classification-by-classification basis. The four classifications proposed in this rule are the only classifications to be used for purposes of applying the parity requirements of MHPAEA to Medicaid and CHIP. Moreover, these classifications must be used for all financial requirements and treatment limitations to the extent that a MCO, PIHP, PAHP, ABP or CHIP provides benefits in a classification and imposes any separate financial requirement or treatment limitation (or separate level of a financial requirement or treatment limitation) for benefits in the classification.
The MHPAEA final regulations discussed the application of parity requirements to intermediate services (such as residential treatment, partial hospitalization, and intensive outpatient treatment) provided under the health plan. Specifically, the MHPAEA final regulations required group health plans and issuers to assign covered intermediate MH/SUD benefits to a benefit classification in the same manner they assign comparable intermediate medical/surgical benefits to a classification. The MHPAEA final regulations do not specifically define intermediate services; nor do the Medicaid and CHIP programs define intermediate services within state plan benefits. Therefore, we are not proposing to specify an intermediate classification to be used in the parity analysis for Medicaid or CHIP programs. As in the MHPAEA final rule, we propose to allow the applicable regulated entity (the MCO, PIHP or PAHP, or state in connection with the ABP and CHIP) to assign intermediate level services to any of the classifications listed, but assignment to those classifications must be done in a consistent manner for medical/surgical services and MH/SUD services. We request comment on this approach, as well as alternatives.
Similar to the MHPAEA final rule, this proposed rule would not define what services are included in the inpatient, outpatient, or emergency care classifications. These terms are subject to the design of a state's managed care program and their meanings may differ depending on the benefit packages. State health insurance laws may define these terms and in the event that these are not defined we would expect each regulated entity within a state to define these classifications in a similar manner. Further, each regulated managed care plan (MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs) or the state in connection with ABP or CHIP must apply these terms uniformly for both medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits.
Sections 438.910(c), 440.395(b) and, 457.496(d) of this proposed rule address the application of the general parity requirement of MHPAEA to financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations in MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, ABP or CHIP state plans.
As noted above, the general parity requirement proposed in § 438.910(b), § 440.395(b), and § 457.496(d) of this proposed rule prohibits a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP, or ABP state plan (when used in a non-managed care arrangement), or CHIP state plan or MCE contracting with a CHIP state plan from applying any financial requirement or treatment limitation to MH/SUD benefits in any classification that is more restrictive than the “predominant” financial requirement or treatment limitation of that type applied to “substantially all” medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. In these paragraphs of the proposed regulations, we propose standards similar to those in the MHPAEA final regulations for determining the portion of medical/surgical benefits subject to a financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation for purposes of the parity analysis. Under this proposed rule, the portion of medical/surgical benefits in a classification subject to a financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation would be based on the dollar amount of all payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be paid during a specific year. For MCOs, PIHPS and PAHPs, this would be dollar amounts for payment during a contract year. For ABPs and CHIP state plans, it would be for the year starting the effective date of the approved ABP or CHIP state plan; effective dates for these plans will vary based on the date the ABP or CHIP state plan was approved by CMS. For purposes of this calculation, the MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs (when such organizations are responsible for MH/SUD benefit) would collectively (with the assistance of the state) determine the total amount projected to be expended (including FFS) to determine the two-thirds threshold as discussed below. We are requesting comment on the approach to determine the threshold when there are multiple managed care delivery systems (for example, MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs).
Similar to the MHPAEA final regulations, the first step in applying the general parity requirement of MHPAEA to a given financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation is to determine whether a type of financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a classification. This proposed rule would define “substantially all” as meaning at least two-thirds of the medical/surgical benefits in that classification as measured by the total dollar amount of payments for medical/surgical benefits in the classification expected to be paid within a measurement year. In this proposed rule, we would apply “substantially all” consistent with the MHPAEA final regulations.
If a type of financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in a classification, the second step is to determine the predominant level of that type of financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation that may be applied to MH/SUD benefits in the classification. Under this proposed rule, the level of a type of financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation would be the predominant level if it applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits subject to the financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation in that classification. If a single level of a type of financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits subject to the financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation in a classification (based on expected payments, as discussed earlier in this proposed rule), the applicable regulated entity (under proposed §§ 438.910(b), 440.395(b), or 457.496(d)) may not apply that particular financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation to MH/SUD benefits at a level that is higher (for example, more expensive beneficiary cost-sharing) or more restrictive than the level that has been determined to be predominant for medical/surgical benefits. As proposed in § 438.920(b), states that choose to use PIHPs, PAHPs or the FFS delivery system to provide some of the MH/SUD benefits to MCO enrollees would be required to complete an analysis to determine if the benefits comply with these rules. For example, all projected payments for services provided to the MCO enrollees (regardless of whether the payments are made by the MCO, PIHP, PAHP or FFS) would need to be considered in determining if the level of financial requirement or treatment limitation is the predominant level. If no single level applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits subject to the financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation in a classification, multiple levels of the same type of financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation can be combined by the state, in cases where some MH/SUD services are provided outside the MCO, or the MCO, in cases where all services are carved-in, until the portion of medical/surgical benefits subject to the financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation exceeds one-half. For any combination of levels that applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits subject to the financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation in a classification, the state or the MCO may not apply that particular financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation to MH/SUD benefits at a level that is more restrictive than the least restrictive level within the combination. The state or the MCO may combine projected payments for benefits subject to the most restrictive levels first, with each less restrictive level added to the combination until the combination applies to more than one-half of the benefits subject to the financial requirement or treatment limitation. The following example illustrates the application of quantitative treatment limitations to medical/surgical and MH/SUD benefits.
• Inpatient Hospital services for medical/surgical—30 days per year limit
• Inpatient Hospital services for MH/SUD—30 days per year limit
• Primary Care Physician Services for medical/surgical—unlimited
• Specialist Physician Services for medical/surgical—50 visits per year
• Outpatient MH services—20 visits per year limit
• Physical Therapy—20 visits per year limit
• Occupational Therapy—20 visits per year limit
• Emergency Services—Unlimited for medical/surgical or MH/SUD
The MCO projects its payments as follows for medical/surgical benefits:
With regards to the level of the quantitative treatment limitation on inpatient MH/SUD services, the MCO may maintain its 30 day limit because 100 percent of all inpatient medical/surgical benefits are also subject to a 30 day limit, making it the predominant level.
However, with regards to the level of the quantitative treatment limitation on outpatient MH/SUD services, the MCO may not maintain its current limit of 20 visits per year. Of the total amount of outpatient medical/surgical benefits subject to a visit limit ($400x), 62.5 percent ($250x) are subject to a 50 visit limit (specialist services), and only 37.5 percent ($150x) are subject to a 20 visit limit (physical therapy and occupational therapy). Because the 20 visit limitation is not the predominant level (that is, it does not apply to at least 50 percent of the medical/surgical benefits in the classification subject to
Lastly, because there are currently unlimited emergency visits under the medical/surgical benefits, the MCO would need to maintain unlimited visits for emergency services for MH/SUD, and would not be able to impose any limits on MH/SUD unless limits were also imposed on medical/surgical services and such limits were consistent with parity requirements.
In addition, the MHPAEA final regulations at 45 CFR 146.136(c)(3)(iii)(A) permit plans under certain circumstances to apply different levels of financial requirements to different tiers of prescription drugs and still satisfy the parity requirements. This proposed rule would allow a MCO, PIHP, PAHP, ABP or CHIP state plan to subdivide the prescription drug classification into tiers based on reasonable factors as described in the proposed regulations and without regard to whether a drug is generally prescribed for medical/surgical benefits or for MH/SUD benefits.
The MHPAEA final regulations at 45 CFR 146.136(c)(3)(iii)(C) permit a sub-classification for office visits, separate from other outpatient items and services. Other sub-classifications not specifically permitted, such as separate sub-classifications for generalists and specialists, cannot be used for purposes of determining parity. We propose to retain this approach to sub-classifications in the application of these parity requirements established in parts 438, 440 and 457 (that is, to services provided to enrollees in Medicaid MCOs, and to ABPs and CHIP). After the sub-classifications are established, a MCO, PIHP, PAHP, ABP or CHIP state plan may not impose any financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation on MH/SUD benefits in any sub-classification (for example, office visits or non-office visits) that is more restrictive than the predominant financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation that applies to substantially all medical/surgical benefits in the sub-classification, using the parity analysis for financial requirements and quantitative treatment limitations.
In the MHPAEA final regulations, the Departments recognized that tiered networks have become an important tool for health plan efforts to manage care and control costs. Therefore, for purposes of applying the financial requirement and treatment limitation rules under MHPAEA, the MHPAEA final regulations provide that if a plan (or health insurance coverage) provides benefits through multiple tiers of in-network providers (such as an in-network tier of preferred providers with more generous cost-sharing to participants than a separate in-network tier of participating providers in any classification), the plan may divide its benefits furnished on an in-network basis into sub-classifications that reflect those network tiers, if the tiering is done without regard to whether a provider is a MH/SUD provider or a medical/surgical provider. While network tiers may also be used in Medicaid managed care, we do not believe that the use of network tiers for the purposes of the parity analysis is needed. As discussed later in section F. of this proposed rule, Medicaid cost-sharing rules apply regardless of network status. Additionally, any quantitative treatment limitation outlined in the contract must be applied to the service broadly and therefore cannot have separate limitations based on network tiers. We recognize there may be network tiers used to commonly refer enrollees or for purposes of building the network and have varying payment rates to providers, but the use of multiple network tiers for NQTLs is discussed in section E. of this proposed rule.
While financial requirements such as copayments and coinsurance generally apply separately to each covered expense, other financial requirements (in particular, deductibles) accumulate across covered expenses. In the case of deductibles, generally an amount of otherwise covered expenses must be accumulated before the plan pays benefits. Financial requirements that determine whether and to what extent benefits are provided based on accumulated amounts are defined in these proposed rules as cumulative financial requirements. The MHPAEA final regulations provide that a group health plan or issuer may not apply cumulative financial requirements or cumulative quantitative treatment limitations to MH/SUD benefits in a classification that accumulate separately from any such cumulative financial requirements or cumulative quantitative treatment limitations established for medical/surgical benefits in the same classification. As in the MHPAEA final rule at 45 CFR 146.136(c)(2)(v), we propose that any separate cumulative financial requirement (separate for mental health, substance use or medical/surgical) will not be permitted for entities subject to our proposed requirements (namely, MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs in connection with coverage provided to MCO enrollees, and in ABP and CHIP). However, we propose to permit quantitative treatment limitations to accumulate separately for medical/surgical and MH/SUD services as long as they comply with the general parity requirement. We are proposing to allow this separate accumulation of treatment limits in Medicaid and CHIP for several reasons. First, benefits for MCO beneficiaries must be provided in at least the same amount, duration and scope as set forth in the state plan. Requiring plans to have cumulative limits across medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits within a classification may incentivize MCOs to retain the quantitative treatment limitation level applied on the medical/surgical benefits in the state plan as the total cumulative limit for both medical/surgical and MH/SUD benefits. This would comply with the requirements of parity, but would not meet the requirements of providing at least what is in the state plan. In addition, we believe that requiring quantitative treatment limitations within a classification of benefits to accumulate jointly toward a unified limit level may be operationally challenging for states with multiple delivery systems. Specifically, in Medicaid the state determines which entities will provide the specific medical/surgical and MH/SUD benefits covered under their respective contracts, including if some services will be provided under FFS. These potentially complex service delivery arrangements in Medicaid in turn determine whether the MCO or the state have the responsibility for complying with parity requirements. In commercial coverage, the parity obligations remain with the same entity—the group health plan or issuer—that determines which entities will provide each individual medical/surgical or MH/SUD benefits. Due to the difficulty that the MCO will face in administering unified treatment limits that accumulate across entities that the MCO has no contractual relationship with, we propose to permit the MCO, PIHP or PAHP to maintain separate treatment limitations, provided such limit for MH/SUD benefits is no more
States and the MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs that contract with states are bound by the existing Medicaid and CHIP cost-sharing rules (§ 438.108 and part 457, subpart E). As previously indicated, the Medicaid program and CHIP are held to strict cost-sharing requirements for both managed care and non-managed care delivery systems. We emphasize here that all financial requirements included in a MHPAEA analysis must also be in compliance with both existing cost-sharing rules and the requirements of this proposed rule. Compliance with the parity requirements does not mean that a state, or MCO, PIHP or PAHP can violate existing cost-sharing requirements. Therefore, some cost-sharing structures in a state's Medicaid program or CHIP may need to change to be compliant with MHPAEA. To clarify this, we propose at § 438.910(c)(4) to reiterate that requirement with a cross-reference to the cost-sharing rules applicable to MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs.
MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, ABP and CHIP state plans may impose a variety of limits affecting the scope or duration of benefits that are not expressed numerically (nonquantitative treatment limitations or NTQLs). Nonetheless, such nonquantitative provisions are also treatment limitations affecting the scope or duration of benefits. Sections 438.910(d), 440.395(b)(4), and 457.496(d)(4) of this proposed rule would prohibit the imposition of any NQTL to MH/SUD benefits unless certain requirements are met. In addition, this proposed rule provides an illustrative list of NQTLs, including medical management standards; prescription drug formulary design; standards for provider admission to participate in a network; and conditioning benefits on completion of a course of treatment.
Under the MHPAEA final regulations at 45 CFR 146.136(c)(4), an NQTL may not be imposed for MH/SUD benefits in any classification unless, under the terms of the plan (or health insurance coverage) as written and in operation, any factors used in applying the NQTL to MH/SUD benefits in a classification are comparable to and applied no more stringently than factors used in applying the limitation for medical surgical/benefits in the classification. For these purposes, factors mean the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other considerations used in determining limitations on coverage of services. The phrase “applied no more stringently” requires that any processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors that are comparable on their face be applied in the same manner to medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits.
We propose to duplicate this approach to NQTLs in the application of parity requirements to Medicaid MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs providing services to MCO enrollees, ABPs, and CHIP state plans. For states that are using a non-managed care delivery system for their ABPs and CHIP, the state (through its ABP and CHIP state plan) may only impose an NQTL on a MH/SUD benefit in any classification if it has written and operable processes, strategies, evidentiary standards or other factors used in applying—to MH/SUD benefits in that classification—the NQTL that are comparable to or less restrictive and applied no more stringently than any processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying the limitation for medical/surgical services in that classification.
In addition, we propose to add another example of an NQTL regarding standards for accessing out-of-network providers. As discussed earlier in this proposed rule, in the context of CHIP or ABPs that use a FFS delivery system or other non-managed care arrangement, beneficiaries may choose from any qualified provider that has signed a Medicaid or CHIP provider agreement and are not limited to a network. In a Medicaid managed care environment, if a provider network is unable to provide necessary services covered under the contract to a particular enrollee, the MCO, PIHP or PAHP must adequately (and on a timely basis) cover these services out-of-network for the enrollee as long as the MCO, PIHP or PAHP is unable to provide them in-network.
We note that we propose to use in § 438.910(d)(2)(iii), the example of an NQTL pertaining to network design for MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs with multiple network tiers because although network tiers may not be used to impose financial requirements or quantitative treatment limitations in Medicaid and CHIP, we believe MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs may still use them in developing NQTLs. For example, the MCO, PIHP or PAHP may use network tiers when recommending providers to enrollees, or how they structure their provider directories. MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs with multiple network tiers should be constructing them and providing beneficiary access to them in a way that is consistent with the parity standard for NQTLs.
The examples below illustrate the operation of the requirements for NQTLs.
The CHIPRA applies MH/SUD parity requirements to the entire “state child health plan” including, but not limited to, any MCOs that contract with the state CHIP. Specifically, section 502 of the CHIPRA requires that state child health plans ensure financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to MH/SUD benefits comply with the requirements of section 2726(a) of the PHS Act (as renumbered) “in the same manner” as such requirements apply to a group health plan. Therefore, if a CHIP state plan provides both medical/surgical benefits and MH/SUD benefits, any treatment limitations, lifetime or annual dollar limits or financial requirements (such as out-of-pocket costs) on MH/SUD benefits must comply with the provisions of section 2726 of the PHS Act made applicable to CHIP by section 502 of the CHIPRA adding section 2103(c)(6) to the Act and by section 2103(f)(2) of the Act. Section 2103(c)(6)(B) of the Act also specifies that state CHIP plans are deemed to satisfy the requirement under section 2103(c)(6)(A) of the Act to ensure that financial requirements and treatment limitations comply with the provisions of section 2726 of the PHS Act if they provide coverage of EPSDT benefits (as defined under title XIX of the Act). For individuals receiving EPSDT services through the CHIP state plan, proposed § 457.496(b) provides that the state will be deemed to meet parity requirements for financial requirements and treatment limitations. However, states that do apply NQTLs to EPSDT services must ensure that these limitations are applied consistent with the intent of MHPAEA.
Under the MHPAEA final regulations, the criteria for medical necessity determinations made under a group health plan or health insurance coverage for MH/SUD benefits must be made available by the plan administrator or the health insurance issuer offering such coverage in accordance with regulations to any current or potential participant, beneficiary, or contracting provider upon request. The MHPAEA final regulations also state that the reason for any denial under a group health plan or health insurance coverage of reimbursement or payment for services for MH/SUD benefits in the case of any participant or beneficiary must be made available, upon request or as otherwise required, by the plan administrator or the health insurance issuer to the participant or beneficiary in accordance with the regulations. Through this proposed rule, we are proposing to apply the requirements imposed on the health insurance issuer through the MHPAEA final regulations regarding availability of information in a similar manner to MCOs and to PIHPs and PAHPs that provide coverage to MCO enrollees. We propose to add § 438.915(a) to provide that MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs subject to MHPAEA requirements must make their medical necessity criteria for MH/SUD benefits available to any enrollee, potential enrollee or contracting provider upon request. MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs found to be in compliance with § 438.236(c)—which requires dissemination by MCOs, PIHPs and PAHPs of practice guidelines to all affected providers and, upon request, to enrollees and potential enrollees—will be deemed to meet this proposed requirement. As proposed, § 438.915(b) would also require the MCO, PIHP or PAHP to make available the reason for any denial of reimbursement or payment for services for MH/SUD benefits to the enrollee. We also note that § 438.210(c) requires each contract with an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP to provide for the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP to notify the requesting provider and give the enrollee written notice of any decision by the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP to deny a service authorization request or to authorize a service in an amount, duration, or scope that is less than requested.
The MHPAEA final regulations, at 45 CFR 146.136(d)(2), state that non-federal governmental group health plans (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with such plans) providing the reason for claim denial in a form and manner consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR 2560.503-1 for group health plans will be found in compliance with the reason for denial disclosure requirements.
For similar reasons, we are not proposing to make the claim denial requirements of 29 CFR 2560.503-1 a condition of deemed compliance for CHIP programs. CHIP enrollees have an opportunity for an external review of denials, reduction or suspension of health services under § 457.1130.
Although the statute that applies MHPAEA to ABPs does not include specific provisions regarding the availability of plan information, we propose to use our authority under section 1902(a)(4) of the Act to extend this provision to all ABPs, as well as those ABPs with services delivered through MCOs, PIHPs and all PAHP. At § 440.395(c)(1), we propose that all states delivering ABP services through a non-MCO must make available to beneficiaries and contracting providers on request the criteria for medical necessity determinations for MH/SUD benefits. Similarly, § 440.395(c)(2) would require the state to make available to the enrollee the reason for any denial of reimbursement or payment for services for MH/SUD benefits.
Current rules related to notices of adverse benefit determinations are consistent with the intent of 29 CFR 2560.503-1. This proposed rule proposes to apply provisions regarding the availability of plan information for ABP services. We request comment on any additional provisions concerning the availability of plan information or notice of adverse determinations that may be necessary to facilitate compliance with MHPAEA for MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, ABPs and CHIP.
Section 1937(b)(6) of the Act, as added by section 2001(c) of the Affordable Care Act, and implemented through regulations at § 440.345(c) directs that ABPs that provide both medical/surgical benefits and MH or SUD benefits must comply with certain parity requirements. Further, ABPs must provide the 10 EHBs, including MH/SUD services. As states determine their ABP service package, states must use all of the EHB services from the base-benchmark plan selected by the state to define EHBs, consistent with the applicable requirements in 45 CFR part 156.
Section 1937 of the Act offers flexibility for states to provide medical assistance by designing different benefit packages, including other services beyond the EHBs for different groups of eligible individuals, as long as each benefit package contains all of the EHBs and meets certain other requirements, including parity provisions under section 2726 of the PHS Act.
The provisions of section 2726 of the PHS Act that are incorporated through section 1932 of the Act do not apply directly to the benefit design for Medicaid non-ABP state plan services. Under this proposed rule, the requirements would apply to the benefits offered by the MCO (or, as discussed above, if benefits are carved out, to all benefits provided to MCO enrollees regardless of service delivery system) but do not apply to all Medicaid state plan benefit designs. As stated earlier in this proposed rule, states that have individuals enrolled in MCOs and have MH/SUD services offered through FFS will have the option of amending their non-ABP state plan to be consistent with these proposed regulations or offering MH/SUD services through a managed care delivery system (MCOs, PIHPs, and/or PAHPs) to be compliant with these proposed rules.
Sections 438.920, 440.395(d), and 457.496(f) propose to address the applicability and scope of this proposed rule. Specifically under our proposal:
• Section 438.920(a) would provide that the requirements of the subpart apply to delivery of Medicaid services when an MCO is used to deliver some or all of the Medicaid services; section 438.920(b) (also discussed below) addresses state responsibilities when the MCO delivers only some of the Medicaid services.
• Section 440.395 would apply to ABPs that are not delivered through managed care.
• Section 457.496 would apply to CHIP state plans, including when benefits are furnished under a contract with MCEs.
The MHPAEA final regulations state that if a group health plan or health insurance coverage provides MH/SUD benefits in any classification of benefits, MH/SUD benefits must be provided in every classification in which medical/surgical benefits are provided. Under our proposed amendments to part 438, for these parity standards to apply, a beneficiary must be enrolled in an MCO under a Medicaid contract. Whether the MCO provides medical/surgical or MH/SUD benefits under that contract is irrelevant.
While many Medicaid MCOs are contracted to offer benefits in each of the classifications of benefits described in this proposed rule, there are other state-initiated “carve out” arrangements (for example, PIHPs, PAHPs or FFS) in which the MCOs are only contracted to provide benefits in one MH/SUD classification, while PIHPs, PAHPs, FFS, or a combination of all 3 provide coverage of benefits in other classifications. For example, MCOs in these carve out arrangements are likely to have contracts that include MH/SUD benefits in the prescription drug and emergency care classifications of benefits, but some or all of the MH/SUD outpatient or inpatient benefits may be offered instead through a PIHP, PAHP or FFS delivery system.
In instances where the MH/SUD services are delivered through multiple managed care delivery vehicles, we are proposing in § 438.920 that parity provisions apply across the managed care delivery systems in the Medicaid program and CHIP. MHPAEA requirements apply to the entire package of services MCO enrollees receive, whether from the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, or FFS. If states carve out some MH/SUD services from the MCO contract and furnish those services by PIHPs, PAHPs, or FFS, we are proposing to apply the foregoing MHPAEA requirement to the entire package of services MCO enrollees receive. Requiring the standards for parity to be applied to the overall package of benefits received by MCO enrollees will allow MCOs to comply with MHPAEA requirements without requiring inclusion of additional MH/SUD benefits in the MCO benefit package, as long as these MH/SUD benefits are provided elsewhere within the delivery system. In states where MH/SUD benefits are provided across multiple delivery systems (including FFS), we propose in § 438.920(b) that states would be required to review the full scope of benefits provided to MCO enrollees to ensure compliance with the proposed parity requirements. As part of complying with this regulation, we would expect states to work with their MCOs (or PIHPs and PAHPs) to determine the best method of achieving compliance with these proposed parity requirements for benefits provided to the MCO enrollees. For MH/SUD benefits offered through FFS, states would not necessarily be required to amend their non-ABP state plan to meet parity requirements, but could use their existing state plan or waiver services to achieve parity when individuals are receiving some MH/SUD benefits from a MCO (including PIHPs or PAHPs) and also some benefits through FFS. However, if a state did not have MH/
In states where the MCO has responsibility for offering all medical/surgical and MH/SUD benefits, the MCO would be responsible for undertaking the parity analysis and informing the state what additional changes will be needed to the MCO contract to be compliant with parity requirements. In states where some or all MH/SUD benefits are provided through MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, or FFS, the state would have the responsibility for undertaking the parity analysis across these delivery systems and determining if the existing benefits and any financial or treatment limitations are consistent with MHPAEA. The state, based on this analysis, would have to make the necessary changes to ensure compliance with parity requirements for its Medicaid MCO enrollees. We also propose at § 438.920(b)(1) that the state provide documentation of its compliance with this analysis to the general public within 18 months of the effective date of this rule.
If states offer benefits through an ABP or CHIP state plan with various delivery systems (managed care and non-managed care), the state would need to apply the provisions of the proposed rule across the delivery systems utilized for its ABP and CHIP state plan.
For ABPs and CHIP state plans, we would also require states to apply the provisions of this proposed rule across all delivery systems to ensure that beneficiaries have access to MH/SUD benefits in every classification in which medical/surgical benefits are provided. These provisions would apply when states offer services through an ABP or CHIP state plan using only a non-managed care arrangement (FFS). If states offer services through an ABP or CHIP state plan with various delivery systems (managed care and non-managed care), the state would need to apply the provisions of the proposed rule across the delivery systems utilized for their ABP and CHIP state plan. Provided below is an example of how this proposed rule would be applied across the delivery system in Medicaid.
• The MCO comprehensive benefits include inpatient medical/surgical benefits; outpatient medical/surgical benefits; emergency for medical/surgical, MH, and SUD benefits; and prescription drugs for medical/surgical and MH/SUD benefits.
• The PIHP carve out benefits include inpatient MH benefit and the outpatient MH benefit.
• The PAHP carve out benefits include outpatient SUD benefits.
• The FFS system provides access to inpatient SUD benefits.
For purposes of this example, we assume there are no financial requirements or treatment limitations imposed on any of the benefits in any of the delivery systems noted above.
We propose provisions relating to the scope of the parity requirements for Medicaid MCOs and CHIP state plans that are similar to the provisions set forth in the MHPAEA final regulations (45 CFR 146.136(e)(3)). Specifically, the proposed regulations would not require a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP to provide any MH/SUD benefits for conditions or disorders beyond the conditions or disorders that are covered as required by their contract with the state. For MCOs, PIHPs or PAHPs that provide benefits for one or more specific MH conditions or SUDs under their contracts, the proposed regulations would not require the MCO, PIHP or PAHP to provide benefits for additional MH conditions or SUDs. The proposed regulations would not affect the terms and conditions relating to the amount, duration, or scope of MH/SUD benefits under the MCO, PIHP or PAHP contract except as specifically provided in § 438.905 and § 438.910 of the part.
We are proposing to add a section in part 440, subpart C that requires states using ABPs to provide sufficient information in ABP state plan amendment requests to assure compliance with MHPAEA. We will review ABP state plan amendments to ensure their compliance with applicable federal statutes and regulations, including MHPAEA, and EHB anti-discrimination provisions.
As discussed above in this proposed rule, we are not proposing an increased cost exemption for MCOs, PIHPs or PAHPs. As indicated previously, we are proposing to change payment provisions in part 438 to allow states to include the cost of providing additional services or removing or aligning treatment limitations in their actuarially sound rate methodology where such costs are necessary to comply with the MHPAEA parity provisions. These proposed changes to the managed care rate setting process give states and MCOs the ability to fully comply with these mental health parity requirements by giving them flexibility to provide services compliant with this proposed regulation or remove or align service limits. We believe that the Medicaid program rather than the plan should bear the costs of these changes. We propose to provide states sufficient time to comply with this regulation: States would have up to 18 months after the date of the publication of the final rule to comply with the provisions of this regulation. This will allow states to take the actions to make the policy and budgetary changes needed for compliance.
We are not proposing to permit states delivering services through an ABP or CHIP state plan to apply for a cost exemption due to the mandatory delivery of EHB and the requirement that ABPs be compliant with MHPAEA.
Medicaid and CHIP programs are administered by states in partnership with the federal government. States have the responsibility of administering the state plan in compliance with federal law, so states will be required to provide an assurance of compliance with parity requirements when submitting ABP or CHIP state plans. In
In accordance with section 1903(m) of the Act, all MCO contracts must comply with applicable requirements in section 1932 of the Act, which includes section 1932(b)(8) of the Act referencing MHPAEA provisions in the PHS Act. As we have discussed previously, if the state provides some MH/SUD benefits within its state plan, all MCO contracts must include provisions requiring compliance with parity requirements because all MCO enrollees must be provided access to MHPAEA compliant services even if the MCO itself does not provide the MH/SUD services. Therefore, if it is not shown through the MCO contract itself that an enrollee has access to MH/SUD services in each classification in which medical and surgical services are provided that are fully compliant with these parity requirements, the state will be asked to provide supplemental materials to the MCO contract or an amendment to the contract to demonstrate that the standards proposed here are met.
Further, we may defer federal financial participation (FFP) on expenditures for the MCO contract to the extent that the state has not documented that the contract would comply with the requirements of section 1903(m) of the Act, including the requirement that the MCO contract and the MCO itself comply with applicable provisions of section 1932 of the Act. We understand that with the flexibility afforded to states to provide MH/SUD services across the delivery system there may be services outside of the MCO contract that may be needed to demonstrate compliance. If this is the case, the state would be required to show how the MCO enrollees are provided all the services needed to comply with the requirements in this proposed rule, and if the state cannot provide evidence of this compliance outside of the MCO contract, CMS would have the ability to defer FFP on the MCO contract amount until evidence of compliance is provided. Again, a state would have the option to make changes to the MCO, PIHP or PAHP contracts or make changes to its Medicaid state plan to provide evidence of compliance.
This proposed rule would be effective based on the date of the publication of the final rule. However, MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs and states would have 18 months to comply with the provisions of this final regulation. Specifically:
•
•
•
Current Medicaid regulations prescribe requirements for the control of utilization management of inpatient services in mental hospitals (§ 456.171). These regulations specifically require medical and other professionals within the Medicaid agency (or its designee) to evaluate each beneficiary's need for admission into inpatient services in a mental hospital. There is not a similar requirement for the Medicaid agency to review medical/surgical admissions to other hospitals. States have indicated that this regulation presents challenges to achieving parity for inpatient services rendered in a mental hospital. In addition, these states have interpreted the term “mental hospitals” to include distinct part units of a general hospital, as well as freestanding institutions of mental diseases for children under the age of 21 and adults 65 years and older. This proposed rule would eliminate current language from existing regulations that require Medicaid agencies to evaluate the need for these admissions. A state could continue these evaluations, but would need to ensure that the standards and processes were consistent with the provisions in this regulation regarding nonquantitative treatment limits.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are required to provide 60-day notice in the
• The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on each of the section 3506(c)(2)(A)-required issues for the following information collection requirements.
To derive average costs, we used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' May 2013 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for all salary estimates (
We propose to adjust all our employee hourly wage estimates by a factor of 100 percent. This is necessarily a rough adjustment, both because fringe benefits and overhead costs vary significantly from employer to employer, and because methods of estimating these costs vary widely from study to study. Nonetheless, there is no practical alternative and we believe that doubling the hourly wage to estimate total cost is a reasonably accurate estimation method.
Proposed §§ 438.915(a), 440.395(c)(1), and 457.496(e)(1) would require that the medical necessity determination criteria used by regulated entities for MH/SUD benefits be made available to potential participants, beneficiaries, or contracting providers upon request.
In the November 13, 2013, MHPAEA final rule, the regulatory impact analysis (78 FR 68253 through 68266) quantified the costs to disclose medical necessity criteria. For consistency and comparability, we are using the same method for determining this rule's disclosure costs, with adjustments to account for Medicaid MCOs, ABP and CHIP and the population covered.
To estimate the time it will take a medical staff to respond to each request, we used the same assumption as the MHPAEA final rule. Specifically, we assumed that it took a staff member (in this case, a Medical Secretary) 5 minutes to respond to the request. In this proposed rule, this results in a total annual burden of 11,867 hours for Medicaid and CHIP programs.
The adjusted hourly rate for Medical Secretaries responding to these requests is estimated to be $31.86/hour. Multiplying the total annual burden of 11,867 hours by the hourly wage, yields an associated equivalent cost of about $378,083 for all requests to Medicaid and CHIP programs.
Table 3 displays the added burden estimates, nationally and per program, for Medicaid MCOs and CHIP to comply with the proposed medical necessity determination criteria's disclosure procedures. The number of enrollees for MCOs/HIOs is based on the CMS national breakout as of July 2012 while the number for ABPs is based on the estimated enrollment growth due to Medicaid expansion (“National Health Expenditure Projections 2012-2022,” CMS). CHIP enrollment is based on Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Payment and Access Commission's 2014 estimates. The proposed requirements and burden will be submitted to OMB for approval under control number 0938-New (CMS-10556).
MHPAEA requires that the reason for any denial—under a group health plan or health insurance coverage—of reimbursement or payment for MH/SUD benefits must be made available (upon request or as otherwise required) by the plan administrator (or the health insurance issuer) to the beneficiary in accordance with MHPAEA regulations (45 CFR 146.136(d)(2)).
For the proposed provisions, this proposed rule would not impose any new or revised third-party disclosure requirements, and therefore, does not
The ABP State Plan Application is employed by states to identify benefits offered to Medicaid beneficiaries receiving services under section 1937 of the Act. The application requires that states identify the MH/SUD services that will be offered under the plan. The plan also collects information on any limitations (quantitative and nonquantitative treatment limitations) and financial requirements across all benefit categories (including all medical/surgical services). For states needing to come into compliance with MHPAEA, the state is required to submit an ABP SPA amendment.
The parity requirements proposed in § 440.395 would not impose any new or revised reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements, and therefore, do not require additional OMB review under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The single streamlined application is employed by states to determine Medicaid or CHIP eligibility. It is not used to determine benefits of any kind. However, states are required to review their respective CHIP state plans to determine if they are in compliance with MHPAEA. For states needing to come into compliance, the state must submit a CHIP SPA amendment.
The parity requirements proposed in § 457.496 would not impose any new or revised reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements, and therefore, do not require additional OMB review under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
While this proposed rule discusses a number of optional and mandatory SPA amendments, this proposed rule would not impose any new or revised SPA-specific reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements and therefore, does not require additional OMB review under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The January 2013 SHO letter addressed the application of the MHPAEA requirements in Medicaid and expanded upon the CMS' CHIP guidance provided in the November 2009 letter regarding section 502 of CHIPRA. The letters are discussed in section II.A. of this proposed rule as background. This proposed rule does not propose any new or revised reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements pertaining to either of the letters. Consequently, the PRA does not apply.
In § 438.6(n), states would be required to include contract provisions in all applicable MCO, PIHP, and PAHP contracts to comply with part 438, subpart K. We estimate a one-time state burden of 30 minutes for a Business Operations Specialist at $66.38/hour to amend each contract with the applicable requirements. In aggregate, we estimate 301 hours (602 contracts × 0.5 hours) and $16,049 (301 hours × $53.32/hr). The proposed requirements and burden will be submitted to OMB for approval under control number 0938-New (CMS-10556).
We have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its review of the rule's information collection requirements. These requirements are not effective until they have been approved by OMB.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site
We invite public comments on these potential information collection requirements. If you comment on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please submit your comments electronically as specified in the
PRA-specific comments must be received by June 9, 2015.
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
This proposed rule addresses the applicability of the requirements under the MHPAEA to Medicaid non-managed care benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans (referred to in this proposed rule as Medicaid ABPs) as described in section 1937 of the Act, CHIP under title XXI of the Act, and Medicaid MCOs as described in section 1932 of the Act.
In 2013, we released a SHO letter that provided guidance to states regarding the implementation of requirements under MHPAEA to Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans (referred to in this letter as ABPs), CHIP, and Medicaid MCOs.
Final regulations implementing MHPAEA were published by HHS, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Treasury in the November 13, 2013
We believe that in absence of a regulation specific to the application of the parity requirements under MHPAEA to Medicaid and CHIP, states would not be compelled to implement the necessary changes to these programs, resulting in an inequity between beneficiaries who have MH/SUD conditions in the commercial market (including the state and federal marketplace) and Medicaid and CHIP. Even for states that are attempting to comply with parity requirements under MHPAEA, the absence of regulation could lead to inconsistent state-specific policies based on a state's interpretation of how policies set forth in the MHPAEA final regulations might apply in the Medicaid and CHIP contexts.
This proposed rule provides the specificity and clarity needed to effectively implement the policies set forth by MHPAEA and prevent the use of prohibited limits on coverage, including nonquantitative treatment limitations that disproportionately limit coverage of treatment for MH/SUD conditions. The Department's assessment of the expected economic effects of this proposed rule is discussed in detail below.
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999) and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) (Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). We estimate that this rulemaking is “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence, also a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. Accordingly, we have prepared a RIA, which to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.
Because the application of parity requirements to ABPs; MCOs and PIHPs and PAHPs providing services to MCO enrollees; and the CHIP is likely to have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any given year, this proposed rule is economically significant within the meaning of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order As elaborated below, we believe the benefits of the rule justify the costs.
This proposed rule would benefit approximately 21.6 million Medicaid beneficiaries and 850,000 CHIP beneficiaries in 2015, based on service utilization estimates from 2012 Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. We expect that a significant benefit associated with the application of the parity requirements under MHPAEA and these proposed regulations will be derived from applying parity requirements to the quantitative treatment limits such as annual or lifetime day or visit limits. Applying parity requirements to visit or stay limits will help ensure that vulnerable populations—those accessing substantial amounts of MH/SUD services—have better access to appropriate care. Among adults aged 18 through 64 with Medicaid coverage, approximately 9.6 percent have a serious mental illness, 30.5 percent have any mental illness, and 11.9 percent have a substance use disorder.
Evidence-based treatment for severe and persistent mental illness, and for substance use disorders, often requires prolonged (possibly lifetime) treatment that consists of pharmacotherapy, supportive counseling, and often rehabilitative services. Individuals with severe MH/SUD conditions often quickly exhaust their benefits under Medicaid managed care. In addition, CHIP programs may restrict coverage, such as covering only 40 hours of psychotherapy or 5 days of detoxification per year. These coverage restrictions often result in people forgoing outpatient treatment and a higher likelihood of non-adherence to treatment regimes, which produce poor health and welfare outcomes and create the potential for increased hospitalization costs.
Application of parity requirements may also result in changes to payers' utilization management approaches, specifically when requiring preauthorization of mental health services. It was found that even when approval for continued access to mental health services was in essence guaranteed, patients sought out less treatment, perhaps believing they “should not” access further needed treatment.
Application of parity requirements under MHPAEA may also have benefits in terms of reduced medical costs. Mental health and physical health are interrelated, and individuals with poor mental health are likely to have physical health problems as well.
A primary objective of Congress in enacting MHPAEA was to eliminate barriers that impeded access to and utilization of MH/SUD benefits. Cost increases and increases in capitated rates may occur as a result of increased access and utilization from the application of parity requirements and these proposed regulations, but the evidence suggests that any increases will not be large. The impact of parity requirements will depend on the extent to which MCOs, ABPs, and CHIP plans lack benefits in some classifications or manage these benefits inconsistent with such parity requirements.
In the April 30, 2010 final rule on State Flexibility for Medicaid Benefit Packages (75 FR 23068), the assumptions utilized in modeling the estimated economic impact of the associated provisions took into account the costs of the benefit package for the new adult group served through ABPs. Coverage of these benefits was already accounted for in the April 30, 2010 final rule, and therefore, does not need to be repeated here. Because we approved ABPs only after ensuring compliance with MHPAEA, we project that this proposed regulation will result in no additional costs to ABPs.
A review of Medicaid managed care benefits in all 50 states and the District of Columbia revealed that a subset of states (18 states) had Medicaid managed care plans that imposed quantitative treatment limits on outpatient visits, inpatient stays, and intermediate services (for example, intensive outpatient treatment). As indicated in the preamble, some of these quantitative treatment limits are a result of what is currently in a state's Medicaid plan.
A review of CHIP plans indicated that most are already compliant with MHPAEA. CHIP plans that include Medicaid EPSDT are already required to cover mental health and substance abuse services as needed and they are deemed compliant with MHPAEA parity requirements for financial requirements and treatment limitations. It is not permissible to apply annual or lifetime limits to the EPSDT benefit. CHIP stand-alone programs are also already compliant with MHPAEA because of changes to treatment limitations for both mental health or substance use disorder benefits and medical and surgical benefits required under the Affordable Care Act.
We conducted an analysis to determine how the use of services might increase if quantitative limits on Medicaid MCO and CHIP programs were eliminated. Where quantitative limits exist that are non-compliant with parity requirements, states also have the option to align these limits for MH/SUD and medical/surgical benefits consistent with the provisions of this proposed rule. However, to estimate the highest possible cost impact that could be expected, we simulated the effect of removing visit and day limits in states with limits for treatment users by anticipating that utilization would increase for beneficiaries who were near or exceeded current limits to equal utilization patterns observed in states without limits for Medicaid managed care beneficiaries. This simulation indicated the maximum impact of removing quantitative day and visit limits on MH/SUD services by Medicaid MCOs to be $103 million nationwide (including federal and state costs) in undiscounted dollars in 2015. Using a similar approach, we estimated the maximum impact of removing quantitative limits on CHIP expenditures to be $39.1 million in undiscounted dollars in 2015.
However, these estimates are the largest possible cost impacts and the actual impact is likely to be lower. One reason is that some states with quantitative limits may have mechanisms in place for beneficiaries to obtain hospital days or outpatient visits beyond the state's limit if such care is determined to be medically necessary. In practice, we anticipate a potentially lower impact than estimated currently, given that quantitative limits may already be routinely exceeded. We found that in most of the 18 states with visit limits, a number of recipients (for example, 5 to 20 percent) used services beyond the treatment limit, suggesting that exceptions to the quantitative limits may occur in these states. This does not appear to be the case in all states, because in a few states with visit limits ranging from approximately 24 to 40 visits, only 1 or 2 percent of recipients exceeded the limit.
There are no studies to date on how the application of federal parity requirements affects Medicaid spending. However information from states that have passed state-specific parity legislation (which includes application to Medicaid) provides additional support for the projected impact of these proposed regulations on service utilization and spending. For instance, an evaluation of the Oregon parity law found no significant increases in aggregate behavioral health spending or in the percent of individuals using behavioral health services associated with its implementation.
Vermont's parity law is also very similar to MHPAEA. A study of Vermont's parity law found that the share of spending on mental and substance use disorders increased only slightly, from 2.30 percent to 2.47 percent of total spending for one health plan.
Finally, a recent evaluation of the effect of MHPAEA on the commercial market revealed a modest increase in spending on substance use disorder treatment per enrollee ($9.99, 95 percent CI: 2.54, 18.21), but no significant change in the percent of individuals using substance use disorder services.
This proposed rule requires that if the state provides for MH/SUD services under the state plan, MH/SUD services must be provided to MCO enrollees in every classification in which medical/surgical benefits are provided. After reviewing the MH/SUD services provided under Medicaid managed care plans, we identified only two states providing for MH/SUD services under the state plan in which MH/SUD services were excluded from a classification in which medical/surgical benefits are provided. In both states, the excluded services were substance abuse inpatient services. For the purposes of this analysis, we assumed that substance abuse inpatient services would need to be included to the extent that they were provided in a distinct part or unit of a general hospital or facility with 16 or fewer beds. Using data on current use of Medicaid substance use disorder inpatient services and the cost of those services from Medicaid claims data, we estimated that the additional coverage for these services would have led to an increase of $11.7 million nationwide in undiscounted dollars in 2012.
Table 5 displays the total costs of removing non-compliant QTLs by service and meeting classification of services requirements in 2012.
Costs for complying with parity rules for each service category were estimated based on a simulation of additional utilization states may incur as a result of removing quantitative treatment limits. For the analysis of intermediate services, we examined limits on partial hospitalization and intensive outpatient care.
These figures are calculated based on 2012 Medicaid and CHIP expenditures, which equate to approximately $125.3 million in additional costs as a result of parity compliance. To determine the percent impact to Medicaid expenditures in 2012, we divided $125.3 million (the additional costs of increased utilization) by $408.8 billion (total Medicaid expenditures). Based on this calculation, Medicaid expenditures would increase by 0.03 percent each year. As total Medicaid expenditures increase over time, the cost impact of mental health parity is expected to rise proportionally. Therefore, given that Medicaid expenditures overall are projected to equal approximately $513.4 billion in 2015,
As described above, the cost of improving access to MH/SUD treatment may be offset by a decline in the expenditures on treatments for medical conditions resulting from substance use disorders. There is strong evidence from Medicaid programs to assume a cost offset resulting from improved access to substance use disorder benefits. In contrast, the evidence for cost offset resulting from improved access to mental health benefits is weaker. We anticipate that, on balance, costs stemming from increased utilization of substance use disorder services resulting from application of parity requirements will be largely offset by the savings from reduced medical costs, yielding very little increase in overall costs from increased utilization of substance use disorder services. However, given the difficulty of quantifying the precise cost impact of this reduced use of medical services that is expected to result from enhanced access to substance use disorder services, we have not included any cost offset in our estimates.
Under the MHPAEA final rules, medical management can be applied to MH/SUD benefits if the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying medical management are comparable to, and are applied no more stringently than, the processes, strategies, evidentiary standards, or other factors used in applying medical management to medical and surgical benefits. It is difficult to determine whether, at baseline, Medicaid MCOs, ABPs and CHIP programs are applying medical management more stringently to MH/SUD benefits than to medical and surgical benefits. A state-by-state search of available Medicaid documents indicated that most states that use inpatient utilization management techniques for MH/SUD services, such as prior approval or continuing utilization review for inpatient stays, have similar restrictions for medical and surgical conditions. Surveys of commercial plans have also found that inpatient managed care restrictions, such as pre-admission prior approval, are common for medical and surgical admissions.
Moreover, if some Medicaid plans have stricter management controls for MH/SUD services than for medical services, there is scant evidence at this time as to how utilization management will evolve with the application of parity requirements and whether stricter controls would result in higher costs.
Transfer payments are monetary payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society. There is a potential that application of parity requirements under MHPAEA will result in transfers among different government entities. MH/SUD services receive greater funding from public sources, such as Medicaid, federal government block grants, state government general funds, and local government funding, than do medical and surgical services.
We considered several other approaches for providing guidance to states regarding the application of the MHPAEA to Medicaid MCOs, ABPs, and CHIP. As stated in the preamble of this proposed rule, under our current policies, there is no affirmative obligation to ensure that MCO enrollees receive state plan benefits in a way that fully complies with MHPAEA. This is because section 1932(b)(8) of the Act does not apply to the design of the traditional Medicaid state plan, and state plans thus may be designed in a way that does not comply with MHPAEA requirements. Under current guidance, we have said that if an MCO is simply properly applying state plan benefits, there is no violation of section 1932(b)(8) of the Act even if that benefit design does not conform to MHPAEA, because the MCO did not adopt that benefit design and thus was not at fault in its non-compliance. As explained above, we do not believe that this policy effectuates Congressional intent in enacting section 1932(b)(8) of the Act. Further, we believe that implementation of the statute requires that MCO enrollees receive benefits in a manner that complies with MHPAEA.
We considered requiring that all state plan MH/SUD services be included under MCO contracts as the way to ensure that MCO enrollees receive the full protections of MHPAEA. However, we believe the approach we are proposing would allow states the most flexibility when applying mental health parity requirements to their Medicaid services across delivery systems. Given that there are many different delivery system configurations that carve out MH/SUD services, the proposed approach would allow states to comport with parity requirements for MCO enrollees without completely carving out MH/SUD services from their MCO or dropping MH/SUD coverage altogether.
Also, under current statutes, regulations and policies, states would not be required under Federal law to apply MHPAEA provisions to PIHPs and PAHPs (many of which provide MH/SUD services) since these arrangements were not specifically addressed in section 1932(b)(8) of the Act, and MHPAEA does not directly apply to such contracts. Consideration of these unique state MH/SUD delivery systems is an important distinction in Medicaid when compared to the commercial market. Further, because the statutory provisions making mental health parity requirements applicable to MCOs do not explicitly address these situations, additional interpretation is needed.
In addition to the delivery system issues, states would not be required to remove or align limits on services that were in the state plan for individuals enrolled in an MCO. As stated previously in this proposed regulation, these limits would be carried through in the development of rates, and cost of services outside of the state plan or a waiver of the state plan cannot be included. Without the proposed change in this rule, individuals enrolled in an MCO could still be subject to treatment limitations that are not compliant with parity requirements, which we believe is inconsistent with the intent of Congress in requiring in section 1932(b)(8) of the Act that MCOs deliver services in a manner consistent with MHPAEA requirements and the policies regarding application of MHPAEA to ABPs and CHIP that operate in a FFS arrangement. In addition, without these changes to the managed care rate setting process, it will be difficult for MCOs to comply with statutory requirements regarding financial requirements and treatment limitations.
Finally, there are mental health parity provisions that are not applicable to the FFS delivery systems for Medicaid ABP benefits. These include: Annual and lifetime dollar limits, availability of plan information, and access to out-of-network providers.
In addition, we considered the ability to provide guidance and enforce the provisions of MHPAEA's application to Medicaid and CHIP through sub-regulatory guidance. Over the past 5 years, we have used two SHO letters to provide guidance to states regarding MHPAEA and Medicaid and CHIP. While states and other stakeholders found this guidance useful, there were many questions or concerns regarding the lack of specificity regarding application of MHPAEA parity requirements to Medicaid and CHIP. There were several issues that states raised regarding this sub-regulatory guidance. One issue was the actuarial soundness requirements, which mandate that MCO payments be based on services as covered under state plans. Another was additional clarification of NQTLs and states' concerns regarding existing federal and state policies that required utilization management strategies that were inconsistent with the intent of MHPAEA. States also raised additional questions regarding application of MHPAEA parity requirements to other delivery systems including PIHPs, PAHPs, and FFS. We do not believe that additional subregulatory guidance would provide the necessary authority for MCOs and states to implement or enforce MHPAEA parity requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in an MCO.
We request public comment on our rationale for having regulations that are specific to Medicaid and CHIP.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The projected impact on costs in 2015 was calculated by multiplying the percent anticipated increase in cost due to the application of parity requirements by expected Medicaid expenditures in 2015. Based on our analysis, the parity rule will lead to an increase of approximately 0.03 percent in total Medicaid spending each year over 10 years. In 2015, Medicaid expenditures overall are projected to equal approximately $513.4 billion.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief for small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The great majority of hospitals and most other health care providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the SBA definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any 1 year). States are not included in the definition of a small entity. This proposed rule does not change the rates at which providers would be reimbursed for any additional treatments and services that may be required, and MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs will be paid on an actuarially sound basis for any additional coverage that they will be required to provide. As indicated previously in this proposed rule, the increased costs will be borne by states and the federal government, which are not considered small entities. Therefore, the Secretary has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term is used in the RFA.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. The Secretary has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that is approximately $144 million. UMRA does not address the total cost of a rule. Rather, it focuses on certain categories of cost, mainly those “Federal mandate” costs resulting from (A) imposing enforceable duties on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, or (B) increasing the stringency of conditions in, or decreasing the funding of, state, local, or tribal governments under entitlement programs. The average state share of total Medicaid spending in 2015 is projected to be 39.9 percent. The total cost impact of this rule is estimated to be $157.4 million in 2015. Therefore, the total cost to states is projected to be approximately $62.8 million. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it issues a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications.
In the Secretary's view, this proposed rule has Federalism implications, because it has direct effects on the states, the relationship between the federal government and states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. However, in the Secretary's view, the Federalism implications of this proposed rule are substantially mitigated because, with regards to MCOs, ABPs, and CHIP, the Secretary expects that many states already offer benefits under their state plan and MCO contracts that meet or exceed the Federal mental health parity standards that would be implemented in this rule.
Throughout the process of developing these regulations, to the extent feasible within the relevant provisions of the Act, PHS Act and MHPAEA, the Secretary has attempted to balance the latitude for states to structure their state plan services and MCO contracts according to the needs and preferences of the state, and the Congress' intent to provide uniform minimum protections to Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries in every state. By doing so, it is the Secretary's view that this proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 13132.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs-health, Medicaid reporting.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drugs, Grant programs-health, Health facilities, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-health, Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(e)
(1) Any services necessary for compliance by the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP with the requirements of subpart K of this part and only to the extent such services are necessary for the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP to comply with § 438.910; and
(2) Any services that the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP voluntarily agrees to provide.
(3) Only the costs associated with services in paragraph (e)(1) of this section may be included when determining the payment rates under paragraph (c) of this section.
(n)
(2) Any state providing any services to MCO enrollees using a delivery system other than the MCO delivery system must provide documentation of how the requirements of subpart K of this part are met with the submission of the MCO contract for review and approval under paragraph (a) of this section.
For purposes of this subpart, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following terms have the meanings indicated:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Apply the aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit both to the medical/surgical benefits to which the limit would otherwise apply and to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in a manner that does not distinguish between the medical/surgical benefits and mental health or substance use disorder benefits; or
(2) Not include an aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit on mental health or substance use disorder benefits that is more restrictive than the aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit, respectively, on medical/surgical benefits.
(d)
(e)
(i) Impose no aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit, on mental health or substance use disorder benefits; or
(ii) Impose an aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit on mental health or substance use disorder benefits that is no more restrictive than an average limit calculated for medical/surgical benefits in the following manner. The average limit is calculated by taking into account the weighted average of the aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limits, as appropriate, that are applicable to the categories of medical/surgical benefits. Limits based on delivery mechanisms, such as inpatient/outpatient treatment or normal treatment of common, low-cost conditions (such as treatment of normal births), do not constitute categories for purposes of this paragraph (e)(1)(ii). In addition, for purposes of determining weighted averages, any benefits that are not within a category that is subject to a separately-designated dollar limit under the contract are taken into account as a single separate category by using an estimate of the upper limit on the dollar amount that a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP may reasonably be expected to incur for such benefits, taking into account any other applicable restrictions.
(2)
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(c)
(ii)
(B) If, for a type of financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation that applies to at least two-thirds of all medical/surgical benefits in a classification, there is no single level that applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits in the classification subject to the financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation, the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP may combine levels until the combination of levels applies to more than one-half of medical/surgical benefits subject to the financial requirement or quantitative treatment limitation in the classification. The least restrictive level within the combination is considered the predominant level of that type in the classification. (For this purpose, a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP may combine the most restrictive levels first, with each less restrictive level added to the combination until the combination applies to more than one-half of the benefits subject to the financial requirement or treatment limitation.)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(2)
(ii)
(A) Office visits (such as physician visits); and
(B) All other outpatient items and services (such as outpatient surgery, facility charges for day treatment centers, laboratory charges, or other medical items).
(3)
(4)
(d)
(2)
(i) Medical management standards limiting or excluding benefits based on medical necessity or medical appropriateness, or based on whether the treatment is experimental or investigative;
(ii) Formulary design for prescription drugs;
(iii) For MCOs, PIHPs, or PAHPs with multiple network tiers (such as preferred providers and participating providers), network tier design;
(iv) Standards for provider admission to participate in a network, including reimbursement rates;
(v) MCO, PIHP, or PAHP methods for determining usual, customary, and reasonable charges;
(vi) Refusal to pay for higher-cost therapies until it can be shown that a lower-cost therapy is not effective (also known as fail-first policies or step therapy protocols);
(vii) Exclusions based on failure to complete a course of treatment;
(viii) Restrictions based on geographic location, facility type, provider specialty, and other criteria that limit the scope or duration of benefits for services provided under the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP; and
(ix) Standards for providing access to out-of-network providers
(3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(2) In any instance where the full scope of medical/surgical and MH/SUD services are not provided through the MCO, the State must ensure that the enrollees of the MCO receive services in compliance with this subpart.
(c)
(1) Require a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP to provide any mental health benefits or substance use disorder benefits beyond what is specified in its contract, and the provision of benefits by a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP for one or more mental health conditions or substance use disorders does not require the MCO, PIHP or PAHP to provide benefits for any other mental health condition or substance use disorder;
(2) Require a MCO, PIHP, or PAHP that provides coverage for mental health or substance use disorder benefits only to the extent required under 1905(a)(4)(D) of the Act to provide additional mental health or substance use disorder benefits in any classification in accordance with this section; or
(3) Affect the terms and conditions relating to the amount, duration, or scope of mental health or substance use disorder benefits under the Medicaid MCO, PIHP, or PAHP contract except as specifically provided in §§ 438.905 and 438.910.
In general, contracts with MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs offering Medicaid state plan services to enrollees, and those entities, must comply with the requirements of this subpart no later than the beginning of the contract year starting 18 months after the [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(a)
(b)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(3)
(B)
(
(C)
(D)
(E)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(iii)
(iv)
(4)
(ii)
(A) Medical management standards limiting or excluding benefits based on medical necessity or medical appropriateness, or based on whether the treatment is experimental or investigative;
(B) Formulary design for prescription drugs;
(C) Standards for provider admission to participate in a network, including reimbursement rates;
(D) Methods for determining usual, customary, and reasonable charges;
(E) Refusal to pay for higher-cost therapies until it can be shown that a lower-cost therapy is not effective (also known as fail-first policies or step therapy protocols);
(F) Exclusions based on failure to complete a course of treatment; and
(G) Restrictions based on geographic location, facility type, provider specialty, and other criteria that limit the scope or duration of benefits or services provided under the ABP.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2)
(i) Require a state to provide any specific mental health benefits or substance use disorder benefits;
(ii) Affect the terms and conditions relating to the amount, duration, or scope of mental health or substance use disorder benefits under the ABP except as specifically provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3)
(4)
(ii) [Reserved]
Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302), unless otherwise noted.
Section 1102 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Apply the aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit both to the medical/surgical benefits to which the limit would otherwise apply and to mental health or substance use disorder benefits in a manner that does not distinguish between the medical/
(ii) Not include an aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit on mental health or substance use disorder benefits that is more restrictive than the aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit, respectively, on medical/surgical benefits. (For cumulative limits other than aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limits, see paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section prohibiting separately accumulating cumulative financial requirements.)
(3)
(4)
(A) Impose no aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit, as appropriate, on mental health or substance use disorder benefits; or
(B) Impose an aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limit on mental health or substance use disorder benefits that is no more restrictive than an average limit calculated for medical/surgical benefits in the following manner. The average limit is calculated by taking into account the weighted average of the aggregate lifetime or annual dollar limits, as appropriate, that are applicable to the categories of medical/surgical benefits. Limits based on delivery systems, such as inpatient/outpatient treatment or normal treatment of common, low-cost conditions (such as treatment of normal births), do not constitute categories for purposes of this paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B). In addition, for purposes of determining weighted averages, any benefits that are not within a category that is subject to a separately-designated dollar limit under the plan are taken into account as a single separate category by using an estimate of the upper limit on the dollar amount that a plan may reasonably be expected to incur for such benefits, taking into account any other applicable restrictions under the plan.
(ii)
(d)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(3)
(B)
(
(C)
(D)
(E)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(iii)
(4)
(ii)
(A) Medical management standards limiting or excluding benefits based on medical necessity or medical appropriateness, or based on whether the treatment is experimental or investigative;
(B) Formulary design for prescription drugs;
(C) For plans with multiple network tiers (such as preferred providers and participating providers), network tier design;
(D) Standards for provider admission to participate in a network, including reimbursement rates;
(E) Plan methods for determining usual, customary, and reasonable charges;
(F) Refusal to pay for higher-cost therapies until it can be shown that a lower-cost therapy is not effective (also known as fail-first policies or step therapy protocols);
(G) Exclusions based on failure to complete a course of treatment; and
(H) Restrictions based on geographic location, facility type, provider
(I) Standards for providing access to out-of-network providers
(5)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(2)
(i) Require a CHIP state plan or a MCE that contracts with a CHIP state plan to provide any mental health benefits or substance use disorder benefits, and the provision of benefits by a CHIP state plan or a MCE that contracts with a CHIP state plan for one or more mental health conditions or substance use disorders does not require the plan or health insurance coverage under this section to provide benefits for any other mental health condition or substance use disorder;
(ii) Affect the terms and conditions relating to the amount, duration, or scope of mental health or substance use disorder benefits under the CHIP state plan or a MCE that contracts with a CHIP state plan except as specifically provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(g)
(ii) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action lists five flammable refrigerants as acceptable substitutes, subject to use conditions, in several end-uses: Household refrigerators and freezers, stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, very low temperature refrigeration, non-mechanical heat transfer, vending machines, and room air conditioning units. This action also exempts from Clean Air Act Section 608's prohibition on venting, release, or disposal the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed in this action as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in specific end-uses. We are finalizing this exemption for those substitutes, subject to those use conditions and in those end-uses, on the basis of current evidence that their venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment.
This rule is effective on May 11, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 11, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343-9163; fax number (202) 343-2338, email address:
Pursuant to the SNAP program under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, this final rule lists five flammable refrigerant substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses: Household refrigerators and freezers; retail food refrigeration, stand-alone equipment only; very low temperature refrigeration; non-mechanical heat transfer; vending machines; and room air conditioning (AC) units. The five refrigerant substitutes are: Difluoromethane (also known as hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-32), ethane, isobutane, propane, and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A. The use conditions address safe use of flammable refrigerants and include incorporation by reference of portions of certain safety standards from Underwriters Laboratories (UL), refrigerant charge size limits, and requirements for markings on equipment using these refrigerants. This action also exempts from CAA Section 608's prohibition on venting, release, or disposal the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A in specific end-uses for which they are being listed in this rulemaking. We are finalizing this exemption for those substitutes on the basis of current evidence that their venting, release, or disposal from these specific end-uses does not pose a threat to the environment.
This final rule lists all five refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the same end-uses as in the proposed
EPA received a total of 37 comments from 35 commenters. Major topics raised by commenters included: The acceptability of each refrigerant; the environmental, flammability, and toxicity characteristics of the proposed refrigerants; the cost impacts of using the proposed refrigerants; the proposed use conditions; EPA's recommendations for safe handling of the refrigerants; technician training; the relationship between this proposed rule and the proposed rule
Consistent with the Climate Action Plan announced June 2013, which calls on EPA to “use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals” (Climate Action Plan, 2013), this final rule approves a number of climate-friendly alternatives for various kinds of refrigeration and AC equipment. Using low-GWP alternatives instead of high-GWP HFCs reduces climate-damaging emissions. Use and emissions of HFCs are rapidly increasing because they are the primary substitutes for ozone-depleting substances, especially in many of the largest end-uses. Though they represent a small fraction of current total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, their warming impact is hundreds to thousands of times higher than that of CO
This action lists as acceptable, subject to use conditions, five flammable refrigerant substitutes that EPA believes present overall lower risk to human health and the environment compared to other available or potentially available alternatives in the same end-uses. The refrigerants include one HFC refrigerant—HFC-32—and four hydrocarbon refrigerants—ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A. We are listing these substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in a number of stationary AC and refrigeration end-uses under the SNAP program, including: Household refrigerators and freezers, retail food refrigeration, very low temperature refrigeration, non-mechanical heat transfer, vending machines, and residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. The use conditions set requirements to ensure that these substitutes do not present significantly greater risk in the end-use than other substitutes that are currently or potentially available for that same end-use. This action is another regular update to EPA's lists of acceptable substitutes through the SNAP program under the authority of CAA Section 612.
This action responds to a number of SNAP submissions for four hydrocarbon refrigerants and HFC-32. Additionally, this action exempts from the prohibition under CAA Section 608 on venting, release, or disposal, the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that are listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in specific end-uses, on the basis of current evidence that their venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment. Note, however, that other applicable environmental regulatory requirements still apply. For example, for those refrigerant substitutes listed in this action that contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) as defined in 40 CFR 50.100(s),
With the exception of HFC-32, the refrigerants listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this action are hydrocarbons or blends consisting solely of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon refrigerants have been in use for over 15 years in countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan in household and commercial refrigerators and freezers. To a lesser extent, hydrocarbon refrigerants have also been used internationally in small AC units such as portable room air conditioners.
Because hydrocarbon refrigerants have zero ozone depletion potential (ODP) and very low global warming potentials (GWPs) compared to most other refrigerants, many companies recently have expressed interest in using hydrocarbons in the United States. Also, some companies have reported improved energy efficiency with hydrocarbon refrigerants (A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012; A/S Vestfrost, 2012; CHEAA, 2013).
In a final rule published in the
This final action lists HFC-32 (difluoromethane, Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number [CAS Reg. No.] 75-10-5) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in room air conditioners for residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps end-use. There appears to be interest in using HFC-32 for many reasons, including its GWP of 675, which is considerably lower than the GWPs of hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 (1,810) and most other HFC-based refrigerants (approximately 1,500 to 4,000) currently used in this end-use. It also has mild flammability compared to hydrocarbon refrigerants. Mini-split
All of the end-uses in this final rule are for stationary refrigeration or AC. EPA previously issued several final rules addressing the use of flammable refrigerants in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC). On June 13, 1995, at 60 FR 31092, the Agency found all flammable substitutes to be unacceptable for use in MVAC unless specifically listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, because of flammability risks and the lack of sufficient risk assessment and other relevant information to demonstrate safe use in that end-use at that time. Some of these risks are unique to motor vehicles. In recent years, EPA has listed three low-GWP refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for MVAC systems (
As stated above, this action is being taken under the President's Climate Action Plan. HFCs are accumulating rapidly in the atmosphere. For example, the atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012, and concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13% and 16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively (Montzka, 2012; NOAA, 2013).
The alternatives addressed in this action have GWPs significantly lower than both the ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and HFC substitute refrigerants in the end-uses in which they are being listed. ODS in the end-uses in this final rule include chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-12 (ODP
This action lists the following refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in specific end-uses within the refrigeration and AC sector: Ethane (R-170), HFC-32 (R-32), isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A. Types of residential and light commercial AC equipment addressed in this action include window AC units; packaged terminal AC units and heat pumps; and portable room AC units. Types of refrigeration equipment include stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, very low temperature freezers, thermosiphons (non-mechanical heat transfer equipment), household refrigerators and freezers, and vending machines.
Table 1 identifies industry subsectors that may wish to explore the use of ethane, HFC-32, R-441A, isobutane, and propane in these end-uses or that may work with equipment using these refrigerants in the future.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding entities likely to adopt, service or dispose of the substitutes that are being listed in this action. If you have any questions about whether this action
Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this preamble.
Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone depleting substances (ODS). EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of Section 612 are the following:
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I substance (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II substance (HCFC) with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently or potentially available.
Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of acceptable substitutes may be found at
Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with Section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.
Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.
Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in the major industrial use sectors (Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These eight sectors—refrigeration and AC; foam blowing; cleaning solvents; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion—are the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.
Section 612 of the CAA instructs EPA to list as acceptable those substitutes that present a lower overall risk to human health and the environment as compared with other substitutes that are currently or potentially available for a specific use.
Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a substitute in one of the eight major industrial use sectors where class I or class II substances have been used must provide notice to the Agency, including health and safety information on the substitute, at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). This requirement applies to the persons planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,
The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitutes that are submitted for evaluation: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions are met in the way that the substitute is used to minimize risks to human health and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of Section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).
For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the substitute in an unacceptable manner and is in violation of Section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).
The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the
In contrast, EPA publishes decisions concerning substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions as “notices of acceptability” or “determinations of acceptability,” rather than as proposed and final rules. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program in the
Many SNAP listings include “Comments” or “Further Information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed may be binding under other regulatory programs (
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at:
In this action, EPA is listing the following refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the identified end-uses.
i. The quantity of the substitute refrigerant (
ii. These refrigerants may be used only in new equipment designed specifically and clearly identified for the refrigerant—
iii. These refrigerants may be used only in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment that meets all requirements listed in Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL Standard 471, dated November 24, 2010. In cases where this final rule includes requirements more stringent than those of the 10th edition of UL Standard 471, the appliance would need to meet the requirements of the final rule in place of the requirements in the UL Standard;
iv. The refrigerator or freezer must have red Pantone Matching System (PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, or other devices through which the refrigerant passes, to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be present at all service ports and other parts of the system where service puncturing or other actions creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected and must extend a minimum of one (1) inch in both directions from such locations.
v. The following markings, or the equivalent, must be provided and must be permanent:
(a) “DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.” This marking must be provided on or near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer.
(b) “DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.” This marking must be located near the machine compartment.
(c) “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.” This marking must be located near the machine compartment.
(d) “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.” This marking must be provided on the exterior of the refrigeration equipment.
(e) “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant Used.” This marking must be provided near all exposed refrigerant tubing.
All of these markings must be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (
Retail food refrigeration includes the refrigeration systems, including cold storage cases, designed to chill food or keep it at a cold temperature for commercial sale. Stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment includes appliances that use a sealed hermetic compressor and for which all refrigerant-containing components, including but not limited to the compressor, condenser, and evaporator, are assembled into a single piece of equipment before delivery to the ultimate consumer or user. Such equipment does not require the addition or removal of refrigerant when placed into initial operation. Stand-alone equipment is used to chill or to store chilled beverages or frozen products (
This acceptability decision does not apply to large commercial refrigeration systems such as, but not limited to, remote direct expansion refrigeration systems typically found in supermarkets. This acceptability decision also does not apply to walk-in coolers. The SNAP submission did not apply to these types of systems. Moreover, these types of equipment typically require larger charges than those established in this use condition for the end-use addressed in this rule and are sufficiently different that we would need additional information before making a listing decision.
Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to maintain temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of food—for example, −80 °C (−170 °F) or lower. Examples of very low temperature refrigeration equipment include medical freezers and freeze-dryers, which generally require extremely reliable refrigeration cycles to maintain low temperatures and must meet stringent technical standards. In some cases, very low temperature refrigeration equipment may use a refrigeration system with two refrigerant loops or with a direct expansion refrigeration loop coupled with an alternative refrigeration technology (
There is no U.S. standard that we are aware of that applies specifically to very low temperature refrigeration or non-mechanical heat transfer. The submitter of information for use of ethane in very low temperature refrigeration has indicated that UL has tested their equipment for compliance with the UL 471 Standard for commercial refrigeration equipment, which addresses stand-alone commercial refrigerators and freezers. In this final rule, we are requiring compliance with the UL 471 Standard as one of the conditions for use of ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
This submission also addressed the use of ethane in a type of non-mechanical heat transfer equipment called a thermosiphon. Non-mechanical heat transfer involves cooling systems that rely on convection to remove heat from an area, rather than mechanical refrigeration. A thermosiphon is a type of heat transfer system that relies on natural convection currents, as opposed to using a mechanical pump. This final rule lists ethane as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in non-mechanical heat transfer. The use conditions include a requirement to meet Supplement B to the UL 471 Standard and a charge limit of 150 g. We note that some other types of non-mechanical heat transfer equipment would be expected to present different technical issues than a thermosiphon in a freezer and are not part of this decision,
i. The charge size for any household refrigerator, freezer, or combination refrigerator and freezer for each circuit using R-290 must not exceed 57 g (2.01 oz);
ii. This refrigerant may be used only in new equipment specifically designed and clearly identified for the refrigerant—
iii. This substitute may be used only in equipment that meets all requirements in Supplement SA to the 10th edition of UL Standard 250, dated August 25, 2000. In cases where this final rule includes requirements more stringent than those of the 10th edition of UL Standard 250, the appliance would need to meet the requirements of the final rule in place of the requirements in the UL Standard;
iv. The refrigerator or freezer must have red PMS #185 marked pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant passes to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant;
v. Permanent markings must be provided on the equipment, as described above for stand-alone commercial refrigerators and freezers. All of these markings must be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (
Household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator/freezers are intended primarily for residential use, although they may be used outside the home. Household freezers only offer storage space at freezing temperatures, unlike household refrigerators. Products with both a refrigerator and freezer in a single unit are most common. Wine coolers used in residential settings are considered part of this end-use. EPA previously found the flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants isobutane and R-441A acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use (December 20, 2011, at 76 FR 78832, codified at Appendix R of Subpart G of 40 CFR part 82).
Equipment must meet all requirements of Supplement SA to the 7th edition of UL Standard 541, “Refrigerated Vending Machines,” dated December 30, 2011 (instead of Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL 471). Supplement SA specifically addressing flammable refrigerants is very similar to the Supplement SB in the UL 471 Standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers, and thus, similar requirements apply to these types of refrigeration equipment. In UL 541, the relevant references on equipment markings for flammable refrigerants in Supplement A are Sections SA 6.1.2-SA 6.1.5.
Vending machines are self-contained units for refrigerating beverages or food which dispense goods that must be kept cold or frozen. This end-use differs from other retail food refrigeration because goods are dispensed, rather than allowing the consumer to reach in to grab a beverage or food product. The design of the refrigeration system of a vending machine is similar to that of a self-contained commercial refrigerator or freezer. Typically the difference lies in how payment for goods is made and in the selection mechanisms found in vending machines but not in self-contained commercial refrigerator-freezers, and possibly the outer casing (
i. These refrigerants may be used only in new equipment designed specifically, and clearly identified, for the refrigerant—
ii. These refrigerants may be used only in air conditioners that meet all requirements listed in Supplement SA to the 8th edition, dated August 2, 2012, of UL Standard 484, “Room Air Conditioners.” In cases where this final rule includes requirements more stringent than those of the 8th edition of UL Standard 484, the appliance would need to meet the requirements of the final rule in place of the requirements in the UL Standard;
iii. UL 484 includes charge limits for room air conditioners and adherence to those charge limits would normally be confirmed by the installer. In addition to requiring the charge limits in the UL 484 Standard, EPA is requiring the following charge size limits, adherence to which must be confirmed by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). In cases where the charge size limit listed is different from those determined by UL 484, the smaller of the two charge sizes would apply. For a review of how these charge size limits were derived, see “Derivation of Charge Limits for Room Air Conditioners,” (EPA, 2015) in the docket. The charge size limit must be determined based on the type of equipment, the alternative refrigerant used, and the normal rated capacity of the unit. The limits are presented in Tables 2 through 6 below in Section III.C.3, “Charge size,” and in Tables A, B, C, D and E of the regulatory text at the end of this preamble.
iv. The air conditioner must have red PMS #185 marked pipes, hoses, or other devices through which the refrigerant passes to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be present at all service ports and other parts of the system where service puncturing or other actions creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected and must extend a minimum of one (1) inch in both directions from such locations;
v. The following markings, or the equivalent, must be provided and must be permanent:
(a) On the outside of the air conditioner: “DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.”
(b) On the outside of the air conditioner: “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.”
(c) On the inside of the air conditioner near the compressor: “CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.”
(d) For portable air conditioners, PTAC and PTHP, on the outside of the
(e) For window air conditioners, on the outside of the product: “WARNING: Appliance shall be installed, operated and stored in a room with a floor area larger than “X” m
The residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps end-use includes equipment for cooling air in individual rooms, in single-family homes, and sometimes in small commercial buildings. This end-use differs from commercial comfort AC, which uses chillers that cool water that is then used to cool air throughout a large commercial building, such as an office building or hotel. Examples of equipment for residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps include:
• Central air conditioners, also called unitary AC or unitary split systems. These systems include an outdoor unit with a condenser and a compressor, refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an evaporator, and ducts to carry cooled air throughout a building. Central heat pumps are similar but offer the choice to either heat or cool the indoor space. These systems are not addressed in this rule.
• Multi-split air conditioners. These systems include one or more outdoor unit(s) with a condenser and a compressor and multiple indoor units, each of which is connected to the outdoor unit by refrigerant lines. These systems are not addressed in this rule.
• Mini-split air conditioners. These systems include an outdoor unit with a condenser and a compressor and a single indoor unit that is connected to the outdoor unit by refrigerant lines. Cooled air exits directly from the indoor unit rather than being carried through ducts. These systems are not addressed in this rule.
• Window air conditioners. These are self-contained units that fit in a window with the condenser extending outside the window. These types of units are regulated under this rule.
• PTAC and PTHP. These are self-contained units that consist of a separate, un-encased combination of heating and cooling assemblies mounted through a wall.
• Portable room air conditioners. These are self-contained, factory-sealed, single package units that are designed to be moved easily from room to room and are intended to provide supplemental cooling within a room. These units typically have wheels or casters for portability and, under the UL 484 Standard for room air conditioners, must have a fan which operates continuously when the unit is on. Portable room air conditioners may contain an exhaust hose that can be placed through a window or door to eject heat to the outside. These types of units are regulated under this rule.
Of these types of equipment, window air conditioners, PTAC, PTHP, and portable room air conditioners are self-contained equipment with the condenser, compressor, evaporator, and tubing all within casing in a single unit. These units all fall under the scope of the UL 484 Standard for room air conditioners. In contrast, unitary split systems, multi-split systems and mini-split systems have an outdoor condenser that is separated from an indoor unit. Compared to split systems, self-contained equipment typically has smaller charge sizes, has fewer locations that are prone to leak, and is less likely to require servicing by a technician, thereby causing refrigerant releases. A lower risk of refrigerant releases and a potential for smaller releases and lower concentration releases results in lower risk that flammable refrigerant could be ignited. Thus, self-contained air conditioners and heat pumps using a flammable refrigerant have lower risk for fire than split systems using a flammable refrigerant. EPA notes that split system AC systems present different technical challenges than self-contained room AC equipment and are not part of this decision.
The regulatory text of our decisions for the end-uses discussed above appears in tables at the end of this preamble. This text will be codified at 40 CFR part 82 Subpart G. We note that there may be other legal obligations pertaining to the manufacture, use, handling, and disposal of hydrocarbons that are not included in the information listed in the tables (
B. What are ethane, isobutane, propane, HFC-32, R-441A, and the ASHRAE classifications for refrigerant flammability?
Ethane, isobutane, and propane are hydrocarbons and R-441A is a hydrocarbon blend. Hydrocarbons are highly flammable organic compounds made up of hydrogen and carbon. Ethane has two carbons, the chemical formula of C
HFC-32 is a mildly flammable organic compound made up of hydrogen,
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE Standard 34-2010 assigns a safety group classification for each refrigerant which consists of two alphanumeric characters (
The flammability classification “1” is given to refrigerants that, when tested, show no flame propagation. The flammability classification “2” is given to refrigerants that, when tested, exhibit flame propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), and have a lower flammability limit (LFL) greater than 0.10 kg/m
Using these safety group classifications, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2010 categorizes ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A in the A3 Safety Group and categorizes HFC-32 in the A2L Safety Group.
EPA is listing ethane, isobutane, propane, HFC-32, and R-441A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses. The use conditions include conditions consistent with industry standards, limits on charge size, and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment to inform consumers and technicians of potential flammability hazards. The listings with specific use conditions are intended to allow for the use of these flammable refrigerants in a manner that will ensure they do not pose a greater risk to human health or the environment than other substitutes that are currently or potentially available.
The refrigerants listed in this final rule may be used only in new equipment
The flammable refrigerants may be used only in equipment that meets all requirements in the relevant supplements for flammable refrigerants in certain applicable UL standards for refrigeration and AC equipment. Specifically, the cited supplements include Supplement SB to UL 471 10th edition for commercial refrigerators and freezers (including stand-alone freezers
UL has tested equipment for flammability risk in household and retail food refrigeration, vending machines, and room AC. Further, UL has developed acceptable safety standards including requirements for construction, for markings, and for performance tests concerning refrigerant leakage, ignition of switching components, surface temperature of parts, and component strength after being scratched. These standards were developed in an open and consensus-based approach, with the assistance of experts in the refrigeration and AC industry as well as experts involved in assessing the safety of products. While similar standards exist from other bodies such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), this rule relies on UL standards because they are most applicable and recognized by the U.S. market.
This approach is the same as that in our previous rule on flammable refrigerants (December 20, 2011 at 76 FR 78832), through which EPA incorporated by reference to 40 CFR part 82, appendix R to subpart G, Supplement SA to UL 250 10th edition and Supplement SB to UL 471 10th edition. Through this action the EPA is incorporating by reference relevant supplements from two additional UL standards: Supplement SA to UL 541 7th edition and Supplement SA to UL 484 8th edition. These supplements are summarized elsewhere in this document.
The UL Standards are available for purchase by mail at: COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; Email:
The refrigerants listed in this final rule are subject to use conditions that limit the amount of refrigerant allowed in each type of appliance. Consistent with previous actions, EPA believes it is necessary to set limits on charge size in order for these refrigerants not to pose a risk to human health or the environment that is greater than the risk posed by other available substitutes. These limits will reduce the risk to workers and consumers since under worst-case scenario analyses, a leak of the maximum charge sizes allowed under the use conditions did not result in concentrations of the refrigerant that met or exceeded the LFL, as explained below in Section IV.B, “Flammability.”
The limitations on refrigerant charge size for household and stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, vending machines, and room AC units reflect the UL 250, UL 471, UL 541 and UL 484 Standards. As discussed above in Section III.C.2, “Standards,” we believe UL standards are most applicable to the U.S. market and offer requirements developed by a consensus of experts. EPA is requiring a charge size not to exceed 57 g (2.01 oz) for household refrigerators and freezers, not to exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) for retail food refrigeration in stand-alone units, and not to exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) for vending machines. The maximum charge size limit for room AC units varies, as discussed below. To place these quantities in context, the charge size of a disposable lighter is approximately 30 g (1.06 oz).
The UL 250 Standard for household refrigerators and freezers limits the amount of refrigerant that may leak to no more than 50 g (1.76 oz). EPA is requiring a charge size of 57 g (2.01 oz) to allow for up to 7 g (0.25 oz) of refrigerant that might be solubilized in the oil (and assumed not to leak or immediately vaporize with the refrigerant in case of a leak). EPA bases this estimate on information received from a manufacturer of hydrocarbon-based refrigerator-freezers (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286-0033 on
UL Standards 471 (retail food refrigeration) and 541 (vending machines) limit the amount of refrigerant leaked to 150 g (5.29 oz). Furthermore, the charge size limit for A3 refrigerants (for retail food refrigeration) is in line with the IEC 60335-2-89 Standard for commercial appliances, which has a charge size limit of 150 g (5.29 oz).
As noted above, EPA is requiring a varying charge size for room AC units. The maximum charge must be no greater than the amount calculated for a given sized space according to Appendix F to Supplement SA of UL Standard 484. This section of the UL standard uses a formula for the charge of a fixed room air conditioner based upon the size of the space where the refrigerant may escape and the LFL of the refrigerant. Height of the mounting of the unit is also a variable, because empirical studies have found that leaked refrigerant is more likely to mix thoroughly with the surrounding air, rather than pooling, when the AC unit is mounted higher. The formula is as follows:
The equipment manufacturer would then design AC units to be used in rooms with a minimum size and would label the minimum room size on the equipment.
In addition to the formula above, UL 484 has a requirement that the maximum charge for a fixed room air conditioner may not exceed the amount calculated using the following formula:
That formula sets maximum limits on refrigerant in a room air conditioner. With the A3 refrigerants, the maximum value is 1 kg.
In addition, Appendix F of UL 484 sets alternative requirements for non-fixed units such as portable air conditioners. Portable air conditioners are usually located on the floor of a room, and thus, if they followed the formula for fixed appliances, they would be assumed to have a height of 0.6 m, and would have relatively low charge sizes. However, Sections F.1.7 uses a different formula that allows for
Although using a formula to determine the maximum charge size and minimum room size is appropriate from an engineering perspective, it does not ensure that a consumer will select an appropriate AC unit for the size of their room. It is likely that some consumers may be unaware of the exact size of the room to be cooled and thus may select an inappropriately sized AC unit that increases the flammability risk. Or, a consumer may believe that a larger, more powerful AC unit will provide better, faster cooling and therefore may select an inappropriately sized AC unit that increases the flammability risk. To address these concerns, EPA is supplementing the charge size guidelines in Appendix F of UL 484 with a use condition that restricts the maximum refrigerant charge of equipment based upon the cooling capacity needed, in BTU/hour. Equipment manufacturers are responsible for designing equipment below a maximum charge size consistent with the intended cooling capacity. This will allow the manufacturer, who is better positioned than the consumer, to address these challenges. Placing the responsibility on the manufacturer to design equipment that restricts the maximum refrigerant charge based upon the cooling capacity needed also provides a better means for EPA to ensure compliance with the use conditions, and thus to ensure that the risk to human health will not be greater than that posed by other available substitutes. We believe that these requirements, in combination with the other use conditions and commonly found informational materials, provide sufficient safeguards against instances of consumers selecting inappropriately-sized equipment.
EPA has based its charge limits upon appropriate capacity needs for an area to be cooled and the requirements for refrigerant charge relative to room size in Appendix F of UL 484, discussed above. A document in the docket describes this relationship in tables in a spreadsheet (EPA, 2015). The charge limits for each refrigerant by equipment type and mounting location are as follows:
In cases where the rated capacity exceeds the maximum shown on the table, the maximum charge size in the table for that refrigerant applies. In cases where the normal rated capacity lies between two values listed next to each other in the table, the maximum charge size should be determined based on a linear interpolation between the two respective charge sizes. We assume that room air conditioners will be at least 5,000 BTU/hr in capacity; this corresponds to cooling a floor area of roughly 100 square feet or 9.3 m
Equipment must have distinguishing color-coded hoses and piping to indicate use of a flammable refrigerant. This will help alert technicians immediately to the use of a flammable refrigerant, thereby reducing the risk of using sparking equipment or otherwise having an ignition source nearby. The AC and refrigeration industry currently uses distinguishing colors as a means of identifying different refrigerants in containers, and so this approach is consistent with industry practice. Likewise, distinguishing coloring has been used elsewhere to indicate an unusual and potentially dangerous situation, for example in the use of orange-insulated wires in hybrid electric vehicles. Currently, no industry standard exists for color-coded hoses or pipes for ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, or R-441A. The final use condition requires all such refrigerator tubing to be colored red PMS #185 to match the red band displayed on the container of flammable refrigerants under the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Guideline “N” 2012, “2012 Guideline for Assignment of Refrigerant Container Colors.”
A cost-effective alternative to painting or dying the hose or pipe would be to instead add a colored plastic sleeve or cap to the service tube that is the same red color (PMS #185). The sleeve could also be boldly marked with a graphic to indicate that the refrigerant is flammable. The colored plastic sleeve or cap would have to be installed in such a way as to require that it be forcibly removed in order to access the service tube. This would alert the technician that the refrigeration circuit that she/he was about to access contained a flammable refrigerant, even if all warning labels were somehow removed. EPA is also concerned with ensuring adequate notification of the presence of flammable refrigerants for personnel disposing of appliances containing flammable refrigerants.
EPA believes the use of color-coded hoses or piping (including the use of sleeves), as well as the use of warning labels discussed below, is reasonable and consistent with other general industry practices. This approach is the same as that adopted in our previous rule on flammable refrigerants (December 20, 2011, at 76 FR 78832).
As a use condition, EPA is requiring labeling of new household and retail refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, non-mechanical heat transfer equipment, very low temperature refrigeration equipment, and room air conditioners that are designed to use one of the refrigerants subject to the acceptability determinations in this action. EPA is requiring that the warning labels on the equipment contain letters at least
EPA believes that it would be difficult to see warning labels with the minimum lettering height requirement of
The statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes are under Section 608 of the CAA. Section 608 of the Act as amended, titled
Section 608(c)(1) further exempts from this self-effectuating prohibition
Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition in Section 608(c)(1) to knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of any refrigerant substitute for class I or class II substances by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or IPR. This prohibition applies to any substitute unless the Administrator determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does not pose a threat to the environment. Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate regulations to interpret, implement, and enforce this prohibition on venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II substances and their refrigerant substitutes, which we refer to as the “venting prohibition” in this action. EPA's authority under Section 608(c) includes authority to implement Section 608(c)(2) by exempting certain substitutes for class I or class II substances from the venting prohibition when the Administrator determines that such venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment.
Regulations promulgated under Section 608 of the Act, published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the servicing and maintenance of refrigeration and AC appliances. In the same 1993 rule, EPA also promulgated regulations implementing the Section 608(c) prohibition on knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II controlled substances. These regulations were designed to substantially reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
EPA issued a final rule on March 12, 2004, at 69 FR 11946, and a second rule on April 13, 2005, at 70 FR 19273, clarifying how the venting prohibition in Section 608(c) applies to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants (
(A) Isobutane and R-441A in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; or
(B) Propane in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only).
As explained in an earlier EPA rulemaking concerning refrigerant substitutes, EPA has not promulgated regulations requiring certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment intended for use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13, 2005). However, as EPA noted, the lack of a current regulatory provision should not be considered as an exemption from the venting prohibition for substitutes that are not expressly exempted in Section 82.154(a) (id.). EPA has also noted that, in accordance with Section 608(c) of the Act, the regulatory prohibition at Section 82.154(a) reflects the statutory references to
On May 23, 2014, at 79 FR 29682, EPA exempted from the venting prohibition three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses: isobutane and R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; and propane as a refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only). That rule does not apply to blends of hydrocarbons with other refrigerants or containing any amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or PFC.
In that action, EPA determined that for the purposes of CAA Section 608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of such hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does not pose a threat to the environment, considering both the inherent characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant applications. EPA further concluded that other authorities, controls, or practices that apply to such refrigerant substitutes help to mitigate environmental risk from the release of those three hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. For example, state and local air quality agencies may include VOC emissions reduction strategies in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) developed to meet and maintain the NAAQS that would apply to hydrocarbon refrigerants.
This rule regulates the use of HFC-32 in room AC units. All HFCs are currently subject to the venting prohibition. EPA is not extending the exemption to the venting prohibition in this action to HFC-32 or any refrigerant blends that contain HFC-32 or any other HFC. Further, the exemption to the venting prohibition in this action does not extend to blends containing hydrocarbons with other types of compounds,
For purposes of Section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, EPA considers two factors in determining whether or not venting, release, or disposal of a refrigerant
EPA has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of releasing into the environment the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that we are listing under the SNAP program as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses—
As explained in Section IV.A, “Effects on the environment,” the ODP of these hydrocarbons is zero, the GWPs are less than 10, and effects on aquatic life are expected to be small. As to potential effects on local air quality, based on the analysis and modeling results described in the proposal and in Section IV.A of this preamble, EPA concludes that the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed in this action for their specific end-uses are expected to have little impact on local air quality.
In addition, when examining all hydrocarbon substitute refrigerants in those uses for which UL currently has standards in place, for which the SNAP program has already listed the uses as acceptable subject to use conditions, or for which the SNAP program is reviewing a submission, including those in this rule, we found that even if all the refrigerant in appliances in end-uses addressed in this rule were to be emitted, there would be a worst-case impact of less than 0.15 ppb for ground-level ozone in the Los Angeles area. In light of its evaluation of potential environmental impacts, EPA concludes that the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the end-uses at issue in this rule are not expected to pose a threat to the environment on the basis of the inherent characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant end-uses (ICF, 2014a).
As discussed in Sections IV.B, “Flammability” and IV.C., “Toxicity and asphyxiation,” EPA's SNAP program evaluated the flammability and toxicity risks from the substitute refrigerants in this rule. EPA is providing some of that information in this section as well.
Hydrocarbons, including ethane, propane, isobutane and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A, are classified as A3 refrigerants by ASHRAE Standard 34-2010, indicating that they have low toxicity and high flammability. Hydrocarbons in this rule have LFLs ranging from 1.8% to 3.0% (18,000 ppm to 30,000 ppm). To address flammability risks, this rule contains recommendations for their safe use (see Section III.E., “Recommendations for the safe use of flammable substitute refrigerants” below) and specified use conditions. The SNAP program's analysis suggests that the use conditions in this rule mitigate flammability risks.
Like most refrigerants, at high concentrations hydrocarbons can displace oxygen and cause asphyxiation. Various industry and regulatory standards exist to address asphyxiation and toxicity risks. The SNAP program's analysis of asphyxiation and toxicity risks suggests that the use conditions in this rule mitigate asphyxiation and toxicity risks. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the flammability risks and occupational exposures to hydrocarbons are adequately regulated by OSHA and building and fire codes at a local and national level.
EPA believes that existing authorities, controls, or practices will mitigate environmental risk from the release of these hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rules issued in 1994 and 2011 (March 17, 1994, at 59 FR 13044 and December 20, 2011, at 76 FR 38832, respectively) indicate that existing regulatory requirements and industry practices designed to limit and control these substances adequately control the emission of the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes listed in this action. As explained below, EPA concludes that the limits and controls under other authorities, regulations, or practices adequately control the release of and exposure to the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes and mitigate risks from any possible release.
As mentioned above, the determination of whether venting, release, or disposal of a substitute refrigerant poses a threat to the environment includes considering the extent that such venting, release, or disposal is adequately controlled by other authorities, regulations, or practices. As such, this conclusion is another part of the determination that the venting, release, or disposal of these four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, in the specified end-uses and subject to the use conditions in this action, does not pose a threat to the environment.
Industry service practices and OSHA standards and guidelines that address hydrocarbon refrigeration equipment, include monitoring efforts, engineering controls, and operating procedures. OSHA requirements that apply during servicing include continuous monitoring of explosive gas concentrations and oxygen levels. In general, hydrocarbon emissions from refrigeration systems are likely to be significantly smaller than those emanating from the industrial process and storage systems, which are controlled for safety reasons. In the SNAP listings in Section III.A, “Listing decisions: substitutes and end-uses,” we note that the amount of refrigerant substitute from a refrigerant loop is limited: 57 g for household refrigerators and freezers; 150 g for commercial stand-alone refrigerators and freezers, very low temperature refrigeration equipment non-mechanical heat transfer equipment, and vending machines; with larger but still limited charges for room
Hydrocarbons that are also VOC may be regulated as VOC under sections of the CAA that address nonattainment, attainment, and maintenance of the NAAQS for ground-level ozone, including those sections addressing development of SIPs and those addressing permitting of VOC sources.
The release and/or disposal of many refrigerant substitutes, including hydrocarbons, are controlled by other authorities including those established by OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) guidelines, various standards, and state and local building codes. To the extent that release during maintaining, repairing, servicing, or disposing of appliances is controlled by regulations and standards of other authorities, EPA believes these practices and controls for the use of hydrocarbons are sufficiently protective. These practices and controls mitigate the risk to the environment that may be posed by the venting, release, or disposal of these four hydrocarbon refrigerants during the maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances.
EPA is now aware of equipment that can be used to recover hydrocarbon refrigerants. While there are no relevant U.S. standards for such recovery equipment, to the extent that these hydrocarbons are recovered rather than vented in specific end-uses and equipment, EPA recommends the use of recovery equipment designed specifically for flammable refrigerants in accordance with applicable safe handling practices.
EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in the end-uses in this action, as well as the authorities, controls, and practices in place for those hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. EPA also considered the public comments on the proposal for this action. Based on this review, EPA concludes that these four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in these end-uses and subject to these use conditions are not expected to pose a threat to the environment based on the inherent characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant applications. EPA additionally concludes that existing authorities, controls, or practices help mitigate environmental risk from the release of those four hydrocarbons in these end-uses and subject to these use conditions. In light of these conclusions and those described or identified above in this section, EPA is determining that based on current evidence and risk analyses, the venting, release, or disposal of these four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in these end-uses, and during the maintenance, servicing, repairing or disposing of the relevant appliances or equipment, does not pose a threat to the environment. Furthermore, EPA is exempting from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses for which these hydrocarbons are being listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, under the SNAP program.
This exemption does not mean that hydrocarbons can be vented in all situations at this time. Hydrocarbons being recovered, vented, or otherwise disposed of from commercial and industrial appliances are likely to be hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (see 40 CFR parts 261-270). As discussed in the final rule allowing for the venting of isobutane and R-441A as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers, and propane as a refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only), incidental releases may occur during the maintenance, service, and repair of appliances. Nor would this activity be subject to RCRA requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste, as such releases would not constitute disposal of the refrigerant charge as a solid waste,
EPA recommends that only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerant substitutes dispose of or service refrigeration and AC equipment containing these substances. Technicians should know how to minimize the risk of fire and the procedures for using flammable refrigerant substitutes safely. Releases of large quantities of flammable refrigerants during servicing and manufacturing, especially in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces or in areas where large amounts of refrigerant are stored, could cause an explosion if an ignition source exists nearby. For these reasons, it is important that only properly trained technicians handle flammable refrigerant substitutes when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of household and retail food refrigerators and freezers, very low temperature freezers, non-mechanical heat transfer equipment (
We are aware that at least two organizations, Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES) and the ESCO Institute, have developed technician training programs in collaboration with refrigeration equipment manufacturers and users that address safe use of flammable refrigerant substitutes. In addition, EPA has reviewed several training programs provided as part of SNAP submissions from persons interested in flammable refrigerant substitutes. The agency intends to update the test bank for technician certification under Section 608 of the CAA as we have done previously, and will consider including additional questions on flammable refrigerants. By adding such questions to the test bank, EPA would supplement but would not replace technician training programs currently provided by non-government entities. EPA will seek additional information and guidance on how best to incorporate this content through a separate process outside of this final rule.
As discussed above, Section 612(c) of the CAA directs EPA to publish lists of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. EPA considers whether the risks to human health and the environment of a substitute poses less risk than that posed by other substitutes that are currently or potentially available. EPA also considers whether the substitute for class I and class II ODS poses lower overall risk to human health and the
EPA evaluated each of the criteria for each substitute in each end-use in this action and then for each substitute, we considered overall risk to human health and the environment in comparison to other available or potentially available alternatives in the same end-uses. Based on our evaluations, we may reach different conclusions about the same substitute in different end-uses, because of different risk profiles (
As we have noted previously, environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute—and over time, information available regarding a substitute can change. See 78 FR at 29035 (May 17, 2013). SNAP's comparative risk framework does not imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk, either to the environment or to human health. For example, in this rule, we considered all the human health and environmental criteria, and addressed the potential risks from flammability by imposing use conditions, rather than deciding that other criteria were more important. EPA recognizes that during the more than two-decade history of the SNAP program, new information about alternatives already found acceptable has become available and new alternatives have emerged. To the extent possible, for each SNAP review, EPA considers information current at the time of the review which has improved our understanding of the risk factors for the environment and human health in the context of the available or potentially available alternatives for a given use.
The SNAP program considers a number of environmental criteria when evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate effects, primarily based on GWP; local air quality impacts, particularly potential impacts on smog formation from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem effects, particularly from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental and health risks are discussed below.
The ODP is the ratio of the impact on stratospheric ozone of a chemical compared to the impact of an identical mass of CFC-11. Thus, the ODP of CFC-11 is defined to be one (1.0). Other ODS have ODPs that range from 0.01 to ten (10.0).
All refrigerant substitutes in this final rule have an ODP of zero, lower than the ODP of ozone depleting refrigerants such as CFC-12 (ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP = 0.055); R-13B1 (ODP = 10) and R-502 (ODP = 0.334). The most commonly used substitutes in the end-uses addressed in this final rule also have an ODP of zero (
The GWP is a means of quantifying the potential integrated climate forcing of various GHGs relative to carbon dioxide. Each of the hydrocarbon refrigerants in this final rule has a relatively low 100-year integrated GWP of less than ten while HFC-32 has a GWP of 675. For comparison, some other commonly used refrigerants currently listed as acceptable in retail food refrigeration, vending machines, and household refrigerators and freezers end-uses are R-134a, R-404A, and R-407C, with GWPs of about 1,430, 3,920, and 1,770, respectively. In very low temperature refrigeration, a commonly-used substitute is R-508B, with a GWP of 13,400. An ODS in this end-use is R-13B1/halon 1301 with a GWP of 7,140. The GWPs of the substitutes in this final rule are significantly lower than those of other refrigerants currently being used in the residential and light commercial AC and heat pump end-use, such as the HFC blend substitute R-410A. In addition, the substitutes in this rule have lower GWPs than those of ODS in this end-use, CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); and R-502 (GWP = 4,660) (IPCC, 2007).
As stated above, EPA considers overall risk to human health and the environment compared to alternatives that are available and potentially available in a given end-use. Therefore, while the GWP of 675 for HFC-32 is considered low for the residential and light-commercial AC and heat pumps end-use, it may not be considered low in other end-uses that have a larger variety of substitutes with lower GWPs. Among the acceptable substitutes listed in the residential and light-commercial AC and heat pumps end-use, only ammonia absorption and the non-vapor compression technologies evaporative cooling and desiccant cooling have lower GWPs than the substitutes listed in this final rule in this end-use.
The total environmental effects impacts of these refrigerants also depend upon the energy use of appliances, since the “indirect” GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption typically exceed those from refrigerants over the full lifecycle of refrigerant-containing products. (ORNL, 1997). If appliances designed to use refrigerants listed as acceptable in this final rule are less energy efficient than the appliances they replace, then it is possible that these appliances would result in higher lifecycle GHG emissions than appliances using a higher GWP refrigerant or refrigerant substitute. Conversely, higher energy efficiency of these appliances would lead to even lower lifecycle GHG emissions.
While we have not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of all sources of GHG emissions associated with substituting ODS and other commonly used refrigerants with the refrigerants in this final rule, we note that energy efficiency standards exist for most of the types of equipment covered here.
In addition to global impacts on the atmosphere, EPA evaluated potential impacts of the substitutes on local air quality. Ethane and HFC-32 are exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The other refrigerants, isobutane, propane, and components of R-441A, including isobutane, n-butane, and propane, are VOC. Potential emissions of VOC from all substitutes for all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC sector are addressed by the venting prohibition under Section 608 of the CAA. Under that prohibition, refrigerant substitutes (and thus the VOC they contain) may only be emitted where EPA issues a final determination exempting a refrigerant substitute from the venting prohibition on the basis that venting, releasing or disposing of such substance does not pose a threat to the environment. Based on an analysis described below, EPA estimates that potential emissions of hydrocarbons if used as refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC sector would have little impact on local air quality, with the possible exception of unsaturated hydrocarbons such as propylene (ICF, 2014a).
EPA analyzed a number of scenarios to consider the potential impacts on local air quality if hydrocarbon refrigerants were used widely. We used EPA's Vintaging Model to estimate the hydrocarbon emissions from these scenarios and EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to assess their potential incremental contributions to ground-level ozone concentrations (ICF, 2014a). That analysis was conservative in that it assumed that the most reactive hydrocarbon subject to this action—isobutane—was used in all refrigeration and AC uses even though isobutane was not proposed or listed as acceptable for use in all refrigeration and AC uses. In addition, the analysis assumed that all refrigerant used was emitted to the atmosphere. In that highly conservative scenario, the model predicted that the maximum increase in the 8-hour average ground-level ozone concentration would be 0.72 ppb in Los Angeles.
For further information on the potential impacts of this rule and other decisions we might make, EPA also performed a less conservative analysis, looking at a set of end-uses that would be more likely to use hydrocarbon refrigerants between now and 2030. The analysis assumed use of hydrocarbon refrigerants in those uses for which UL currently has standards in place, for which the SNAP program has already listed the uses as acceptable, subject to use conditions, or for which the SNAP program is reviewing a submission, including those in this rule.
Based on this still conservative but more probable assessment of refrigerant use, we found that even if all the refrigerant in appliances in end-uses addressed in this final rule were to be emitted, there would be a worst-case impact of 0.15 ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area, which is the area with the highest level of ozone pollution in the United States. In the other cities examined in the analysis, Houston and Atlanta, impacts were smaller (no more than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb, respectively) (ICF, 2014a). Because both the highly conservative as well as the conservative but more probable assessments indicated there would be relatively low air quality impacts of these refrigerants if they are released to the atmosphere in limited amounts, EPA believes that these refrigerants would not have a substantially greater impact on local air quality than other refrigerants listed as acceptable in the end-uses in this final rule.
Effects on aquatic life of the substitutes are expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of other available substitutes for these uses. The refrigerant substitutes in this rule are all highly volatile and would evaporate or partition to air, rather than contaminate surface waters.
The flammability risks of the substitutes are of concern because household and retail food refrigerators and freezers and room AC units have traditionally used refrigerants that are not flammable. Without appropriate use conditions, the flammability risk posed by these refrigerants could be higher than non-flammable refrigerants because individuals may not be aware that their actions could potentially cause a fire, and because without the requirements of this rule, these refrigerants could be used in existing equipment that has not been designed specifically to minimize flammable risks. In this section, we discuss the flammability risks posed by the refrigerants in this rule and explain the use conditions we believe are necessary to mitigate those risks to ensure that the overall risk to human health and the environment posed by these substitutes is not greater than the overall risk posed by other substitutes in the same end-uses. In addition, we discuss why the flammability risks have led us to find that these substitutes are only acceptable for use in new equipment specifically designed for these flammable refrigerants.
Due to their flammable nature, ethane, isobutane, propane, HFC-32, and R-441A could pose a significant safety concern for workers and consumers in the end-uses addressed in this rule if they are not handled correctly. In the presence of an ignition source (
To determine whether flammability would be a concern for manufacturing and service personnel or for consumers, EPA analyzed a plausible worst-case scenario to model a catastrophic release of the refrigerants. The worst-case scenario analysis for each refrigerant revealed that even if the unit's full charge is emitted within one minute, none of these refrigerants reached their respective LFLs of 1.8% for isobutane, 2.1% for propane, 2.05% for R-441A, or 3.0% for ethane, provided that the charge sizes were no greater than those specified in the relevant standard from UL (ICF, 2014b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k). Thus, there would not be a significant risk of fire or explosion, even under those worst-case assumptions, so long as the charge meets the use conditions in this final rule. Detailed analysis of the modeling results are discussed below in the next section regarding “Toxicity and asphyxiation.”
EPA also reviewed the submitters' detailed assessments of the probability of events that might create a fire and engineering risk and approaches to avoid sparking from the refrigeration equipment. Further information on these analyses and EPA's risk assessments are available in public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 at
In evaluating potential toxicity impacts of ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, and R-441A on human health, EPA considered both occupational and consumer risks. EPA investigated the risk of asphyxiation and of exposure to toxic levels of refrigerant for a plausible worst-case scenario and a typical use scenario for each refrigerant. In the worst-case scenario of a catastrophic leak, we modeled release of the unit's full charge within one minute into a confined space to estimate concentrations that might result. We considered a conservatively small space appropriate to each end-use, such as a small convenience store of 244 m
To evaluate toxicity of all five refrigerants, EPA estimated the maximum TWA exposure both for a short-term exposure scenario, with a 15-minute and 30-minute TWA exposure, and for an 8-hour TWA that would be more typical of occupational exposure for a technician servicing the equipment. We compared these short-term and long-term exposure values to relevant industry and government workplace exposure limits for ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, and components of R-441A (including potential impurities). The modeling results indicate that both the short-term (15-minute and 30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker exposure concentrations would be below the relevant workplace exposure limits, such as the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL), the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) TLV, or in the case of HFC-32, the manufacturer's recommended workplace exposure limit. In some cases where there was not an established short-term exposure limit (STEL), we considered information on short-term exposure such as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from available toxicity studies or the National Research Council's Acute Emergency Guideline Limits (AEGL).
• n-Butane, a component in R-441A: 800 ppm NIOSH REL on 10-hr TWA; 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over 30 minutes
• Ethane: 1,000 ppm TLV on 8-hour TWA; 3,000 ppm over 15 minutes
• HFC-32: 1,000 ppm manufacturer's exposure guideline on 8-hour TWA; 3,000 ppm over 15 minutes
• Isobutane: 800 ppm REL on 10-hr TWA; 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes
• Propane: 1,000 ppm PEL on 8-hr TWA; 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over 30 minutes
For equipment with which consumers might come into contact, such as retail food refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, household refrigerators and freezers, and room air conditioners, EPA performed a consumer exposure analysis. In this analysis, we examined potential catastrophic release of the entire charge of the substitute in one minute under a worst-case scenario. We did not examine exposure to consumers in very low temperature refrigeration, since such equipment is typically used in workplaces, such as in laboratories, and not in homes or public spaces. The analysis was undertaken to determine the 15-minute or 30-minute TWA exposure levels for the substitute, which were then compared to the toxicity limits to assess the risk to consumers.
EPA considered toxicity limits for consumer exposure that reflect a short-term exposure such as might occur at home or in a store or other public setting where a member of the general public could be exposed and could then escape. Specific toxicity limits that we used in our analysis of consumer exposure include:
• n-Butane: 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over 30 minutes
• HFC-32: cardiotoxic NOAEL of 350,000 ppm over 5 minutes
• Isobutane: 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes
• Propane: 6,900 ppm AEGL-1 over 30 minutes
The analysis of consumer exposure assumed that 100 percent of the unit's charge would be released over one minute, at which time the concentration of refrigerant would peak in an enclosed space, and then steadily decline. Refrigerant concentrations were modeled under two air change scenarios, believed to represent the baseline of potential flow rates for a home or other public space, assuming flow rates of 2.5 and 4.5 air changes per hour (ACH) (Sheldon, 1989). The highest concentrations of the refrigerant occur in the lower stratum of the room when assuming the lower ventilation level of 2.5 ACH. Calculating the TWA exposure using 2.5 ACH results in a higher concentration than calculating the TWA exposure using 4.5 ACH. Even under the very conservative assumptions used in the consumer exposure modeling, the estimated 15-minute or 30-minute consumer exposures to the refrigerants are much lower than the relevant toxicity limits and thus should not pose a toxicity risk any greater than that of other acceptable refrigerants in the end-uses in this final rule. Other acceptable refrigerants pose similar toxicity risks.
For further information, including EPA's risk screens and risk assessments as well as fault tree analyses from the submitters of the substitutes, see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748 at
This final rule lists all five refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the same end-uses as in the proposed rule. This final rule retains the same use conditions as proposed for very low temperature refrigeration equipment; non-mechanical heat transfer equipment; retail food refrigeration, stand-alone equipment only; household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator/freezers; and vending machines.
For
This final rule exempts the four hydrocarbon refrigerants for the end-uses addressed in the proposed rule from the venting prohibition under Section 608. HFC-32 remains prohibited from being knowingly vented or otherwise knowingly released or disposed of by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing appliances containing HFC-32.
EPA disagrees with the commenters who suggest that the toxicity, flammability and GWP of HFC-32 indicate it should not be listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in room AC units. The GWP of HFC-32 (675) is two-thirds less than that of the most commonly used alternative for this type of equipment, R-410A (approximately 2,090) and also significantly lower than that of HCFC-22 (1,810) and R-407C (approximately 1,770). The only currently acceptable alternatives in this end-use with lower GWP include ammonia absorption and the non-vapor compression technologies evaporative cooling and desiccant cooling. However, there are technical limits on the effective use of the non-vapor compression technologies in different climates, and ammonia has a higher toxicity that HFC-32 and the other alternatives. HFC-32 also has a higher GWP than two other substitutes being listed in this end-use in this final rule—propane (GWP of 3) and R-441A (GWP of less than 5). However, it is considerably less flammable than either propane or R-441A. For example, HFC-32 has an LFL of 13.8% and a burning velocity of 6.7 cm/s compared to an LFL of 2.1% and a burning velocity of 46 cm/s for propane and an LFL of 2.05% and a burning velocity of 47.6 cm/s for R-441A (Daikin, 2011; A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012). EPA's risk screen on the use of HFC-32 in residential and light commercial AC is available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0748-0005). This risk screen indicates that HFC-32's LFL is not reached where the charge size is consistent with the use conditions, so we do not expect a significant risk of fire.
The commenters did not provide any information concerning why they believed that HFC-32 should be listed as unacceptable based on its toxicity; the commenters merely provided general information such as Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDSs) without giving analysis specific to HFC-32. The potential health effects listed in the MSDSs provided by the commenters, such as freeze burns, anesthetic effects, and asphyxia, are common to many refrigerants already in the same end-use, such as HCFC-22, R-410A, or HFC-134a. Further, these health effects apply to both HFC-32 and to the two hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that we are also listing in this action as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use, and the commenters did not raise concerns for the health effects for those substitutes. EPA's risk screen evaluates exposure and toxicity risks. In the End-Use Exposure Assessment the modeled 15-minute and 30-minute TWA exposures for consumers were well below the relevant short-term limit, the cardiotoxic NOAEL for HFC-32, for all charge sizes. Based on the Occupational Risk Assessment, occupational exposure to HFC-32 is anticipated to be significantly below the STEL during servicing and installation.
In addition, as discussed below in section VI.G, “Venting prohibition,” EPA did not propose, nor is it finalizing, an exemption to the venting prohibition for HFC-32.
The commenter opposing listing of propane provided no support for their statements and did not explain what they meant by “proper safety analysis.” EPA's evaluations followed the standard approach for evaluating health and environmental risks that the SNAP program has used over its 20-year history. EPA performed risk screens on the use of propane in household refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, and room air conditioners which are available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket IDs EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748-0006, -0007, and -0008). EPA's vending machine risk screen indicates that propane's LFL is not reached in the typical scenario, and for room air conditioners and household refrigerators and freezers, worst-case concentrations would be well below propane's LFL, showing a lack of flammability risk. We note that EPA is including a use condition that requires that household refrigerators and freezers using propane meet the requirements of Supplement SA to the 10th edition of UL Standard 250, that vending machines using propane meet the requirements of Supplement SA to the 7th edition of UL Standard 541, and that
We disagree with the first commenter that EPA should have assessed each refrigerant separately in Scenario 4 as we did in the bounding Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. We are listing a number of refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in several end-uses and we expect that they all will be present in the market and in the atmosphere at the same time. The interactions of the different compounds in the atmosphere are interdependent and are not linear. Modeling each refrigerant separately would result in a less realistic, and for some refrigerants an unrealistically low, estimate of environmental impacts. The current air quality analysis found that the peak 8-hr ozone increase of 0.15 ppb for Los Angeles is about 75% associated with the use of propylene as a refrigerant and 21% from propane under Scenario 4 (ICF, 2014a, p. 10).
Concerning toxicity of the proposed refrigerants, our risk screens find that even a worst-case release of isobutane or R-441A from stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment will not result in exceeding exposure limits such as the TLVs of 1,000 ppm for isobutane or for the four components of R-441A or the relevant short-term exposure limits for these compounds. Similarly, for propane in household refrigerators and freezers, a worst-case release would not exceed exposure limits such as the AEGL-1 of 6,900 ppm for propane. For vending machines, propane, isobutane, and the components of R-441A do not exceed exposure limits in the typical scenario, such as the AEGL-1 of 6,900 ppm for propane. We found similar results for the other types of equipment in this rule, as discussed above in Section IV.C, “Toxicity and asphyxiation.” Thus, the refrigerants that we are finding acceptable subject to use conditions present comparable toxicity risk to other acceptable refrigerants already used in these end-uses.
It is true that hydrocarbon refrigerants do not contain fluorine and thus do not have the potential for the same toxic byproducts such as HF or carbonyl fluoride. However, the risk of generating HF only exists when HFC-32 burns. Even in the worst-case scenario in our risk screen for use of HFC-32 in room AC units, the concentration of HFC-32 would not exceed 69% of the LFL. Therefore, the flammability risks of HFC-32, and the related potential to generate HF are extremely low. Based on analysis of all of the relevant health and environmental factors, EPA concluded that HFC-32 does not present a significantly higher risk to human health or the environment than other currently or potentially available substitutes in the room AC end-use.
The listings of ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, and R-441A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, will allow manufacturers to develop equipment that will use these substitutes as refrigerants. It is not necessary for EPA to pre-test the actual equipment as part of its threshold analysis of whether refrigerants, used consistent with the use conditions, will pose a flammability risk of concern. In addition, we note that the use conditions required by this rule include testing requirements in the relevant UL standards which are intended, among other things, to ensure that any leaks will result in concentrations well below the LFL, and that potential ignition sources will not be able to create temperatures high enough to start a fire. EPA believes risks can be mitigated to ensure the substitutes can be used as safely as other available substitutes.
EPA believes that complying with the use conditions listed in this final action, as well as with use conditions listed in previous SNAP rules, reduces overall risk to human health and the environment. These use conditions will ensure the substitutes are further tested in equipment and will meet specific safety testing requirements.
EPA believes that (1) these evaluations have followed standard SNAP methods and showed low risk, (2) our decisions rely on consensus-based safety standards developed specifically to test and to assure safe use of flammable refrigerants, and (3) the required use conditions reduce the flammability risk associated with the listed substitutes. For these reasons, these alternatives provide lower overall risk to human health and the environment than other available or potentially available alternatives in very low temperature refrigeration equipment, non-mechanical heat transfer, retail food refrigeration equipment (stand-alone units only), vending machines, room air conditioners and household refrigerators and freezers. In response to the comment requesting EPA to “evaluate the safety and enforcement issues that must be addressed before flammable refrigerants are ubiquitous in the marketplace,” we note that the commenter did not elaborate on what it meant regarding “enforcement issues.” We considered compliance concerns as we developed the proposed and final rule. For example, EPA notes elsewhere in this final rule that placing the responsibility on the manufacturer to design equipment that restricts the maximum refrigerant charge based upon the cooling capacity needed provides a better means for EPA to ensure compliance with the use conditions and thus to ensure that the risk to human health will not be greater than that posed by other available substitutes.
Second, EPA believes that greater awareness of the presence, risks, and benefits of flammable refrigerants among consumers, industry code- and standard-setting organizations, fire marshals, and first responders will lead to a smoother, safer transition to flammable refrigerants. EPA is working with standards setting organizations such as UL and ASHRAE and with technician certifying organizations to improve the level of knowledge of technicians. EPA also intends to update the test bank for technician certification under Section 608 of the CAA, and could include additional questions on the safe handling of flammable refrigerants. EPA will seek additional information and guidance on how best to incorporate this content through a separate process outside of this rule.
“The charge size for the entire air conditioner must not exceed the maximum refrigerant mass determined according to Appendix F of UL 484, 8th edition for the room size where the air conditioner is used. The charge size for these three refrigerants must in no case exceed 918 g (32.4 oz or 2.02 lb) of HFC-32; 114 g (4.0 oz or 0.25 lbs) of propane; or 123 g (4.3 oz or 0.27 lb) of R-441A..” [The previous sentence is in place of the proposed statements, “The charge size for these three refrigerants must in no case exceed 7960 g (280.8 oz or 17.55 lb) of HFC-32; 1000 g (35.3 oz or 2.21 lb) of propane; or 1000 g (35.3 oz or 2.21 lb) of R-441A. The manufacturer must design a charge size for the entire air conditioner that does not exceed the amount specified for the unit's cooling capacity, as specified in Table A, B, C, or D of this appendix.”].
The commenters note that they expect the next revision to UL 484 to be published by the end of 2014 or early 2015.
Furthermore, the commenters did not provide any technical support for the changes they anticipate will be made to the UL 484 Standard, nor do they provide information demonstrating that the charge sizes we proposed present unacceptable risks. We also note that while the commenters suggest that the charge size they anticipate will be included in a revision to the UL 484 Standard will be small enough that no restrictions based on room size would be needed, our understanding is that the current UL 484 standard includes formulas for charge limits based upon a peer-reviewed study (Kataoka et al., 2000) and the IEC 60335-2-40 Standard (EPA, 2015).
By relying on the existing UL standard, EPA remains consistent with our approach in listing other flammable refrigerants acceptable, subject to use conditions, including charge size limits (76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011) as set forth in the applicable UL standards at the time of our final listing action.
We believe that reliance on current standards, developed with a focus on U.S. products and applications, are more appropriate than potential future standards that have not yet been
Should a manufacturer seek UL approval of their equipment in a possible future where the standard has changed, they would need to meet both the use conditions EPA has finalized today and meet the presumably more restrictive requirements of the UL standard applicable at the time they are seeking UL approval. We also note that should a manufacturer choose to adopt one of the refrigerants covered by today's action, they must decide what charge size they will design their equipment for and may choose any charge size equal to or below the maximums set under today's action.
Under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. This definition applies to any appliances produced in the United States, including appliances that will be exported. (76 FR 78846)
The commenter has provided no new information that would cause us to reverse our earlier decision.
We believe that compliance with these final use conditions, including the specified UL standards and charge sizes, does not restrict or prohibit manufacturers from exporting to other markets. For most of the uses addressed in this rule, international standards regarding charge size are the same as those we are establishing in the use conditions.
In the case of household refrigerators and freezers, the charge size requirement in our regulation is more stringent (57 g vs. 150 g) than the comparable international standard. Even in this case, however, the use condition would not restrict or prohibit the export of products to international markets. Rather, the manufacturers could export products so long as they complied with all of the use restrictions, including the charge size of no more than 57 g.
The formula applies only to units with a refrigerant charge M that is less than or equal to twice the value of “m
Similar to the use-conditions set forth for other room air-conditioners, EPA is setting additional charge size limits according to the normal rated capacity of the unit. For portable room air conditioners, these maximum charge sizes in terms of capacity are in Table E (also described above in Section III.C.3, “Charge size”).
Regarding the direction of foreign governments, we note that EPA is setting requirements for appliances that enter interstate commerce in the United States. The European Union (EU) regulations addressing fluorinated substances allow use of refrigerants with a GWP of up to 750 for split residential AC, which includes the potential for HFC-32 to be used, while their regulations do not allow for refrigerants with a GWP higher than 150 in “moveable room air-conditioning appliances,” which would exclude HFC-32 for that type of equipment. The EU regulations also include a phasedown schedule with a plateau and not a complete phaseout of HFCs. Thus, it does not appear that the EU F-gas regulations are moving in a direction away from allowing for HFC-32 for all end-uses. EPA based charge size limits on UL 484, which is the same approach used for other refrigerants which this commenter supports.
The listing of HFC-32 acceptable subject to use conditions contained in
The purpose of the colored hoses and tubing in this case is to inform service technicians, consumers and emergency responders that a flammable refrigerant is in use and to enable technicians to take additional precautions (
The labeling requirement discussed in Section III.C.5 will complement the color-coding requirements by providing a more precise warning of the potential hazards and necessary precautions. Further, it is possible that labels, particularly those on the outside of the appliance, may be removed or fall off or become illegible over time; adding red coloring on tubing inside the appliance provides additional assurance that technicians will be aware that a flammable refrigerant is present.
The Agency understands that over the past 20 years there have been numerous developments in this industry and that often training programs are developed to familiarize technicians with these changes, including the introduction of new refrigerants. EPA is aware of such continuing education programs offered by vocational schools, unions, trade associations, equipment manufacturers and other entities that provide technicians information on a range of technology developments. Therefore, the Agency recommends that anyone servicing appliances with a flammable refrigerant receive appropriate training and follow industry best practices. Given the extent of technical knowledge available within the industry and the presence of voluntary training programs, we believe that it is not necessary for EPA to require training at this time in order for these newly listed refrigerants to be used as safely as other refrigerants currently available.
EPA is not requiring training through today's action. EPA notes that the Agency does require technician certification under Section 608 for technicians servicing, maintaining, or repairing appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerants, but does not require any specific training and the certification program is limited in its scope, as it is not intended to replace vocational training. The goals of the Section 608 technician certification program reflect the need to reduce emissions during servicing,
In addition, EPA's exemption from the CAA venting prohibition of these substances in these end-uses is consistent with how other countries, including Australia, Japan, and those in the European Union, regulate the venting of hydrocarbons.
Concerning the risks of fire from static electricity, EPA notes this concern about the ignition of hydrocarbon refrigerants was discussed in the 2011 SNAP rule, in which propane was evaluated for use in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and R-441A and isobutane were evaluated for use in household refrigerators and freezers, and were determined to be acceptable, subject to use conditions, under SNAP. In section “B. Flammability” of part IV of that SNAP rule, titled “What is the basis for EPA's final action?” the Agency describes the evaluation and conclusion for approving those hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes for the specific end-uses under the use conditions. The 2011 SNAP rule explains that, “when the concentration of a flammable refrigerant reaches or exceeds its LFL in the presence of an ignition source (
Use of a Class B fire extinguisher would not prevent a fire or explosive condition from occurring, as the commenter suggested; but if there is a fire, it is important to use a Class B extinguisher that is intended for use with hydrocarbon fires, rather than a Class A extinguisher intended for use with fires from wood, paper, or other ordinary combustibles. The statements in the “further information” column for each listing, including the recommendation for having a Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher available, are not intended to be a comprehensive set of all precautions needed, but rather basic guidelines or areas of consideration that users should consider as they develop their own safety programs. The Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditions and Heating (AIRAH) provides useful guidance on safety precautions technicians can follow when servicing equipment containing flammable refrigerants. This document is included in the docket for this rule (AIRAH, 2013).
Observance of OSHA requirements could further limit concentrations and attendant flammability risks associated with those oils. For example, OSHA has a PEL for one class of compressor oil, mineral oil mist, of 5 mg/m
EPA received a similar comment on the rule exempting isobutane and R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers, and propane as a refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only) (see 79 FR
The commenter's request to modify the hazardous waste regulations is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, since it focuses on Sections 608 and 612 of the CAA. However, as discussed in the final rule exempting from the venting prohibition isobutane and R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; and propane, as a refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); incidental releases that occur during the maintenance, service, and repair of appliances would not be subject to RCRA requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste because this would not constitute disposal of the refrigerant charge as a solid waste, per se (see 79 FR 29687).
The commenter raises questions about how the hazardous waste requirements under RCRA apply at disposal (or in the case of scrap metal recycling, disassembly) of an appliance. Under the RCRA requirements at 40 CFR part 261, it does appear that certain refrigerants, like hydrocarbons, could potentially be subject to regulation as hazardous wastes if they exhibit the ignitability characteristic.
In the case of household appliances, repair and disposal of hydrocarbons would not be considered hazardous waste management because the appliance is exempt from the hazardous waste regulations under the household hazardous waste exemption at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) (although States may have more stringent regulations). The refrigerant could therefore generally be vented without triggering RCRA hazardous waste requirements.
On the other hand, for commercial and industrial appliances that are not generated by households as defined in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1), ignitable refrigerants would be subject to regulation as hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.21) subject to a limited exception if the ignitable refrigerant is to be recycled. Ignitable refrigerant that has been used and has become contaminated through use would fit the definition of a spent material under RCRA (40 CFR 261.1(c)(1)) if it must be reclaimed prior to its reuse. Spent materials that are reclaimed are solid wastes per Section 261.2(c). However, if the hydrocarbon refrigerant is recovered for direct reuse (
We note that in our reviews of toxicity, we do not characterize substances as “toxic” or “non-toxic.” Rather, EPA considers exposure limits and potential exposure concentrations when assessing the toxicity and determining whether a substitute should be listed as acceptable and, if so, whether a use condition is necessary. For example, for propane, EPA evaluated whether long-term exposure would exceed a TLV of 1,000 ppm and whether short-term exposure would exceed an AEGL of 6,900 ppm. If EPA uses the same approach for other refrigerants mentioned by the commenter, we might use industry exposure limits that are more difficult to achieve (
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This final rule contains no new requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.
Today's action allows equipment manufacturers the additional options of using ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, and R-441A in the specified end-uses but does not mandate such use. Because refrigeration and AC equipment for these refrigerants are not manufactured yet in the U.S. for the end-uses (with the exception of limited test-marketing), no change in business practice is required to meet the use conditions, resulting in no adverse impact compared to the absence of this rule. Provisions that allow venting of hydrocarbon refrigerants in the uses addressed by this rule reduce regulatory burden. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities that choose to use one of the newly listed hydrocarbon refrigerants.
The use conditions of this rule apply to manufacturers of household and commercial refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, non-mechanical heat transfer equipment, very low temperature refrigeration equipment for laboratories and room air conditioners that choose to use these refrigerants.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O. 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in Section IV.C of the preamble and in the risk screens in the docket for this rulemaking.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Available information indicates that these new systems may be more energy efficient than currently available systems in some climates.
This action includes technical standards. EPA has decided to use standards from UL in the use conditions for the five listed substitutes. EPA is incorporating by reference portions of current editions of the UL Standards 250, “Household Refrigerators and Freezers” (10th Edition, August 25, 2000), 471, “Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers” (10th Edition, November 24, 2010), 541 “Refrigerated Vending Machines” (7th Edition, December 30, 2011), and 484 “Room Air Conditioners” (8th Edition, August 3, 2012), which include requirements for safe use of flammable refrigerants. This final rule ensures that these new substitutes for household and commercial refrigerators and freezers, vending machines, non-mechanical heat transfer equipment, very low temperature refrigeration equipment, and room air conditioners do not present significantly greater risk to human health or the environment than other available substitutes. These standards may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; Email:
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because this action provides human health and 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 final rule provides refrigerant substitutes that have no ODP and lower GWP than other substitutes currently listed as acceptable. The reduction in ODS and GHG emissions assists in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and provides climate benefits. The results of this evaluation are contained in sections III. and IV. of the preamble.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This preamble references the following documents, which are also in the Air Docket at the address listed in Section I.B.1. Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the Federal Docket Management System, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0748.
AHRI, 2012. AHRI Guideline N-2012: Assignment of Refrigerant Container Colors. 2012.
AIRAH, 2013. Flammable Refrigerants—Safety Guide. Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating. 2013.
ASHRAE, 2010. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Standard 34-2010 (supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2007): Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants. 2010.
A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for R-441A in retail food refrigeration.
A/S Vestfrost, 2012. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for isobutane in retail food refrigeration.
Climate Action Plan, 2013. The President's Climate Action Plan. Executive Office of the President. June, 2013. Available online at
Chinese Household Electrical Appliance Association (CHEAA), 2013. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for Propane (R-290) in residential and light commercial air conditioning and dehumidifiers.
Daikin, 2011. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for HFC-32 in residential and light commercial air conditioning.
EPA, 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM
EPA, 2015. Derivation of Charge Limits for Room Air Conditioners. Staff memo to Air Docket. 2015.
ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground-Level Ozone Concentrations.
ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22 and R-502 in Retail Food Refrigeration; Substitute: Isobutane (R-600a)
ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22 and R-502 in Retail Food Refrigeration; Substitute: R-441A
ICF, 2014d. Risk Screen on Substitute for CFC-12, CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration and Non-Mechanical Heat Transfer; Substitute: Ethane (R-170)
ICF, 2014e. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and R-502 in Vending Machines; Substitute: R-441A
ICF, 2014f. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and R-502 in Vending Machines; Substitute: Isobutane (R-600a)
ICF, 2014g. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and R-502 in Vending Machines; Substitute: Propane (R-290)
ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 and HCFC-22 in Household Refrigerators and Household Freezers.; Substitute: Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2014i. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: Propane (R-290)
ICF, 2014j. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: HFC-32 (Difluoromethane)
ICF, 2014k. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: R-441A
ICF, 2015a. Potential impacts of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) generated from HFC-32 in room air conditioners. January, 2015.
ICF, 2015b. Potential Impacts of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants during Recycling and Disposal of Appliances. January, 2015.
IEC 60225-2-40. Safety of Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. 5th Edition. December, 2013.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007.
Montzka, S.A., 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2013. NOAA emissions data on HFCs. Available online at
Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL), 1997. J. Sand, S. Fischer, and V. Baxter, “Energy and Global Warming Impacts of HFC Refrigerants and Emerging Technologies,” 1997, Oak Ridge National Lab.
Ravishankara et al., 1994. Ravishankara, A.R., A.A. Turnipseed, N.R. Jensen, S. Barone, M. Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. Solomon. Do hydrofluorocarbons destroy stratospheric ozone?
Sheldon, 1989. Sheldon, L.S., et al. 1989. “An Investigation of Infiltration and Indoor Air Quality.” New York State Energy Research & Development Authority, Report 90-11. As cited in ICF, 2014h, Risk screen for propane in household refrigerators and freezers.
UL 250. Household Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. August 2000.
UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. November 2010.
UL 484. Room Air Conditioners. 8th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerated Venders Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. August 2012.
UL 541. Refrigerated Vending Machines. 7th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Room Air Conditioners Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. December 2011.
UL 60335-2-40. Safety of Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. First Edition. November, 2012.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2010. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. This document is accessible at
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
(a)(1) * * *
(iii) Effective June 9, 2015:
(A) Isobutane (R-600a) and R-441A in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only);
(B) Propane (R-290) in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers;
(C) Ethane (R-170) in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer;
(D) R-441A, propane, and isobutane in vending machines; and
(E) Propane and R-441A in self-contained room air conditioners for residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary presentation of an interim rule.
This document summarizes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule agreed to by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) in this Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-81. A companion document, the
For effective dates and comment dates see separate documents, which follow.
The analyst whose name appears in the table below in relation to the FAR case. Please cite FAC 2005-81 and the specific FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755.
Summary for the FAR rule follows. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by this FAR case, refer to the specific item number and subject set forth in the document following this item summary. FAC 2005-81 amends the FAR as specified below:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, entitled “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity”. E.O. 13672 was signed July 21, 2014. This interim rule is also implementing a final rule issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor, which was published in the
Executive Order 11246, dated September 24, 1965, established requirements for non-discriminatory practices in hiring and employment for Federal contractors and subcontractors. The bases of discrimination prohibited by E.O. 11246 are race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. E.O. 13672 adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited bases of discrimination established by Executive Order 11246. There is no significant impact on small entities imposed by the FAR rule.
Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-81 is issued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Unless otherwise specified, all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other directive material contained in FAC 2005-81 is effective April 10, 2015.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Interim rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity,” and a final rule issued by the Department of Labor (DOL).
Submit comments identified by FAC 2005-81, FAR Case 2015-013, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0650 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-81, FAR Case 2015-013.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the FAR to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, entitled “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity.” The E.O. was signed July 21, 2014, and was published in the
E.O. 11246, dated September 24, 1965, established requirements for non-discriminatory practices in hiring and employment for Federal contractors and subcontractors. The bases of discrimination prohibited by E.O. 11246 are race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. E.O. 13672 seeks to provide for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit discrimination and take further steps to promote economy and efficiency in Federal Government procurement by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited bases of discrimination established by E.O. 11246. E.O. 13672 is applicable on or after the effective date of the rules promulgated by DOL. The effective date of the DOL final rule is April 8, 2015.
A. The DOL regulation implements E.O. 13672 by substituting the phrase “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” for “sex or national origin” wherever “sex or national origin” appears in the DOL regulations implementing E.O. 11246. The DOL regulation did not provide definitions for the terms “gender identity” or “sexual orientation”; however, the OFCCP has developed materials to assist the contractor community, which include definitions of these terms. DoD, GSA, and NASA consider that the contracting community, contracting agency acquisition professionals as well as contractors and subcontractors, need these definitions in order to understand and comply with the requirements of the rule. Therefore, this interim rule relies on the OFCCP developed definitions and provides a link to the DOL's OFCCP Web site where the definitions are found at
B. The FAR implements E.O. 11246 in FAR subpart 22.8, Equal Employment Opportunity, FAR clause 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, and related clauses as described below. This interim rule provides definitions and inserts “sexual orientation, gender identity” between “sex” and “or national origin” wherever they appear within FAR subpart 22.8 and the clauses that are prescribed in FAR subpart 22.8 as follows—
1. FAR 22.801, Definitions. The terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” are included in the list of defined terms.
2. FAR 22.802, General. Inserts the required language in paragraph (a)(2), which sets out the general requirement of E.O. 11246 to promote equal employment opportunity.
3. FAR 22.807, Exemptions. Inserts the required language in paragraph (a)(4), which discusses an exemption to E.O. 11246 for work on or near Indian Reservations, but reaffirms that if the contractor extends a preference in employment to Indians living on or near an Indian reservation, it shall not discriminate among Indians.
4. FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items. Updates the currency of clause dates.
5. FAR 52.213-4, Terms and Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Items). Updates the currency of clause dates.
6. FAR 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities. Revises paragraph (a) to include the definitions of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” and updates the definition of “segregated facilities.”
7. FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity. Inserts definitions for the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” and revises paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (4), which set out basic requirements for prohibition of discrimination and action required to ensure equal treatment of employees during employment.
8. FAR 52.222-27, Affirmative Action Compliance Requirements for Construction. Inserts definitions for the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation”, and revises paragraph (j), which affirms that employment goals or affirmative action standards shall not be used to discriminate against any person.
9. FAR 52.222-29, Notification of Visa Denial. Inserts definitions for the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” and revises the clause to affirm the requirement for nondiscrimination when it is not compatible with the policies of a country where or for whom work is to be performed.
C. This interim rule updates the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers in FAR 1.106, OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collections imposed by E.O. 11246 as amended are managed by DOL and are cited in the FAR.
D. This interim rule corrects previous inadvertent errors of omission by including FAR clause 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities in paragraph (e)(1) and Alternate II paragraph (e)(1) of the FAR clause at 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items. Similarly, two clauses inadvertently omitted from FAR clause 52.244-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items, are included in the list at paragraph (c)(1)—
1. FAR 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities, which is prescribed for all contracts containing FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity; and
2. FAR 52.222-55, which implements E.O. 13673, Minimum Wages for Contractors.
E. This interim rule makes an administrative change to the listed provisions and FAR clauses at 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items, and 52.213-4, Terms and Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Items) to list them in numerical order. This change is being made so that the lists follow the logical sequence of FAR parts, reducing the
F. The DOL rule preamble (79 FR at page 72987) emphasized that nothing in E.O. 13672, the DOL implementing regulations, or this interim rule diminishes the pre-existing coverage of discrimination on the basis of gender identity or discrimination on the basis of transgender status as a form of sex discrimination. See
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The change may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601,
1. Reasons for the action.
This rule is necessary to implement Executive Order 13672, Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, and a final rule issued by the Department of Labor at 41 CFR part 60 (79 FR 72985, December 09, 2014).
2. Objectives of, and legal basis for, the rule.
The objective of this rule is to provide for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit discrimination in Federal Government procurement by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited bases of discrimination established by E.O. 11246.
3. Description of and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply.
The rule will apply to all contracts and subcontracts subject to the Equal Opportunity FAR clause 52.222-26, which is prescribed for all contracts over $10,000 that are not completely exempted. Using Fiscal Year 2013 Federal Procurement Data System and Federal Subcontract Reporting System data, it is estimated that awards were made to 168,758 unique small businesses and that subcontracts were awarded to 61,816 unique small businesses. It is noted that there is likely a good measure of overlap between the unique small businesses that receive Federal awards and those that receive subcontract awards resulting in a likely overestimated total of 230,574 impacted small businesses.
4. Description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule. Include an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the rule involve regulatory familiarization and administrative costs associated with incorporating revised language into policies, instructions, notices to employees, and subcontracts. Other changes made by the rule, such as the prohibition of segregation of facilities are expected to have only minimal cost impacts as they do not require modification or construction of additional facilities, but rather the provision of equal access to existing facilities. An analysis of estimated costs of the regulatory changes was performed in the DOL final rule that was published in the
5. Relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
6. Description of any significant alternatives to the rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are not aware of any significant alternatives to the rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the E.O. and the DOL implementing regulations.
It is necessary for the rule to apply to small entities, because E.O. 11246, as amended, applies to all contracts above $10,000 that are not completely exempted. Every effort has been made to minimize the burdens imposed.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2015-013), in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35) does apply; however, the information collection authorization is under the DOL regulations and is assigned OMB Control Number 1250-0009, titled Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender identity by Contractors and Subcontractors. This information collection was authorized to address the E.O. 13672 changes and its expiration date is September 30, 2015.
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense (DoD), the Administrator of General Services (GSA), and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This action is necessary because E.O. 13672 stipulates that the effective date of the E.O., is the effective date of the DOL regulations, which is April 08, 2015.
However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 1, 22, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(b) * * *
___ (27) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Apr 2015).
___ (28) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Apr 2015) (E.O. 11246).
(c) * * *
___ (1) 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (May 2014) (E.O. 13495).
___ (8) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (Dec 2014) (E.O. 13658).
(e)(1) * * *
(iv) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Apr 2015).
(xv) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (Dec 2014) (E.O. 13658).
(e)(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (APR 2015).
(N) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (Dec 2014) (E.O. 13658).
The revised and added text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (Apr 2015).
(iii) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Apr 2015) (E.O. 11246).
(vii) 52.222-6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items (Apr 2015).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 (Dec 2014) (E.O. 13658).
(a)
(a)
(c)(1) The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. * * *
(2) The Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. * * *
(4) The Contractor shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
(a)
(j) The Contractor shall not use goals or affirmative action standards to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
As prescribed in 22.810(g), insert the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(2) The Contractor shall notify the U.S. Department of State, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM), 2201 C Street NW., Room 6212, Washington, DC 20520, and the U.S. Department of Labor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal Contract Compliance, when it has knowledge of any employee or potential employee being denied an entry visa to a country where this contract will be performed, and it believes the denial is attributable to the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin of the employee or potential employee.
(End of clause)
(c)(1) * * *
(iv) 52.222-21
(v) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Apr 2015) (E.O. 11246).
(xi) 52.222-55, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors (E.O. 13658) (Dec 2014).
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Small Entity Compliance Guide.
This document is issued under the joint authority of DOD, GSA, and NASA. This
April 10, 2015.
For clarification of content, contact the analyst whose name appears in the table below. Please cite FAC 2005-81 and the FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755.
Summary for the FAR rule follows. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by this FAR case, refer to the specific item number and subject set forth in the document following this item summary. FAC 2005-81 amends the FAR as specified below:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Executive Order (E.O.) 13672, entitled “Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity”. E.O. 13672 was signed July 21, 2014. This interim rule is also implementing a final rule issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor, which was published in the
Executive Order 11246, dated September 24, 1965, established requirements for non-discriminatory practices in hiring and employment for Federal contractors and subcontractors. The bases of discrimination prohibited by E.O. 11246 are race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. E.O. 13672 adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited bases of discrimination established by Executive Order 11246. There is no significant impact on small entities imposed by the FAR rule.
| 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 |